PTAB

IPR2019-00927

BMW Of North America LLC v. Carrum Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non Threat Target Rejection
  • Brief Description: The ’475 patent discloses methods and systems for an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system that controls vehicle speed in a turn. The system detects a turn based on a change in the vehicle's lateral acceleration and preemptively reduces speed to limit lateral acceleration, while also monitoring for and rejecting objects not in the vehicle's projected path.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Winner and Fukada - Claims 1-3 and 5 are obvious over Winner in view of Fukada.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657) and Fukada (Patent 5,627,756).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Winner discloses an ACC system for controlling speed in curves, including monitoring for objects and projecting the vehicle's path. However, Winner's system suffers from the known problem of maintaining a set speed in turns, which can cause excessive lateral acceleration. Petitioner asserted that Fukada addresses this exact problem by disclosing a vehicle controller that determines when a vehicle is in a turn based on a detected change in lateral acceleration and reduces speed to prevent loss of control. The combination of Winner's ACC framework with Fukada's lateral acceleration-based speed control allegedly renders the limitations of independent claim 1 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Fukada’s turn-detection and safety-control features into Winner’s ACC system. This combination would solve the known and explicit problem of excessive lateral acceleration in turns that plagued prior art ACC systems like the one described in Winner. The goal was to improve the safety and performance of ACC systems in curves, a well-understood objective in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known solution (Fukada’s control strategy) to a known problem (Winner's ACC limitations in turns) using conventional sensors and control logic.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Winner, Fukada, and Schmitt - Claim 4 is obvious over Winner in view of Fukada and Schmitt.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Fukada (Patent 5,627,756), and Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Winner/Fukada combination to address dependent claim 4, which adds the step of "determining the vehicle's position within the turn." Petitioner contended that Schmitt teaches this specific limitation. Schmitt discloses a traction control system that ascertains curve entry and exit by monitoring changes in lateral acceleration. Specifically, Schmitt recognizes a "cornering event" when lateral acceleration exceeds a limit and recognizes curve entry when the change in lateral acceleration exceeds a predefined value, thus determining the vehicle's position relative to the turn.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to enhance the Winner/Fukada system, would look to improve the precision of speed control throughout a turn. Schmitt provides a known method for determining a vehicle's specific position within a turn (e.g., entry, mid-curve, exit) using the same lateral acceleration data already being used in the primary combination. Integrating Schmitt's technique would allow for more granular and effective speed adjustments.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Winner, Fukada, and Khodabhai - Claims 10-12 are obvious over Winner in view of Fukada and Khodabhai.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Fukada (Patent 5,627,756), and Khodabhai (Patent 5,959,569).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claims 10-12, which add limitations related to detailed object detection, including measuring object range, range rate, and angle, and determining the vehicle path's radius of curvature. Petitioner argued that Khodabhai, which discloses a vehicle collision avoidance system, teaches these elements. Khodabhai's system uses sensors to measure range, range rate, and object angle to determine if an obstacle is in the host vehicle's path, including on a curved path, by calculating the radius of curvature.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Khodabhai's sophisticated object-path determination method with the Winner/Fukada system to improve the ACC's ability to distinguish between threatening and non-threatening objects in a curve. This would solve the known problem of unnecessary braking for "out-of-path stationary targets" mentioned in the ’475 patent itself, making the ACC system more reliable and comfortable for the driver.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 6 and 7 are obvious over Winner and Fukada, and claims 8 and 9 are obvious over Winner, Fukada, and Schmitt, based on arguments analogous to those presented for claims 1-5.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). It was asserted that the primary prior art reference, Winner, was only listed in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during the original prosecution. Because the Examiner never used Winner as a basis for rejection or provided any indication that it was substantively considered, Petitioner contended that the core arguments and prior art combination presented in the petition were not previously before the Patent Office.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’475 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.