Ex Parte Hartwig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2017

12734816 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2017)

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