Ex Parte Kozarekar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13273343 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
13/273,343 10/14/2011 Shailesh Kozarekar 83207829 7608
28395 7590 12/28/2016
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER CHEN, SHELLEY
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAILESH KOZAREKAR, MING KUANG,
JOSEPH SUPINA, FAZAL SYED, MORGAN ANDREAE,
and VINCENT FREYERMUTH
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shailesh Kozarekar et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3—7, and 9—14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND of REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an optimal engine operating power
management strategy for a hybrid electric vehicle powertrain. Claims 1, 6,
and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An engine power management method for a hybrid vehicle
having an engine, generator, electric motor, and a traction
battery, comprising:
controlling engine speed based on combined power
delivery losses for the engine, motor, and generator associated
with current vehicle speed in response to a total power command
associated with a current driver demanded power; and
controlling rate of increase of the engine speed until a
target engine speed corresponding to a changed total power
command is attained.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
(I) Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Deguchi.
(II) Claims 3—7 and 10—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deguchi and Heap.
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Deguchi
Heap
US 6,278,915 B1 Aug. 21,2001
US 2005/0256633 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
REJECTIONS
2
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
OPINION
Rejection (I)
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, “controlling engine speed based on combined
power delivery losses for the engine, motor, and generator associated with
current vehicle speed.”
The Examiner finds that because Deguchi calculates total power
efficiency based on engine, motor, and generator power consumptions, “the
powertrain power losses are associated with the engine, motor, and
generator” as claimed. Final Act. 8.
Appellants assert that controlling engine speed to maximize overall
system efficiency is not equivalent to controlling engine speed to reduce or
minimize losses because maximizing overall system efficiency “is an
outcome or goal that does not necessarily result from the predicate action.”
Appeal Br. 5. Appellants assert that the Specification identifies this
difference by disclosing that “[ijnstead of maximizing total system
efficiency, optimization is achieved by minimizing total system losses.” Id.
at 6 (citing Spec. para. 41).
The Examiner responds that “maximizing efficiency and minimizing
loss are directly tied to each other: one inherently results in the other.” Ans.
2. The Examiner notes that Appellants’ Specification “explicitly equates
maximization of efficiency with minimization of loss.” Ans. 2 (citing Spec,
paras. 48—49).1 Id. The Examiner thus maintains that “controlling engine
1 The Examiner cites to paragraphs 75—76 of the published application
(2012/0059535 Al, pub. Mar. 8, 2012), which correspond to the above-
noted paragraphs in the Specification (filed Oct. 14, 2011).
3
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
speed to maximize overall system efficiency (as taught by Deguchi, by
minimizing power consumption for a given vehicle speed and driving
torque; see abstract) inherently results in reduced losses (as claimed by the
Applicant),” because “power consumption = power output + power losses,
and ... Deguchi’s power efficiency is simply the inversion of his power
consumption.” Id. at 3 (citing Deguchi, col. 10,11. 3—5).
Appellants reiterate that determining the efficiency of the system
“does not actually anticipate controlling engine speed based on combined
power delivery losses for the engine, motor and the generator associated
with current vehicle speed as required by the claims.” Reply Br. 2.
Although we appreciate that powertrain losses are related to
efficiency, because claim 1 requires that the control is based on the
combined power delivery losses, these losses must be known (either
calculated or predetermined) in order to form a basis to perform this
controlling step. Appellants disclose a first equation to determine total
system efficiency:
Dtotal — T]e { I- (I - r|g_m2er|m_e2m) Te2g©g / ©e}
and a second equation to determine total system losses:
[Min(PtotaLloss)]-/1 (Ptotal_cmd, Vveh, Peng Joss, Pgenjoss, Pmot Joss, Pbattjoss, Pmechjoss).
Spec, paras. 38 and 44. These two operating parameters are determined
using different variables. The Examiner has not demonstrated, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that maximizing total system efficiency is
achieved only by minimizing total losses or that this process would require
knowing what the total losses are. Thus, the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
Although the argument above is dispositive of the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 1 in Appellants’ favor, addressing Appellants’
additional comments is appropriate in view of the new ground of rejection
which follows.
Claim 1 also includes the limitation, “controlling rate of increase of
the engine speed until a target engine speed corresponding to a changed total
power command is attained.”
Appellants argue that “Deguchi discloses controlling ‘a transmission
ratio of the continuously variable transmission so that engine speed is
adjusted to the target engine speed,” and “is silent as to ‘controlling rate of
increase of the engine speed until a target engine speed corresponding to a
changed total power command is attained, as required by claim 1.” Appeal
Br. 7 (citing Deguchi, col. 17,11. 15—18).
The Examiner responds that the claim language and the portion of
Deguchi cited by Appellants “are not mutually exclusive.” Ans. 10. The
Examiner contends that Deguchi would require control of both, and
moreover, “controlling the rate of increase of the engine speed via the
transmission ratio (as in the quoted passage) would still quality as
controlling the rate of increase of the engine speed as claimed.” Id. at
10—11. The Examiner also cites to claims 7 and 22 of Deguchi “for explicit
teachings of the disputed limitation.” Id. at 11.
Appellants reply that “[t]he Examiner has failed to indicate where all
of the claim limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by the references of record.”
Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert that “Deguchi actually discloses ‘a
transmission ratio control section which controls a transmission ratio ...so
5
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
that the engine speed is adjusted to the target engine speed when the clutch
is in the engaged state.’” Id. (citing Deguchi, col. 3,11. 20—24).
Notwithstanding that Appellants do not address claims 7 and 22 of
Deguchi as relied on by the Examiner, Deguchi discloses calculating a fuel
consumption of the engine for a given output driving torque (i.e. total power
command) so that the target engine speed is set at an initial value, “while
increasing or decreasing in turn in revolution/minutes ... from the initial
value,” and sets an engine speed at the target engine speed. Deguchi col. 26,
1. 64—col. 7,1. 11). Thus, Deguchi discloses controlling the rate of increase
of engine speed, as called for by claim 1.
Claim 9
Independent claim 9 recites, in part, “controlling engine speed in
response to current vehicle speed and total power demand to reduce total
powertrain power losses.”
Unlike claim 1, claim 9 does not require that the total powertrain
losses are known in order to perform the controlling step. Rather, all that is
required is that controlling of the engine speed reduces total powertrain
power losses. Here, Deguchi recognizes that losses occur and that the
engine speed must be controlled so as to take into account the losses.
Deguchi, col. 19,11. 19-29; see also Ans. 13. Appellants do not adequately
explain why controlling to maximize system efficiency would not reduce the
total powertrain losses. See id. at col. 10,11. 3—5; see also Ans. 3.
Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error as to claim 9.
6
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
Rejection (II)
Claims 3—5
As discussed supra, the Examiner’s finding that Deguchi anticipates
claim 1 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence because
Deguchi does not appear to calculate, or otherwise determine, the value of
the total powertrain losses. However, the Examiner’s reliance on Heap in
the rejection of dependent claim 3 remedies the deficiency in the rejection of
claim 1 based on Deguchi alone. See Final Act. 11; Ans. 13. The Examiner
finds that Heap teaches “an engine power management method for a hybrid
electric vehicle powertrain (title, abstract, etc.) including adding the
component losses together to obtain total powertrain loss (P21-27, etc.).”
Final Act. 11. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
modify Deguchi [to] calculate the added total powertrain loss (rather than
the total powertrain consumption or efficiency), as taught by Heap, in order
to manage power loss, for example by repairing or replacing components
that waste too much power, with predictable results.” Final Act. 11. The
Examiner further determines that “Deguchi, as modified by the teachings of
Heap, would directly calculate the total powertrain loss in place of the total
powertrain consumption or efficiency, to achieve the same results.” Ans. 13
(emphasis added). Thus, in light of the Examiner’s proposed combination,
Appellants’ above-noted argument (that controlling engine speed to
maximize efficiency is not equivalent to controlling engine speed to
minimize losses) is unavailing.
Appellants further argue that “[t]here is no motivation to combine the
disclosure of Heap with that of Deguchi, and even if combined the proposed
7
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
combination fails to disclose or suggest controlling engine speed based on
minimizing total powertrain losses as claimed by Applicant.” Appeal Br. 8.
In this regard, Appellants assert that the Examiner’s rationale for modifying
Deguchi “does not appear to make sense in the context of the present
application which is not directed to ‘repairing or replacing components that
waste too much power.’” Id.
The Examiner responds that “there is no requirement for the stated
motivation of a modification to match the objective of an Applicant’s
disclosure.” Ans. 12. The Examiner notes that Deguchi discloses “total
power train loss but does not directly calculate it” and that Heap is relied on
“to teach the explicit calculation of the total powertrain loss by adding the
component losses together.” Id. at 13 (citing Deguchi, col. 19,11. 19-30 and
col. 37,11. 44—58).
We agree with the Examiner on these points. “In determining whether
the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. . . . [A]ny need
or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419—20
(2007). Appellants do not adequately explain why managing power loss
would not be beneficial to the system of Deguchi such that there would have
been no reason to modify Deguchi as the Examiner proposes. Moreover,
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence or technical reasoning that in the
art of engine control, there would be any difficulty in calculating the
powertrain losses that Deguchi knows exist. See Deguchi, col. 19,11. 19—30
8
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
and col. 37,11. 44—58; see also Ans. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 3—5 as unpatentable over Deguchi and Heap.
Claim 6, 7, and 10—14
Independent claim 6 recites, in part, “determining an engine speed for
a given vehicle speed and a given total power command to minimize total
powertrain power losses.”
Appellants rely on the above arguments regarding the motivation to
combine the disclosure of Heap with that of Deguchi, and whether the
proposed combination suggests each of the recited limitations. See Appeal
Br. 8. For the same reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants also reiterate that “Deguchi actually discloses calculating a
‘target engine speed tNi ... at the lowest fuel consumption rate (the best
engine efficiency),” and “fails to teach or suggest determining an engine
speed for a given vehicle speed and a given total power command to
minimize total powertrain power losses, as required by claim 6.” Appeal Br.
8.
Claim 6, similarly to claim 9, requires that the determining step is
performed to minimize total powertrain power losses. That is, the desired
result is minimizing power train losses. For the reasons discussed above in
Rejection (I) regarding claim 9, because Deguchi recognizes that the engine
speed must be controlled to account for the losses in order to maximize
efficiency (see Deguchi, col. 19,11. 19-29), Appellants do not adequately
explain why maximizing system efficiency would not minimize the total
9
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
powertrain losses. See Ans. 3. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of
Examiner error as to this point.
Appellants also argue that Deguchi teaches away from using
powertrain power losses and uses efficiency of the components instead.
Appeal Br. 8—9.
“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from . . . alternatives because such disclosure
does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants do not point
to any disclosure of Deguchi that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages determining an engine speed to minimize powertrain losses, and
this argument is unpersuasive.
Appellants further argue that Deguchi does not disclose “filtering an
engine torque command to generate a filtered engine torque command to
attain the target engine speed,” as required by claim 6.
The Examiner responds to this argument by pointing out that the term
“‘filtering’ can be interpreted broadly to mean any kind of processing,
conversion, or adjustment of the engine torque command, and thus could be
mapped to any one of many processing, conversion, or adjustment steps of
the engine torque command disclosed or inherent to Deguchi.” Ans. 14
Although we appreciate that Deguchi does not use the term
“filtering,” Appellants do not adequately explain why the Examiner’s
interpretation of this term is unreasonable, or contrary to how one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “filtering.” As such,
Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error as to this point.
10
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the rejection
of claim 6.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for any of claims 7 and
10-14. Appeal Br. 9. Thus, for the same reasons discussed supra, we
sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 10—14 based on their dependence from
claims 6 and 9, respectively.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We make the following new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Deguchi and Heap.
Deguchi discloses controlling the target engine speed tNi required to
realize the vehicle speed vsp at the lowest fuel consumption rate (the best
system (powertrain) efficiency). See Ans. 3^4. As the Examiner correctly
notes, Deguchi recognizes that total powertrain losses affect total powertrain
efficiency, but that Deguchi does not calculate the total powertrain losses.
See id. at 13. Heap calculates total powertrain losses in order to optimize the
system to maximize fuel economy and minimize engine emissions. See
Heap paras. 21—27 and 34. As discussed supra, the modification of Deguchi
to make use of the pre-stored table of Heap meets the requirement to control
engine speed “based on” combined power delivery losses in claim 1. It
would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the system of Deguchi to calculate the powertrain losses, as taught by Heap,
in order to control engine speed based on combined power delivery losses
11
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
for the engine, motor, and generator, as required by claim 1, because such a
modification would have been made to provide the best system efficiency
(the lowest fuel consumption), as already taught by Deguchi, while also
minimizing engine emissions. Additionally, the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying Deguchi as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim
3 as unpatentable over Deguchi and Heap is sound and is applicable here.
See Final Act. 11. We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments
regarding the patentability of claim 1, but we determine that the subject
matter recited in claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of Deguchi and Heap.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Deguchi is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Deguchi is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—7 and 10—14 as unpatentable
over Deguchi and Heap is affirmed.
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Deguchi and Heap.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section
41.50(b) also provides:
12
Appeal 2015-003426
Application 13/273,343
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, Appellants, within
two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following
two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination
of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
13