Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021000003 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 15/767,453 04/11/2018 YIFAN CHEN 84011255(65080-1742) 4298 113140 7590 03/02/2022 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER YANG, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): docket@b2iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YIFAN CHEN, KWAKU O. PRAKAH-ASANTE, BASAVARAJ TONSHAL, PADMA AISWARYA KOLISETTY, and HSIN-HSIANG YANG Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 1. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Apr. 11, 2018 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed Oct. 29, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 12, 2020 (“Ans.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for prioritizing delivery of messages to a vehicle driver based on the driver’s detected alertness and workload. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 5, 21, 31. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 depicts system 100 including wearable device 140 communicatively coupled to vehicle 101 containing computing device 105 programmed to receive operation data concerning vehicle 101 from data collectors 110 and biometric data concerning the driver from wearable Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 3 device 140 to thereby prioritize the delivery of messages to the driver via user device 150. Id. ¶¶ 5-11, 21. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A system, comprising a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the computer to: receive biometric data about a vehicle occupant from a wearable device; based at least in part on the biometric data, determine an occupant alertness and an occupant workload; prioritize a plurality of messages from a vehicle according to a type of each message; and then, according to the occupant workload and the occupant alertness, adjust a rate of transmission of messages to the occupant to suppress a first type of message and to increase transmission of a second type of message. Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Fields US 9,135,803 B1 Sept. 15, 2015 Gustavsson US 2003/0085819 A1 May 8, 2003 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fields. Final Act. 3-12. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 4 Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fields and Gustavsson. Final Act. 13-14. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-11.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.5 Final Act. 2- 14; Ans. 3-5. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Fields renders claim 1 obvious. Appeal Br. 4-5, 7-9. In particular, Appellant argues that Fields’ disclosure of transmitting different kinds of messages does not teach or suggest “adjust a rate of transmission of messages to the occupant to suppress a first type of message and to increase transmission of a second type of message,” as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 5. More particularly, Appellant argues that although Fields’ mitigation system transmits “an appropriate response” including transmitting different kinds of 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). 5 See ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 5 messages (e.g., marketing materials) to the vehicle operator, and delaying incoming communications based on the operator’s level of concentration, Fields does not differentiate between the different kinds of messages to suppress a first type of message, and increase a second type of message. Id. at 8 (citing Fields 17:35-55, 18:14-16.) That is, according to Appellant, because Fields discloses delaying all incoming communications without indicating the prerequisite level of concentration, Fields does not teach or suggest adjusting the rate of transmission of a particular message (i.e., increasing a second type of message). Id. Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner misconstrues Fields’ disclosure of providing “appropriate response” as functionally equivalent to the claimed recitation to “adjust a rate of transmission of messages” because there is insufficient evidence on this record for the ordinarily-skilled artisan to support such equivalency. Id. at 8-9. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As an initial matter, we note that the disputed claim language “suppress a first type of message and to increase transmission of a second type of message” must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in Morris: [T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted as Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 6 broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court states, “the proper … construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, Appellant’s Specification recites in relevant parts the following: [T]he user device 150 prioritizes the messages. The computing device 105 may be programmed with a preset prioritization determined, e.g., by a vehicle 101 and/or device 105 manufacturer, and the user device 150 may receive the prioritization from the computing device 105. The prioritization ranks each message, with messages identified as messages that should be addressed immediately ranking higher than messages providing information to which a delayed response is acceptable. For example, a message from a vehicle 101 engine indicating an overheating engine, which may require immediate attention, could be ranked higher than a message from a phone call coming into the user device 150. Similarly, the phone call may have a higher rank than a message from a vehicle 101 entertainment system indicating that a particular song is about to be played. In general, messages related to diagnostic systems (e.g. overheating engine, low gasoline, low tire pressure, etc.) rank higher than communicative messages (e.g. phone calls, text messages, etc.), both of which rank higher than entertainment messages (e.g. a preferred song, a show on a particular radio station, etc.). The user device 150 may selectively prioritize messages marked as user-facing messages by the computing device 105. Alternatively, the computing device 105 may prioritize the plurality of messages. Spec. ¶ 21 (emphasis added). The user device 150 may transmit event-based messages that may have been suppressed or delayed based on their low priority. Because the occupant has a low workload and is fatigued, the user device 150 transmits more messages to cause the occupant to perform more tasks, increasing their workload and/or their alertness. Furthermore, the user device 150 provide an instruction to the wearable device to actuate one or more outputs on the wearable device 140 and/or the vehicle HML The outputs may include haptic output, e.g. a vibration, audio Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 7 output, and/or visual output, e.g. flashing lights, flashing colors, etc. The instruction may direct the wearable device 140 to actuate different outputs depending on the prioritization of the message. For example, a high priority message may include actuation of both haptic and audio outputs, while a low priority message may use only one of a haptic and an audio outputs. Id. ¶ 29 (emphasis added). [T]he user device 150 will not increase or decrease the rate of transmission of messages compared to the rate programmed in the computing device 105. The user device 150 may, however, transmit the messages to one of the wearable device 140 and the vehicle 101 HMI based on the occupant alertness and workload. For example, if the occupant alertness is above the alertness threshold and the workload is below the second workload threshold, the user device 150 may send messages to the vehicle 101 HMI, where the occupant may have more time and/or attention to address them. Id. ¶ 31. We do not agree with Appellant that a “type of message” is a classification based solely on the content of the message. Appeal Br. 7. As correctly noted by the Examiner, the cited portions of Appellant’s Specification do not provide an expressed definition for “type of message”. Ans. 3-4. Instead, they merely provide scenarios that illustrate “type of message” not only by the content of the message (e.g., overheating engine, low gas/tire pressure), but also by the manner the message is communicated (e.g., email, phone call, haptic feedback, vibration, audio/visual output). Id. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that Fields’ disclosure of delaying or suppressing low priority messages (e.g., emails, text messages) to instead deliver to the vehicle operator audio/visual messages, haptic feedback and vibrations to mitigate the driver’s impairment teaches or Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 8 suggests suppressing a first type of message to increase transmission of a second type of message. Id. at 4 (citing Fields 17:10-34, 37-39, 59-64). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on the record before us, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Fields teaches the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of reversible Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Fields. Regarding the rejection of claim 5, Appellant argues that Fields does not teach or suggest the recited “user device,” “vehicle,” and “wearable device.” Appeal Br. 9-11. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. Fields discloses on-board computer device 114, wearable device 120 and mobile device 110 that constitute three separate devices working together to prioritize the plurality of messages and to adjust the rate of message transmission to the wearable device. Fields, Fig. 1, 4:26- 63, 17:10-64. Accordingly, Fields teaches the disputed limitations of claim 5. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Fields. Regarding the rejections of claims 2-4 and 6-20, Appellant either does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claims 1 and 5 above. As such, claims 2-4 and 6-20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). VI. CONCLUSION On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20. Appeal 2021-000003 Application 15/767,453 9 VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-15, 17- 20 103 Fields 1-5, 7-15, 17- 20 6, 16 103 Fields, Gustavsson 6, 16 Overall Outcome 1-20 VII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED