Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 2016

11750716 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111750,716 05/18/2007 Ajith Kuttannair Kumar 91959 7590 08/22/2016 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group 3135 Easton Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06828 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. 204173-6 1603 EXAMINER PATTON, SPENCERD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2016 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): gpo.mail@ge.com marie.gerrie@ge.com lori.E.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AJITH KUTTANNAIR KUMAR and WOLFGANG DAUM Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the final rejection of claims 32--43 and 45-56. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 32, 39, 41, and 42 are independent. Claim 32 is shown below. 32. A control system for operating a vehicle, comprising: a mission optimizer on board the vehicle and configured to determine a trip plan for a trip of the vehicle, the trip plan comprising at least one of plural speed settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings as a function of at least one of time or distance of the vehicle along a route of the trip, based on information of the vehicle and information of the route, wherein the mission optimizer is configured to determine the trip plan before the vehicle commences a trip along the route, and wherein the mission optimizer is further configured to output signals representative of the at least one of plural speed settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings for control of an engine system of the vehicle along the route; a sensor on board the vehicle configured to collect operational data of the vehicle, the operational data comprising data of at least one of tractive effort or emissions actually generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route; and a communication system on board the vehicle configured to communicate the operational data to the mission optimizer; wherein the mission optimizer is configured to change the signals representative of the at least one of plural speed settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings that are output from the mission optimizer as the vehicle travels along the route, based in part on the data of the at least one of tractive effort or emissions actually generated by the vehicle. REJECTIONS 1 Claims 32, 33, 36-43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pudney (WO 03/097424 Al, pub. Nov. 27, 2003) and Kumar (US 2004/0133315 Al, pub. July 8, 2004). 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 32--43 and 45-56 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 Claims 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pudney, Kuman, and Matheson (US 5, 794, 172, iss. Aug. 11, 1998). ANALYSIS Claims 32, 33, 36--43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56 as unpatentable over Pudney and Kumar Claims 32, 33, 36-43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56 The Examiner found that Pudney teaches the claimed control system and method except for a sensor on board the vehicle configured to collect operational data of the vehicle of at least one of tractive effort or emissions actually generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route as recited in independent claims 32, 41, and 42, or detecting such operational condition as recited in independent claim 39. See Final Act. 3--4, 6-9. The Examiner found that Kumar teaches on-board instrumentation that is used to determine the tractive effort of a locomotive and uses this tractive effort for consist and locomotive optimization to include optimizing power distribution. Id. at 4, 9. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to include an on-board sensor in Pudney to collect operational data of the vehicle, including tractive effort or emissions actually generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route, so the mission optimizer could use that data to change the signals for one of speed settings, throttle settings, or power settings that are output by the mission optimizer as the vehicle travels along the route. Id. at 5, 10. The Examiner also found that Figures 12 and 13 of Kumar teach consist level optimization and Figure 16 teaches that the measured tractive effort is input into locomotive level optimization system, as claimed. Ans. 4--5. 3 Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 Appellants argue that neither Pudney nor Kumar teaches a sensor on board the vehicle configured to collect operational data like "tractive effort or emissions actually generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route," as recited in claims 32, 39, 41, and 42. Appeal Br. 12-17, 19-31; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue that Kumar teaches a multi-level system for managing a railway system, and Figures 12 and 13 relate to consist level optimization that includes the infrastructure and track network optimization levels rather than a sensor on board a vehicle or a mission optimizer on the same vehicle using that data. Appeal Br. 14--17. Appellants further argue because Kumar's system monitors several trains at once, Kumar does not teach a sensor or a mission optimizer on board the vehicle, and the draw bar instrumentation used to calculate tractive effort does not teach a sensor on a train. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 4, 6-7; see Appeal Br. 20-23, 24--27, 28-31. A preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's findings that Kumar teaches an on-board sensor configured to collect data comprising tractive effort actually generated by a vehicle along the route and on-board mission optimizer that outputs signals based on that data, as recited in claims 32, 39, 41, and 42. Kumar teaches locomotive level optimization with locomotive processor 1502 receiving locomotive data 1514, which includes a measured tractive effort ("measured TE"), and using that data to optimize locomotive level operations by issuing locomotive optimization commands 1534 to the locomotive subsystems that include engine speed to the engine. Kumar i-f 135, Fig. 16. See Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 4. Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's findings as to the locomotive level optimization of Figure 16 and thus do not persuade us that Kumar's disclosure is limited to consist and train level optimization. 4 Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 In this regard, Kumar teaches that a single locomotive without any cars may constitute a train, in which case, "the train level 300, consist level 400, and locomotive level 500 are the same" and the train level, consist level, and locomotive level processor may comprise one, two, or three processors. Kumar ,-r 60. Kumar teaches that tractive effort is calculated based on current/voltage, motor characteristics, gear ratio, wheel diameter, and even draw bar instrumentation. Id. ,-r 70. This disclosure teaches that such calculations are based on actual sensed or detected operational data that is generated by a locomotive as it travels along a route, as claimed. Claims 32, 39, 41, and 42 do not require any particular type of sensor or sensing of operational data. Kumar teaches that operational data is collected on board a locomotive and used to calculate tractive effort. Id. This collected data is "data of at least one of tractive effort" as claimed and Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us otherwise. See Reply Br. 2-3. Kumar teaches that this data relates to actual tractive effort generated by a locomotive and is collected to calculate that tractive effort. The claims require no more. Appellants have not identified a lexicographic definition or disclaimer that requires tractive effort to be sensed in a manner different than being calculated from sensed operational values as disclosed in Kumar, paragraph 70. See Spec. i-fi-147 (tractive effort produced by consist), 65, 94, 106, 119, 121, 125, Fig. 10. Kumar also teaches that the sources of information at locomotive level 500 include sensor/model inputs and onboard optimization for locomotive level optimization. Kumar i-fi-1 140-141. Locomotive level optimizes fuel consumption by controlling engine speed. Id. i-fi-1144--146. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 32, 33, 36, 37, 39--43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56. 5 Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 Claim 38 Claim 38 depends from claim 32 and recites that at least one of the speed, power, or throttle settings are determined based on emissions output. The Examiner found that Pudney determines settings to minimize fuel use, so it would have been desirable to minimize emissions to reduce the impact on air quality because fuel use and emissions are closely related. Final Act. 6; Ans. 10. The Examiner also reasoned that internal combustion engine emissions are related to the amount of consumed fuel and the air/fuel ratio so it would have been desirable to minimize emissions to improve air quality. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner found that expected emissions may be calculated by known formulas without the need for any special sensors. Id. at 10. Appellants argue that the amount of emissions generated by a vehicle is not related directly to the amount of fuel consumed by the vehicle and the Examiner's attempt to conflate fuel use with emissions for determining the various claimed settings is not supported by any evidence of record. Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 5---6. We agree. The Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to use the mission optimizer of Pudney to control speed, power, or throttle settings based on emissions output is not supported by a rational underpinning. The Examiner has not explained how Pudney teaches or renders obvious a sensor that collects emissions data of a vehicle, or a mission optimizer that controls speed, power, or throttle settings based on such data, as claimed. Even if emissions are related to fuel consumption by formulas or other means, the Examiner has not explained why the claimed emission sensor would have been an obvious modification of Pudney. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 38. 6 Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 Claims 47, 50, 53, and 56 Claims 47, 50, 53, and 56 depend from independent claims 32, 39, 41, and 42, respectively, and recite that the operational data represents emissions actually generated by the vehicle. The Examiner found that Kumar teaches optimizing performance for measured fuel usage by controlling speed and power and by using fuel level and fuel flow sensors. Final Act. 11; Ans. 28. The Examiner also found that Kumar teaches optimizing performance based on emissions. Final Act. 11; Ans. 28. The Examiner reasoned that a skilled artisan would understand from Kumar's disclosure of optimizing fuel use based on measured fuel flow levels that emissions would be optimized by using measured emissions in similar manner and sensing operational data for emissions actually generated by the vehicle as it travels along a route would have been an obvious as a way to optimize train performance and reduce emissions. Final Act. 11-12; Ans. 28-29. Appellants argue that Kumar's mention of optimizing emissions does not mention a sensor to collect emissions data generated by the vehicle as it travels along a route, as claimed. Appeal Br. 31-32. Appellants also argue that the Examiner again has conflated fuel consumption with emissions that actually are generated by a vehicle. Reply Br. 7. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the Examiner's findings that Kumar teaches fuel sensors to sense fuel use for optimizing performance for fuel consumption and a skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of this teaching and the teaching of optimizing emissions to have included a sensor to collect emissions data for optimizing performance in a similar way. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 47, 50, 53, and 56. 7 Appeal2014-008866 Application 11/750,716 Claims 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 as unpatentable over Pudney, Kuman, and Matheson Appellants argue that 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 are patentable at least for the reasons set forth for the independent claims from which they depend. See Appeal Br. 32. Because we sustain the rejection of independent claims 32, 39, 41, and 42, from which claims 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 depend, we do not find this argument persuasive. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 32-37, 39--43 and 45-56, and we REVERSE the rejection of claim 38. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8