Ex Parte HartwigDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201712734816 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/734,816 05/24/2010 Sverker Hartwig AC-171 9524 2529 7590 MARK P. STONE 400 Columbus Avenue Valhalla, NY 10595 05/18/2017 EXAMINER CHEIN, ALLEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2017 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): stone92349 @ msn. com aleitner. stonelaw @msn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SVERKER HARTWIG Appeal 2015-001818 Application 12/734,8161 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s claimed invention “concerns a method for controlling braking of a work vehicle.” (Spec. 1,11. 5—6.) 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2015-001818 Application 12/734,816 Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal. It recites (emphasis added): 1. Method of reducing parasitic torque by controlling braking of a waist steered engine powered work vehicle having wheels and a steering joint in the form of a bucket loader having a loading bucket and at least two wheel axes, said vehicle exhibiting: individually activated braking units for each one of the wheels, and a transmission including a driving gear for transferring of torque to a propeller axis between the wheel axes, and a differential gear between the propeller axis and each one of the wheel axes as well as a rotational rigid cardan joint in the area of the steering joint, a front part of the propeller axis over a front differential gear being connected to a front wheel axis and a rear part of the propeller axis over a rear differential gear being connected to a rear wheel axis, whereby the front and rear parts of the propeller axis are rotating synchronous with each other such that the front wheel axis and the rear wheel axis, to which front and rear wheels are mounted, respectively, rotate synchronously, the steps of said method comprising: sensing or calculating at least one current value of at least one condition variable influencing the vehicle, said at least one condition variable being representative of parasitic torque occurring in the vehicle transmission during braking, and controlling at least one braking unit based upon said at least one current value for reducing the magnitude of applied braking force and thereby for reduction of said parasitic torque. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5—8, 11—14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kingston (US 6,641,223 B2, iss. 2 Appeal 2015-001818 Application 12/734,816 Nov. 4, 2003), Kingston (US 6,973,381 B2, iss. Dec. 6, 2005 (hereinafter “Lucas”2)), Hessmert (US 6,604,041 B2, iss. Aug. 5, 2003), and Thompson (US 3,805,908, iss. Apr. 23, 1974). Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kingston, Lucas, Hessmert, Thompson, and Casey (US 2006/0211535 Al, pub. Sept. 21, 2006). ANALYSIS As an initial matter, we look to the Specification’s use of the term “parasitic torque.” The Specification discloses that during said braking operation, where the rear wheels are not in the position of transferring any important braking power to the ground, the rear braking units belonging to these wheels will be rotationally driven by the front wheels over all transmission elements therebetween and that these rear braking units will contribute to braking the front wheels. The result of this is that great internal, what here is characterized as parasitic torques, will occur in the transmission. (Spec. 3,11. 15—23.) The Specification further discloses that “[a]n intemal/parasitic torque is a superimposed torque in the propulsive system which transports power, i.e. torque, from a first wheel axis to a second wheel axis.” {Id. at 3,11. 26—28.) The Specification still further discloses that parasitic torque can occur, for example with heavily front loaded machine with lightened rear wheels. . . . [Pjarasitic moments can basically occur during each braking when differentiated brake force transfer can occur from the different wheels to the ground. This is most significant when any of the wheels of a 2 On its face, US 6,973,381 B2 indicates assignment to Lucas Automotive GmbH. 3 Appeal 2015-001818 Application 12/734,816 wheel axis has lower friction against the ground and particularly when it concerns a less loaded wheel axis. (Id. at 9,11. 24—32.) Appellant argues that “the linchpin of the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 is that the Examiner considers anti-lock braking system for vehicles to be ‘representative for parasitic torque’, without providing any evidence of record in support of this conclusion.” (Appeal Br. 8.) The Examiner finds that “Lucas is directed to an anti-lock brake system that accounts for vertical tire force. (Lucas, Abstract.)” (Final Action 6.) Rather than finding that anti-lock braking systems are representative for parasitic torque, as argued by Appellant (see Appeal Br. 8), the Examiner finds that “[although Lucas does not recite ‘parasitic torque’ per se, the examiner respectfully submits that the sensed wheel state is inherently ‘representative for parasitic torque.’” (Id at 7.) Additionally, the Examiner finds “that it is well known in the art that applying braking force to [a] slipping wheel can cause a harmful torque, which the examiner interprets to be a parasitic torque.” (Answer 3.3) Lucas, with regard to the sensed wheel state, discloses that the anti lock braking system “according to the invention takes a quantity characteristic of the vertical tyre force into account as a separate parameter for the regulation of an ABS-assisted braking operation.” (Lucas, col. 2, 11. 14—17.) Lucas further discloses that “the spring travel, which may be measured, estimated or calculated, allows a conclusion to be drawn about the vertical tyre force.” (Id., col. 2,11. 26-28.) “[Vjertical tyre (‘tire’ in the 3 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 29, 2014. 4 Appeal 2015-001818 Application 12/734,816 American English spelling) force, [is] also known as wheel load or wheel contact force. . . {Id., col. 1,1. 66-col. 2,1. 1.) Appellant does not persuasively argue why the disclosure in Lucas of calculating spring travel to determine vertical tire force, i.e., wheel load, does not teach “calculating at least one current value of at least one condition variable” as recited in claim 1, particularly in view of the disclosure in the Specification that “the load each one of the said at least two wheel axes are subject to” is a condition variable. (See Spec. 4,1. 30-5,1. 3; see also Lucas, col. 2,11. 26—34.) Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Lucas discloses “sensing] a condition representative of parasitic torque.” (See Answer 5.) Appellant next argues that the type of vehicle disclosed and claimed by Applicant, a bucket loader having a loading bucket and at least two wheel axes, is not the type of vehicle in which an anti-lock braking system can be installed because the wheels of this type of vehicle are not independent from each other with respect to braking and rotation capability. (Appeal Br. 8.) Rather, Appellant continues, “[a]n anti-lock braking system for a vehicle requires that each of the vehicle wheels rotate independently, and be braked independently from any of the other wheels of the vehicle.” {Id.) Appellant does not, however, point to evidence to support this argument. {See id. at 8—9.) Moreover, with regard to the rotation capability of the wheels in Appellant’s claimed invention, we note that after Appellant amended independent claims 1 and 7 “to expressly recite that the front wheel axis and the rear wheel axis of the vehicle rotate synchronously,” Appellant acknowledged: 5 Appeal 2015-001818 Application 12/734,816 As a result of the synchronous rotation of the front wheel axis and rear wheel axis, the front and rear wheels mounted to the front and rear wheel axes, respectively, will generally rotate at the same average rotational speed. However, it is well understood in the art that all wheels can not [sic] always rotate at the same speed during all phases of operation of the vehicle. For example, during turning of the vehicle or driving the vehicle along a curve, the inside wheels must rotate at a lower speed than the outside wheels. This is why independent claims 1 and 7 define a structural relationship including a differential gear between the propeller axis and each of the front and rear wheel axes. (Amendment and Summary of Telephone Interview with Patent Examiner, filed Feb. 10, 2014, at 11—12; see also Answer 3.) Thus, the wheels in Appellant’s claimed invention may, by virtue of the front and rear differentials, rotate at different, i.e., independent, speeds. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by the argument that the vehicle in Appellant’s claimed invention “is not the type of vehicle in which an anti-lock braking system can be installed.” (See Appeal Br. 8.) Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that [although Lucas may not recite the problem of harmful torques in the transmission due to braking slipping wheels, the examiner respectfully suggests that the Lucas system would, as a byproduct, already deal with such a problem by relieving braking pressure on slipping wheels. This type of braking activity is well known in ABS and is consistent with Appellant’s system. (Appellant’s claim 1, “controlling at least one braking unit based upon said at least one current value for reducing the magnitude of applied braking force and thereby for reduction of said parasitic torque.”). Further, as Appellant has merely claimed the broad concept of “condition variable representative of parasitic torque”, the Examiner respectfully suggests that the [wheel state] detected by Lucas satisfies the limitation. (Answer 4—5.) 6 Appeal 2015-001818 Application 12/734,816 In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a). Appellant does not separately argue the other claims. Therefore, claims 2—18 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation