Ex Parte BRYAN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 14, 2019

14172929 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/172,929 02/05/2014 46442 7590 03/18/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford 400 W. MAPLE RD. SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul Stephen BRYAN 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 83405086; 67186-058PUS1 2374 EXAMINER WHITTINGTON, JESS G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2019 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): cgolaw@yahoo.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL STEPHEN BRYAN, THOMAS CHROSTOWSKI, and KENT HANCOCK Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 1 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Paul Stephen Bryan et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 21-24, 26, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC, is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46, and is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to a method for controlling an electric vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: controlling a vehicle in an Electric Vehicle (EV) mode that utilizes electric-only power to propel the vehicle, the controlling step executed by a vehicle energy management system programmed to control the vehicle in the EV mode based on a selection of a travel range reservation which indicates a distance of travel a vehicle operator has reserved for powering the vehicle in the EV mode at a later point in time, wherein the controlling step includes preventing a battery state of charge from dropping below a threshold level necessary to meet a demand associated with the travel range reservation. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (i) claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2011/0301799 Al, published Dec. 8, 2011) in view of Yu (US 2011/0166733 Al, published July 7, 2011); (ii) claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Yu and Roos (US 2014/0172206 Al, published June 19, 2014). ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 21-24--Saito/Yu Appellants present arguments directed to independent claim 1, and to dependent claims 5, 23, and 24. The arguments are addressed below. 2 Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 Dependent clams 2--4, 9, 10, 21, and 22 are not separately argued, and stand or fall with claim 1, from which they depend. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites a method having a single operative step of "controlling a vehicle in an Electric Vehicle (EV) mode that utilizes electric- only power to propel the vehicle," the step being "executed by a vehicle energy management system," and including a proviso that the controlling step "includes preventing a battery state of charge from dropping below a threshold level necessary to meet a demand associated with [ a previously- selected] travel range reservation." Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Saito discloses the claimed controlling step, including the limitation that the controlling step operates to prevent the battery state of charge from dropping below a threshold level corresponding to a travel range reservation, as claimed. Final Act. 6 ("Saito discloses all of the claim limitations."); id. at 5 ( citing to Saito, paras. 16-21, 32, 34). Appellants argue that, because Saito includes steps of proceeding and charging the battery to a state of charge (SOC) sufficient to provide EV power for planned traveling distance B, Saito cannot be reasonably interpreted as operating to prevent the battery SOC from dropping below the threshold necessary to meet the planned traveling distance. Appeal Br. 4. In so arguing, Appellants appear to take the position that claim 1 requires that the control of the vehicle will never allow the battery SOC to drop below the threshold. However, claim 7, which depends from claim 1, contemplates, just as does Saito, that the battery state of charge may not always be sufficient to meet the demand of the travel range reservation. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). This is further evidenced in Appellants' Figure 8, 3 Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 which illustrates that, in the final distance traveled in electric-only mode, the battery SOC is permitted to drop below the threshold initially set. In any event, at least paragraphs 21 and 29 of Saito evidence operation and control of vehicle driving modes so as to prevent the battery SOC from dropping below a level sufficient to power the vehicle in EV mode over planned traveling distance B. Paragraph 21 states that residual control unit 14 includes: a travel mode changing function of changing the mode to the EV mode or the HV mode in which the SOC for enabling the EV travel of the planned traveling distance B is allowed to remain, and the constant SOC is kept, when the planned traveling distance B is shorter than the traveling enable distance A. Saito, para. 21. Saito further describes this travel mode as follows: In Step S8, the electricity storage control device 10 changes the mode to the travel mode in which the hybrid vehicle travels while the SOC corresponding to the planned traveling distance B set by the dial 12 is allowed to remain (mode change). Subsequently, while the SOC is allowed to remain, the EV mode or HV mode is appropriately executed according to the driving state. Saito, para. 29. Thus, regardless as to whether Step S8 is reached through Steps S5- S7 or through Step S5 and Steps S10-S13, Step S8 performs the vehicle control method of claim 1, including preventing a battery SOC from dropping below a threshold level necessary to meet a demand associated with a travel range reservation. We agree with the Examiner that Saito discloses all of the claim limitations, and sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Saito alone. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F .2d 792, 794 (CCP A 1982) ("[E]vidence establishing lack of all novelty in the 4 Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 claimed invention necessarily evidences obviousness."); see also TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1326 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the maxim "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness" is a correct statement of the law for use where, despite a nominal Â§ 103 challenge, the actual ground of invalidity or rejection is lack of novelty). The Examiner alternatively relies on the combination of Saito and Yu as rendering obvious claim 1. Final Act. 6. Because we determine that Saito discloses all aspects of and limitations in claim 1, we need not reach the merits of this alternative rejection. The rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Saito is sustained. Claims 2--4, 9, 10, 21, and 22 fall with claim 1. Claim 5 Appellants additionally argue, for claim 5, that Saito does not teach the step of "calculating a corresponding battery state of charge that is necessary to meet the travel range reservation demand," which reservation demand in Saito is "planned traveling distance B." Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner counters that, when Saito operates to increase the SOC of the battery so as to produce a traveling enable distance A that is equal to or greater than planned traveling distance B, the system calculates the battery SOC on an ongoing basis until the SOC produces a traveling enable distance A that is equal to or greater than planned traveling distance B. Ans. 9. Saito states that, "[i]n subsequent Step S12, the electricity storage control device 10 continues to charge the battery 6 until the charge is recovered up to the SOC corresponding to the planned traveling distance B." Saito, para. 30. Furthermore, Saito makes clear that the traveling enable 5 Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 distance A and the planned traveling distance B are a function of determining the actual battery SOC and the needed battery SOC. Saito, Fig. 3, steps S2, S 12. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Saito. The rejection is sustained. Claims 23 and 24 Appellants allege that Saito does not disclose converting the travel range reservation (planned traveling distance B, in Saito) into a battery SOC that is necessary to operate the vehicle in EV mode over the reserved distance. Appeal Br. 6. Saito discloses in several places that "the SOC for enabling the EV travel of the planned traveling distance B is allowed to remain," or language similar to that. See, e.g., Saito, para. 21. Such disclosures evidence that the travel range reservation input by the driver is indeed converted to a value of the level of battery SOC necessary to achieve EV travel over that distance. Appellants' argument fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 24 as being unpatentable over Saito. The rejection is sustained. Claims 7, 8, 26, and 27--Saito/Yu/Roos The Examiner finds that Saito discloses all limitations in claims 7, 8, 26, and 27, with the exception of the control system operating the vehicle in a charge depleting mode until a charge sustaining level is reached. Final Act. 9. The Examiner relies on Roos as disclosing a method for charge management of a hybrid vehicle in which operation is in a charge-depleting 6 Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 mode until a predefined minimum battery SOC level ( charge-sustaining level) is reached. Id. ( citing Roos, para. 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Saito to include, in the control system, a charge depletion mode when the initial battery SOC is higher that the pre- defined minimum as taught by Roos, in order to save money by charging the vehicle using power available from, for example, an electric power grid, and because the modification involves only combining known elements to perform the same functions as they would separately, to obtain predictable results. Id. at 9-10. The Examiner additionally notes that Roos discloses that it is known to operate hybrid vehicles to attain better fuel economy by using up all of the charge of the battery while driving, and then recharging the battery at a charging station, and that Roos evidences that it was known to employ charge-depleting modes as well as charge-sustaining modes in hybrid vehicles. Ans. 11-12. For all rejected claims, Appellants argue that Roos "does not teach or suggest operating a vehicle in a charge depleting mode and then a charge sustaining mode 'if a current battery SOC is sufficient to meet the demand' of the travel range reservation." Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellants, Roos only contains a general discussion of charge-depletion and charge- sustaining modes. Id. Appellants fail to appreciate that paragraph 6 of Roos discusses operation involving "depleting an SOC of the energy storage device from an initial SOC to a pre-defined minimum SOC during a trip," and "[w]hen the SOC decreases to the pre-defined minimum SOC during a trip, the hybrid powertrain system begins operating in the charge-sustaining mode." To the extent that Appellants are arguing that the "pre-defined minimum SOC" 7 Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 disclosed in Roos is not related to an SOC value sufficient to meet the demand of a travel range reservation, we note initially that the Examiner relies on Saito for that aspect of the control. Not only that, at least paragraphs 45 and 48 of Roos indicate that the control strategy of employing a charge-depletion mode and then entering a charge-sustaining mode will provide "an acceptable EV experience at the beginning of a trip with a full battery charge and at the end of a trip with EV driving and subsequent vehicle plug in," without compromising fuel economy or drive quality. Roos, para. 45. Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner does not explain how implementing the charge-depletion mode of Roos in the Saito control system would somehow save money, or how charging at home is relevant to vehicle control while driving. Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellants do not, however, contest the Examiner's other basis for concluding that the claims are obvious as being known elements that perform identical functions when combined into a single system, and that the results obtained are predictable. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill). Appellants additionally argue, for claims 26 and 27, that, not unlike claim 5, the claims require "calculating a battery state of charge (SOC) necessary to meet a demand associated with a/the travel range reservation." Appeal Br. 8. For the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5, we are not apprised of Examiner error in this regard. 8 Appeal2017-010515 Application 14/172,929 Accordingly, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error in rejecting claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Roos. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Saito is affirmed. We do not reach the alternative rejection of 1-5, 9, 10, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Yu. The rejection of claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Roos is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 9