Ex Parte Luedtke

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 2019

12466467 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/466,467 05/15/2009 28395 7590 02/13/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Daniel R. Luedtke 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. 81180415 5931 EXAMINER MARC-COLEMAN, MARTHE Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/13/2019 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL R. LUEDTKE Appeal2017-006799 Application 12/466,467 1,2 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Daniel R. Luedtke ("Appellant") seeks review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated March 4, 2016, rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 16-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rendered a prior decision on appeal in this application on March 2, 2015 (in Appeal 2013-000912). We have reviewed that decision and, to the extent relevant to the issues in the present appeal, have taken that decision into account in the analysis below. Appeal2017-006799 Application 12/466,467 BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter relates to "controlling an electric machine of a vehicle drivetrain ... to dampen drivetrain vibrations." Spec., Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added: 1. A method for controlling an electric machine of a vehicle drivetrain, the method compnsmg: modifying a torque command to the electric machine in response to a difference between a speed of the electric machine and a speed of a drivetrain component other than the electric machine exceeding a threshold that is based on a compliance associated with the drivetrain to dampen drivetrain vibrations. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Zhao (US 7,024,290 B2, issued Apr. 4, 2006), Sugo (US 7,434,647 B2, issued Oct. 14, 2008), and Slicker (US 4,766,967, issued Aug. 30, 1988). 2. Claims 3---6, 10-13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Zhao, Sugo, Slicker, and Joe (US 2007/0056784 Al, published Mar. 15, 2007). DISCUSSION Rejection 1- Claims 1, 7, 8, and 16 Appellant argues the patentability of independent claim 1 and states that the remaining independent claims (8 and 16) are patentable for the same 2 Appeal2017-006799 Application 12/466,467 reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 3-5. For claim 1, the Examiner relied on Zhao for certain limitations but stated that Zhao "fails to specifically disclose the difference exceeding a threshold that is based on a compliance associated with the drivetrain to dampen drivetrain vibrations." Final Act. 5. The Examiner found, however, that Sugo "discloses ... the difference exceeding a threshold." Id. (citing Sugo, 1:26-51). According to the Examiner, the combination of Zhao/Sugo "does not particularly disclose the threshold is based on a compliance associated with the drivetrain" but Slicker "discloses the threshold is based on a compliance associated with the drivetrain to dampen drivetrain vibration." Id. (citing Slicker, 3:25-52, 4:26-38, 1: 12-29, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner provided reasons to (1) modify Zhao in view of Sugo (id.) and (2) further modify Zhao/Sugo in view of Slicker (id. at 6). Appellant asserts error in the Examiner's finding (similar to the finding quoted above) that Slicker discloses "that the threshold is based on a compliance associated with the drivetrain (the threshold is equivalent to the characteristics see at least col. 3 lines 25-52, col. 4 lines 26-38 and Figs. 1- 3)." Appeal Br. 4 ( quoting Final Act. 3). Appellant argues that "Slicker does not have a threshold" let alone "a threshold that is based on a compliance associated with a drivetrain." Id. In support, Appellant summarizes several disclosures from Slicker cited by the Examiner. Id. at 3--4 (overlapping paragraph); see also id. at 4--5 (discussing Slicker, Fig. 3). In the Answer, the Examiner revises the finding as to Slicker, stating that Slicker only discloses "compliance associated with [the] drivetrain" (Ans. 9), rather than disclosing that "the threshold is based on a compliance 3 Appeal2017-006799 Application 12/466,467 associated with the drivetrain" (Final Act. 3, 5). In response to Appellant's arguments summarized above, the Examiner states: [T]he consequence of the control in the two references (Zhao ... and Sugo ... ) is for the purpose to be in compliance with the vibration. Therefore, inherently it is there, but the examiner uses the Slicker reference for the compliance in order to clarify the record. Sugo ... already discloses a threshold, and the examiner mainly uses Slicker as a link to show the compliance. While the examiner mainly uses Slicker for the compliance, Slicker does teach a threshold which is equivalent to the characteristics as mentioned in the final office action in (see at least 3 lines 25--52, col. 4 lines 26--38 and Figs. 1-3). Ans. 9. As to Slicker, we agree with Appellant's summary of the teachings of that reference. See Appeal Br. 3-5. We do not agree with the Examiner that Slicker teaches the use of a "threshold" as that term is used in claim 1-i.e., a boundary value separating different outcomes or effects. See, e.g., Spec., 8:3---6 ("As indicated at 48 [in Figure 4], it is determined whether the difference in rotational speeds is greater than a threshold. If no, the strategy returns to 42, 44. If yes, the strategy proceeds to 50." (emphasis added)); see also Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992) (via Credo Reference), https:// search.credoreference.com/ content/ entry/ apdst/threshold/0 (last visited Feb. 6, 2019) (Definition 2 (Electronics)- "The lowest point or value at which an electronic effect is produced or an indication is observed."). That Slicker discloses the use of certain variables (termed "characteristics" by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 9)) in the process of "modify[ing] the torque command so as to reduce unstable, resonant oscillatory effects in the drive train" (Slicker, 4:36-38) does not indicate the 4 Appeal2017-006799 Application 12/466,467 use of the recited "threshold." See Appeal Br. 5 (arguing that, in Slicker, although "drivetrain wind-up due to compliance could be a reason why there is a difference between measured and estimated output shaft speeds, this does not mean that Slicker somehow uses a threshold that is based on drivetrain compliance as part of the control strategy"), 4 (stating that Slicker "has nothing to do with whether a threshold speed difference (that triggers modifying a torque command to an electric machine) is based on a compliance associated with a drivetrain"). Further, although we generally agree with the Examiner that Sugo discloses the use of a "threshold" as construed, as acknowledged by the Examiner, the identified "threshold" in Sugo is not "based on a compliance with the drivetrain" as required. See Final Act. 5 ( stating only that Sugo "discloses ... the difference exceeding a threshold"); Ans. 8 (stating only that Sugo "discloses speeds difference exceeding a threshold value"); see also Sugo, 1:26-51 ( disclosing comparing a detected "difference in rotational speed between the front and rear propeller shaft" in a four-wheel drive vehicle to a "first predetermined value"). And although we agree with the Examiner that Zhao relates to "using torque control to mitigate or to eliminate unwanted oscillation signals in a driveline of a motor vehicle" (Zhao, 4:49-51 ), the Examiner has not adequately explained how the relied-upon teachings of Sugo (and/or Slicker) would have been used to modify Zhao to arrive at the claimed invention, including the use of "a threshold that is based on a compliance associated with the drivetrain," as recited in claim 1. For example, contrary to the Examiner's position, the Examiner has not adequately shown a "link" (Ans. 9) between the identified "threshold" in Sugo and the relied-upon teachings 5 Appeal2017-006799 Application 12/466,467 as to "compliance associated with the drivetrain" in Zhao and/or Slicker. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of claim 7, which depends from claim 1. As with claim 1, independent claims 8 and 16 recite "a threshold that is based on a compliance associated with a drivetrain." Appeal Br., Claims App. 2. For claims 8 and 16, the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions discussed above with regard to claim 1. Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 8-9. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 16. Rejection 2 - Claims 3-6, 10---13, 17, and 18 Claims 3---6 depend from claim 1, claims 10-13 depend from claim 8, and claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 16. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1-3. The Examiner's added reliance on Joe does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based on Zhao, Sugo, and Slicker, discussed above (see Rejection 1 ). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-6, 10-13, 17, and 18. DECISION We reverse the decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 6