Danfoss Power Solutions, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2022

2021004324 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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. 16/122,094 09/05/2018 Caleb Van De Stroet 6495-0972 7154 35301 7590 03/10/2022 McCormick, Paulding & Huber, PLLC CityPlace II 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER BUSE, TERRY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2022 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): cunningham@ip-lawyers.com patentdocket@ip-lawyers.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CALEB VON DE STROET ____________ Appeal 2021-004324 Application 16/122,094 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Danfoss Power Solutions Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17 are canceled. Appeal Br. 13-15 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-004324 Application 16/122,094 2 CLAIMED INVENTON Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a vehicle control system for providing optimized steering. Spec. ¶ 6. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A steering system for a machine, the steering system comprising: a vehicle control system configured to command steering of the machine; and a steering sensor in communication with the vehicle control system, the steering sensor configured to detect a position of a steering actuator of the machine; wherein the vehicle control system is configured to detect an acceleration rate of the machine and to command steering of the machine based at least in part on the position of the steering actuator and the acceleration rate of the machine; and wherein the vehicle control system determines the acceleration rate of the machine by monitoring a control signal supplied to a propulsion system of the machine by the vehicle control system and measuring a ramp rate of the control signal. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pugsley (WO 2014/049222 A1, pub. Apr. 3, 2014) and Takahashi (US 5,172,785, iss. Dec. 22, 1992). Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected over Pugsley, Takahashi, and Mattson (US 2004/0060765 A1, pub. Apr. 1, 2004). Appeal 2021-004324 Application 16/122,094 3 ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner finds that Takahashi teaches a vehicle control system that “determines the acceleration rate of the machine by monitoring a control signal supplied to a propulsion system of the machine by the vehicle control system and measuring a ramp rate of the control signal,” as recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Takahashi 6:23-27, 7:1-6, 10:34-40, 10:50-60). Takahashi relates to a vehicle control system that makes it easier for a driver to control the vehicle by modifying a response characteristic of the vehicle. Takahashi 1:7-10. An accelerator control system includes accelerator pedal 31, throttle actuator 32, and throttle opening controller 34. Id. at 10:34-37, Fig. 14. Accelerator position sensor 10 senses accelerator opening A, which indicates a degree of depression of accelerator pedal 31. Id. at 10:50-53; see also id. at 5:9-16. Controller 34 determines the desired throttle opening based on accelerator opening A, and sends a control signal to throttle actuator 32, indicating a desired throttle opening TH. Id. at 10:41-47, 53-57. Throttle actuator 32 opens the throttle valve to the desired throttle opening TH. Id. at 10:37-41, 57-60. Throttle opening TH is not always proportional to accelerator opening A. Id. at 10:47-49. In one embodiment, Takahashi teaches that the throttle opening TH is calculated from the function TH = A·KD(1+sTD), where KD and TD are first and second parameters determined by driver’s accelerating characteristic estimator section 35. Id. at 10:60-65; see also id. at 10:66-12:35 (describing how estimator section 35 arrives at values for KD and TD based on a driver’s age and driving characteristics). Some driving characteristics used to calculate the first and second parameters KD and TD are based on an average accelerator speed; whereas, others are based on average vehicle Appeal 2021-004324 Application 16/122,094 4 speed and braking frequency. See, e.g., id. at 11:46-49, 59-65; see also id. at 9:34-36 (describing the average accelerator speed as the average value of the time rate of change of the accelerator opening A). The Examiner finds that Takahashi teaches monitoring a rate that an accelerator pedal is depressed, which “corresponds to the acceleration of the machine and the signal is supplied to the propulsion system of a machine to determine an acceleration rate of the machine.” Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds that Takahashi teaches the accelerator (accelerator pedal) speed is “the average of values of the time rate of change (i.e. ramp rate) of the accelerator opening degree A” which is the rate of change of the angular position of the accelerator pedal. Therefore, the acceleration of the vehicle (i.e. machine) is obtained from the signals which include the engine throttle opening rate and are directly related to the amount of acceleration of a vehicle from the engine throttle opening rate as well as the engine throttle opening angle (e.g. amount of opening). That means the acceleration rate of the machine is measured by monitoring a ramp rate of a control signal which is supplied to the propulsion system. Ans. 7-8; see also Final Act. 5-6. As best we understand the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner finds that Takahashi teaches determining an acceleration rate by (i) monitoring a control signal and (ii) measuring a ramp rate of the control signal, as recited in claim 1, by (i) monitoring accelerator opening A (i.e., a control signal), and (ii) using an average acceleration rate to calculate the first and second parameters KD and TD, which together with accelerator opening A, are used to calculate the desired throttle opening TH. Yet, calculating an average acceleration speed for values of acceleration opening A over time does not teach or suggest monitoring a ramp rate of the accelerator opening degree. Appeal 2021-004324 Application 16/122,094 5 At most, Takahashi teaches “determin[ing] the acceleration rate of the machine by monitoring a control signal [the accelerator pedal position] supplied to a propulsion system of the machine by the vehicle control system,” as recited in claim 1. But we find nothing in Takahashi that teaches or suggests that the step of determining the acceleration rate also includes “measuring a ramp rate of the control signal,” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in finding that Takahashi teaches determining the acceleration rate by monitoring a control signal and measuring a ramp rate of the control signal, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3; Appeal Br. 8- 10. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar language as claim 1, and the rejection of these claims does not cure the deficiency discussed in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 and dependent claims 12-14 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1. The rejection of dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 does not cure the deficiency described above with respect to the independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims. CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. Appeal 2021-004324 Application 16/122,094 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-8, 12-15, 18-20 103 Pugsley, Takahashi 1, 5-8, 12-15, 18-20 2, 9, 16 103 Pugsley, Takahashi, Mattson 2, 9, 16 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 18-20 REVERSED