ZF ACTIVE SAFETY AND ELECTRONICS US LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2021

2020004317 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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.
15/651,053 07/17/2017 Charles A. Bartlett PSE-026326 US PRI 2007
26294 7590 03/18/2021
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
KERRIGAN, MICHAEL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2021 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):
docketing@tarolli.com
rkline@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES A. BARTLETT, HUAHN YEH, RAYMOND DAVID,
KIM KYOUNGWANG, SONIA GUPTA, MASASHI NAGAI,
KYEORA LEE, and YUXIAO WU
Appeal 2020-004317
Application 15/651,053
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s August 8, 2019 Final Action rejecting claims 1–26. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ZF Active Safety and
Electronics US LLC, formerly TRW Automotive U.S. LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004317
Application 15/651,053

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an enhanced discrimination method and
apparatus for controlling an actuatable restraining device. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling an actuatable restraining device
comprising:
sensing a plurality of crash event indications;
classifying the crash event in response to comparing the
sensed crash event indications against one another to identify an
oblique moving deformable barrier crash event; and
controlling deployment timing of the actuatable
restraining device in response to the classification of the crash
event.
REFERENCE
Name Reference Date
Foo US 2015/0266439 A1 Sept. 24, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–3, 8–12, 14–16, 21–25 102(a)(1) Foo
4–7, 13, 17–20, 26 103 Foo
OPINION
Claims 1–3, 8–12, 14–16, and 21–25: Rejected as Anticipated by Foo
The Examiner finds that Foo teaches the method of independent
claim 1, including the step of “classifying the crash event in response to
comparing the sensed crash event indications against one another to identify
an oblique moving deformable barrier crash event.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing
Foo ¶¶ 26–30, 41, 45–50, 81, 88, Abstract, Figs. 4–9). According to the
Examiner, “Foo’s ODB [offset deformable barrier] collision classification
Appeal 2020-004317
Application 15/651,053

3
[is] an oblique moving deformable barrier collision.” Id. The Examiner
makes similar findings for independent claim 14. Id. at 4.
Appellant disputes that Foo teaches classifying the crash event to
identify an “oblique moving deformable barrier crash event.” Appeal Br. 7–
8. Appellant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
“oblique moving deformable barrier crash event” to mean “a collision with a
barrier that is deformable and moving obliquely, i.e., at an angle, with
respect to the vehicle.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7 (asserting that “[p]aragraphs
[0014]-[0018] of the instant specification provide a very specific and
detailed discussion of what constitutes an oblique moving deformable barrier
crash event”). Appellant further contends that Foo “is limited to identifying
high speed frontal rigid barrier impact event, offset deformable barrier
impact event, oblique/angular frontal rigid barrier impact event, and
small/narrow overlap impact event,” none of which “would be understood
by one having ordinary skill in the art as an oblique moving deformable
barrier event.” Id. at 8. For example, according to Appellant, an “offset
deformable barrier impact event does not involve a moving barrier or an
oblique barrier,” and an “oblique/angular frontal rigid barrier impact event
does not involve a deformable barrier or a moving barrier.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds that “a detailed testing
methodology standard is outlined in the relevant portions of Applicant’s
specification,” but the Specification does not provide a “special definition
for an ‘oblique moving deformable barrier . . . crash event.’” Ans. 4. The
Examiner further contends that “[t]he definition of oblique (adjective) is
‘neither parallel nor at a right angle to a specified or implied line; slanting,’”
and thus the “Examiner maintains that a left or right side offset deformable
Appeal 2020-004317
Application 15/651,053

4
barrier crash event represents a type of ‘oblique moving deformable barrier
crash event.’” Id. at 6.
The Specification defines “oblique” or “angular” crash events to be
“crash events where the frontal impact occurs oblique or at an angle to the
vehicle longitudinal axis (XVEH).” Spec. ¶ 12. In relying on Foo’s system’s
identification of an offset deformable barrier crash event as corresponding to
the claimed identification of an oblique moving deformable barrier crash
event, the Examiner implies that “offset” is at least encompassed by
“oblique.” Having reviewed Foo, we are not persuaded that an offset crash
event is a type of oblique crash event. Foo teaches, for example, that its
system is able to distinguish an “offset” deformable barrier impact event
from an “oblique/angular” frontal rigid barrier impact event. Foo ¶ 6; see id.
¶ 12 (disclosed method identifies “at least one of . . . an offset deformable
barrier crash event [and] . . . an angular crash event”). This suggests that
Foo considers an offset crash event to be different than an oblique crash
event. We acknowledge that, as part of its classification process, Foo’s
system at times considers offset deformable barrier crash events and oblique
moving deformable barrier crash events to be in the same category, i.e.,
“asymmetric” crash events that affect the left or right side of the vehicle.
See Foo ¶ 45, Fig. 4. But this does not mean that Foo considers them to be
the same type of event. Indeed, in the case of the partial event classification
depicted in Figure 4, specific values from two of the event sensors may
indicate that the crash event is a left side high speed angular [i.e., oblique]
crash event . . . or . . . an offset deformable barrier (‘ODB’) by the left side
of the vehicle.” Id. ¶ 45 (emphasis added). In sum, we agree with Appellant
that, when the term is read in the context of the entirety of Foo, an “offset”
Appeal 2020-004317
Application 15/651,053

5
deformable barrier crash event means that the vehicle strikes the barrier
head-on—i.e., not obliquely—but the vehicle strikes the barrier to the left or
right of the vehicle’s center line.
As we are not persuaded that Foo discloses a method that identifies an
oblique moving deformable barrier crash event (claim 1), or an apparatus
configured to identify an oblique moving deformable barrier crash event
(claim 14), we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14, as
well as their dependent claims 2, 3, 8–12, 15, 16, and 21–25, as anticipated
by Foo.
Claims 4–7, 13, 17–20, and 26: Rejected as Unpatentable over Foo
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–7, 13, 17–20, and 26, each of
which ultimately depends from claim 1 or claim 14, relies on the Examiner’s
determination that Foo discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Final Act. 5–9. Because we disagree with that determination, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–7, 13, 17–20, and 26 as
unpatentable over Foo.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2020-004317
Application 15/651,053

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8–12,
14–16, 21–
25
102(a)(1) Foo 1–3, 8–12,
14–16, 21–
25
4–7, 13, 17–
20, 26
103 Foo 4–7, 13, 17–
20, 26
Overall
Outcome
1–26

REVERSED