PTAB

IPR2026-00002

Ford Motor Co v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Ecosystem Customization
  • Brief Description: The ’296 patent describes methods and systems for a vehicle ecosystem that customizes vehicle controls, such as seat position and comfort settings. The system functions by detecting a user or an associated personal device within the vehicle, retrieving a corresponding user profile from memory, and automatically adjusting vehicle features to match the settings stored in that profile.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Endo - Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are obvious over Endo under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Endo (Japanese Application Publication No. 2010-163092 A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Endo, which discloses an "automatic setting system," teaches every element of the independent claims. Endo's system determines a user's location inside a vehicle by detecting an electronic key within specific antenna zones corresponding to different seats. The system then refers to a memory within the electronic key—the claimed "user profile memory"—to retrieve stored seat position information. Based on this retrieved information, Endo's system provides an "adjustment output" to automatically reconfigure the vehicle’s power seats, thereby controlling a vehicle feature associated with the user's location.
    • Motivation to Combine: Not applicable for this single-reference ground.
    • Expectation of Success: Not applicable for this single-reference ground.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Endo and Suzuki - Claims 5, 12, and 18 are obvious over Endo in view of Suzuki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Endo (Japanese Application Publication No. 2010-163092 A) and Suzuki (Japanese Application Publication No. 2009-262654 A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this combination renders obvious the dependent claims requiring user detection via an "image sensor" and identification of "facial features." Petitioner contended that Endo provides the foundational vehicle control system based on a user device (an electronic key). Suzuki was argued to supply the missing elements by teaching a system that uses in-vehicle cameras (image sensors) to capture facial images for identifying specific passengers and automatically adjusting vehicle environment settings, such as seat angle and air conditioning, according to their stored preferences.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Suzuki's facial recognition technology with Endo's key-based system to achieve the predictable result of enhanced functionality and user convenience. This combination would allow multiple users to share a single electronic key, as the system could use facial recognition to distinguish between users and apply the correct individual's settings. This would improve accuracy, eliminate the need for each driver to possess a unique key, and prevent the system from inadvertently overwriting one user's settings when another borrows the key.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the references address similar problems in the same field of automotive control systems and their respective technologies are complementary.

Ground 3: Obviousness over He - Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are obvious over He.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: He (Application # 2007/0238491).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to Endo, Petitioner argued that He independently teaches the elements of the base independent claims. He discloses a vehicle system that automatically detects the presence of a user's wireless telephone inside the vehicle. The system then determines the user's location (e.g., driver versus passenger) using data from seat sensors or stored usage histories. Upon identifying the user and their location, the system retrieves the associated user profile from memory and sends commands to adjust vehicle components like seats and mirrors to the user's preferred settings.
    • Motivation to Combine: Not applicable for this single-reference ground.
    • Expectation of Success: Not applicable for this single-reference ground.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 5, 12, and 18 over He in view of Suzuki, arguing a POSITA would have been motivated to add Suzuki's facial recognition to He's phone-based system to provide positive user identification and eliminate the need for assumptions about user location.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. It was contended that the co-pending district court litigation is in its earliest stages, with a trial not anticipated until late 2027, which is well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in this inter partes review (IPR).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 9,147,296 as unpatentable.