2020002263 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 29, 2021

2020002263 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/855,826 12/27/2017 Jonathan Lahav (AA3317-US) 1884.310US1 3188 45457 7590 09/29/2021 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel P.O. Box 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER GIRMA, FEKADESELASS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): SLW@blackhillsip.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JONATHAN LAHAV and GAL ZION ________________ Appeal 2020-002263 Application 15/855,826 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1‒4, 6‒20, 22, and 24‒28, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002263 Application 15/855,826 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to advance driver assistance systems that are designed to avoid collisions and accidents by alerting drivers to potential problems. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. An anti-collision system for a lead vehicle to provide an alert to a trailing vehicle behind the lead vehicle, the system comprising: a vehicle controller subsystem to: receive from a sensor array interface, sensor data from a rear-facing sensor incorporated into the lead vehicle; determine, using a processor, from the sensor data that the trailing vehicle is a collision risk by: determining a distance between the lead vehicle and the trailing vehicle; determining a relative velocity of the trailing vehicle with respect to the lead vehicle; and determining that the collision risk exists when the distance is not far enough for the trailing vehicle to safely maneuver in view of the relative velocity; and initiate, via a light controller, a visual alert to the trailing vehicle, the visual alert in addition to or in place of brake lights on the lead vehicle. The Examiner’s Rejections2 Claims 26‒28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3. 2 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claim 16 as unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 2. However, the Examiner Appeal 2020-002263 Application 15/855,826 3 Claims 1, 4, 6‒8, 13, 15‒17, 20, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Seifert (US 2014/0368324 A1; Dec. 18, 2014). Final Act. 4‒8. Claims 2, 3, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert and Akiva (US 2015/0193885 A1; July 9, 2015). Final Act. 8‒9. Claims 9, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert and Schleicher (US 2016/0016509 A1; Jan. 21, 2016). Final Act. 9‒10. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert and Adell (US 5,347,261; Sept. 13, 1994). Final Act. 11. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert and Doyle (US 3,949,362; Apr. 6, 1976). Final Act. 11‒12. Claims 26‒28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert and Yao (US 2018/0190027 A1; July 5, 2018). Final Act. 12‒13. ANALYSIS Written Description Claims 26‒28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3. Appellant does not argue the Examiner errs in rejecting these claims as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See generally Appeal Br. We, therefore, summarily affirm the written description rejection of claims 26‒28. withdrew this rejection in the Answer. Ans. 3. Accordingly, this rejection is not presently before us. Appeal 2020-002263 Application 15/855,826 4 Prior Art Rejections The Examiner finds Seifert discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 4‒5. In particular, the Examiner finds Seifert discloses vehicle 28 includes a front monitor that detects a threat when another moving vehicle 31 is within a predetermined distance. Ans. 4 (citing Seifert ¶ 104). The Examiner reasons that the distance between two moving vehicles is a relative distance. Id. The Examiner further finds Seifert discloses signal detection circuit 14 is automatically enabled when the vehicle reaches a first speed and automatically disabled when the vehicle reaches a second speed. Id. at 5 (citing Seifert ¶ 105). The Examiner determines the second, slower pre-determined speed is a “relative speed” as claimed. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Seifert does not disclose “determining a relative velocity of the trailing vehicle with respect to the lead vehicle” or “determining that the collision risk exists when the distance is not far enough for the trailing vehicle to safely maneuver in view of the relative velocity.” Appeal Br. 9‒10; Reply Br. 2‒3. In particular, Appellant argues Seifert discloses using relative distance between vehicles to determine that a collision risk exists, but does not disclose using relative velocity. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Seifert ¶ 104). Appellant argues Seifert’s disclosure of speed relates to the speed of the vehicle being used to conditionally enable its signal detection circuit, but the vehicle’s speed is not used as part of a collision risk determination and no relative speed is considered. Id. (citing Seifert ¶ 105). Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Seifert discloses a first vehicle determining when a second vehicle comes within a predetermined Appeal 2020-002263 Application 15/855,826 5 distance of the first vehicle’s rear portion. Seifert ¶ 104. However, the Examiner has not identified, nor have we found, any disclosure in Seifert of determining the velocity of the second vehicle relative to the first vehicle or using this relative velocity in determining whether a collision risk exists. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to sufficiently establish that Seifert discloses the disputed limitations.3 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 17 and 22, which recite commensurate subject matter. By virtue of their dependency from either independent claims 1, 17, or 22, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 4, 6‒8, 13, 15, 16, 20, 24, and 25. Claims 2, 3, 9‒12, 14, 18, 19, and 26‒28 stand rejected as unpatentable over Seifert and one of several additional references. See Final Act. 8‒13. Because each of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections relies, in part, on Seifert, and the Examiner does not find that the additionally cited references teach or suggest the disputed limitations, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 9‒12, 14, 18, 19, and 26‒28 for the same reasons identified above. 3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Appeal 2020-002263 Application 15/855,826 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 26‒28 112(a) Written Description 26‒28 1, 4, 6‒8, 13, 15‒17, 20, 22, 24, 25 102 Seifert 1, 4, 6‒8, 13, 15‒17, 20, 22, 24, 25 2, 3, 18, 19 103 Seifert, Akiva 2, 3, 18, 19 9, 10, 12 103 Seifert, Schleicher 9, 10, 12 11 103 Seifert, Adell 11 14 103 Seifert, Doyle 14 26‒28 103 Seifert, Yao 26‒28 Overall Outcome 26‒28 1‒4, 6‒20, 22, 24, 25 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART