Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2019

13553465 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/553,465 07/19/2012
28395 7590 02/08/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Douglas Raymond Martin
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.
83245370 3907
EXAMINER
HENZE-GONGOLA, DAVID V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2019 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 DOUGLAS RAYMOND MARTIN and
WILLIAM DAVID TREHARNE
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-18.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to vehicles and methods of
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") 3, filed November 6, 2017.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed July
19, 2012, the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated May 4, 2017, the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated February 7, 2018, and the Reply Brief
("Reply Br.") filed April 9, 2018.
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
charging a battery of a vehicle (see, e.g., claims 1, 7, and 14). The Inventors
disclose a vehicle including, among other things, a controller configured to,
in response to detecting an authenticated charge system, cause an initiation
signal to be transmitted so charging of the vehicle's battery is initiated and
cause an association signal to be intermittently or continuously transmitted
such that charging of the battery is maintained. Spec. ,r 3. According to the
Inventors, ongoing association communication can be used to interrupt
charge procedures, when desirable. Id. ,r 32. For instance, "vehicle drive off
events, a substantially fully charged battery, and other prescribed events can
trigger the discontinuance of ongoing association signals such that power to
the vehicle charger is disabled." Id.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A vehicle comprising:
a battery;
a charge plate electrically connected with the battery; and
a controller configured to establish an affirmative
association between the vehicle and a charge system in
response to detecting that the system is authenticated, transmit
an initiation signal to initiate charging of the battery via the
charge plate, and intermittently or continuously transmit, to the
system, an affirmative association signal reaffirming the
previously established association such that the charging is
maintained.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1-6 and 14--18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
unpatentable over Sarkar3 in view of Shiozaki; 4 and
II. Claims 7-13 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Sarkar in view of Maugars5 and Shiozaki.
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1-6 and 14--18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Sarkar in view of Shiozaki.
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-6, and 14--18 as a first group and claim 2
as a second group. Appeal Br. 7-11. We select claims 1 and 2 as
representative of these groups, which we analyze below.
Claims 1, 3---6, and 14--18
The Examiner finds Sarkar discloses, among other things, a vehicle, a
charge interface, and a controller configured to establish an affirmative
association between a vehicle and a charge system. Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner finds Sarkar does not disclose a controller configured to
intermittently or continuously transmit, to a charge system, an affirmative
association signal reaffirming a previously established association such that
charging is maintained, as recited in claim 1, or that a charge interface is a
charge plate. Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds Shiozaki discloses a charging system including a
controller configured to intermittently or continuously transmit an
3 Sarkar et al., US 2013/0193918 Al, published Aug. 1, 2013 ("Sarkar").
4 Shiozaki et al., US 2010/0013320 Al, published Jan. 21, 2010
("Shiozaki").
5 Maugars, US 2011/0136550 Al, published June 9, 2011 ("Maugars").
3
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
affirmative association signal reaffirming a previously established
association such that charging is maintained, citing controller 52 of Figure 2,
Shiozaki's periodic authentication, and steps depicted in Figure 18 of
Shiozaki. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to configure Sarkar's controller so it affirms the previously established
association to periodically ensure authentication of a device and a charger
and so no foreign objects interfere with charging, as taught by Shiozaki. Id.
at 4--5. The Examiner also finds Shiozaki discloses a charge plate as an
interface and concludes it would have been obvious to modify Sarkar in
view of Shiozaki to use a charge plate to allow power transfer without using
a metallic contact. Id.
Appellants contend Shiozaki' s periodic authentication detects a
takeover state due to a metal object by modulating the load on the power
receiving side, which is then detected by a load state detection circuit on the
power transmission side, and this does not "intermittently or continuously
transmit, to the system, an affirmative association signal reaffirming the
previously established association," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 1--4. Specifically, Appellants assert Shiozaki's periodic
authentication is not "an affirmative association signal" or one that reaffirms
a previously established association because Shiozaki's high load state and
low load state "appear to simply follow one another in succession. Appeal
Br. 8-9. Appellants further argue "Shiozaki makes no mention of using
'periodic authentication' as an 'indication that the association is desired to
be maintained"' because Shiozaki teaches the periodic authentication detects
a takeover state by a metal object, which, according to Appellants, is not
transmitting an affirmative association signal to reaffirm a previously
4
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
established association, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 9. Appellants also
contend Shiozaki's steps S87-S90 regard checking for a power transmission
stop request, an interrupt request, a communication request, and a full charge
signal, which are not "an affirmative association signal reaffirming the
previously established association," as recited in claim 1. Id. at 9-10.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Shiozaki discloses a
contactless power transmission method between a power transmission
device 106 and an electronic device (e.g., cell phone 510) including a power
receiving device 40. Shiozaki ,r 63. As depicted in Figure 2, the power
transmission device 10 includes a controller 22 and the power receiving
device 40 includes a controller 52. Id. ,r,r 78, 89, 93.
Shiozaki discloses the controller 52 includes an authentication
processing section 120 that performs authentication processing. Id. ,r 95-96.
Once authentication processing is completed between the power receiving
side and the power transmission side, the controllers for each side proceed to
normal power transmission. Id. ,r,r 217-225.
The controller 52 for the power receiving device 40 further includes a
periodic authentication control section 128 that controls periodic
authentication after the start of normal power transmission. Id. ,r 96.
According to Shiozaki, periodic authentication is performed, for example, to
detect a "takeover state" by a foreign object, such as a metal object that
could be inserted between primary and secondary coils during power
transmission. Id. ,r,r 96, 250. Shiozaki states such a situation could lead to
the metal object acting as a load and power transmission energy being
6 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
5
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
expended upon the metal object, which is then heated to a high temperature.
Id. ,r 250. To address this, Shiozaki discloses intermittently varying the load
on the power receiving side via a transistor TB3 to create alternating high
load states (i.e., when the transistor TB3 is on) and low load states (i.e.,
when the transistor TB3 is off). Id. ,r,r 249, 251. A load state detection
circuit 30 on the power transmission side detects the intermittent loads on
the power receiving side, which confirms the power receiving side is
receiving transmitted power. Id. ,r,r 88, 251.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not provided support for load
modulation being a well-known signaling technique and Shiozaki's "high
and low signals bears no relation to the claim limitations at issue." Reply
Br. 2-3. However, Shiozaki discloses "[i]n FIG. 2, data communication
from the power transmission side to the power receiving side is realized by a
frequency modulation while data communication from the power receiving
side to the power transmission side is realized by a load modulation." Id.
,r 7 4. Shiozaki further teaches that the high load state functions as the binary
state of "1" and the low load state functions as the binary state of "O" to
transmit data from the power receiving side to the power transmission side.
Id. ,r 76. Shiozaki describes varying these high and low power states
"intermittently" during the periodic authentication. Id. ,r 249, 251.
Therefore, Shiozaki's disclosure supports the Examiner's findings that
the foreign object takeover detection system of Shiozaki's periodic
authentication results in intermittently transmitting to a charge system (i.e.,
Shiozaki' s power transmission side) an affirmative association signal, as
recited in claim 1. We note claim 1 does not recite a specific type of signal
for the "affirmative association signal," a particular method of signaling, or
6
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
recite a specific type of "affirmative association" between the vehicle and
charge system. Nor do Appellants cite a specific definition for such terms to
distinguish claim 1 from Shiozaki's periodic authentication, as noted by the
Examiner. Ans. 7.
Claim 1 also does not recite specific limitations for "reaffirming the
previously established association." Appellants do not direct our attention
the Specification for a definition for this phrase, nor do we find one.
Paragraph 16 of the Specification discusses authentication and states that
charge may commence once authentication is complete, noting "[t]he initial
wireless request and subsequent authentication response make up an
association 'handshake' between the two devices." Paragraph 1 7 of the
Specification discusses reaffirming the association and maintaining a charge
procedure, stating:
The charger controller 24 is programmable to terminate
association and shut off power to the primary induction charging
plate 20 if no signal is received from the vehicle within
designated time intervals. In this way, power is not expended by
the vehicle charger 12 if no vehicle is present to receive a charge.
As noted above, the Specification states ongoing association communication
can be used to interrupt charge procedures, when desirable. Id. ,r 32.
Specifically, "vehicle drive off events, a substantially fully charged battery,
and other prescribed events can trigger the discontinuance of ongoing
association signals such that power to the vehicle charger is disabled." Id.
Therefore, "reaffirming the previously established association," as
recited in claim 1, encompasses determining whether a signal is received
(i.e., by the power transmission side) from a vehicle (i.e., the power
receiving side) to determine whether charging is occurring. This is what is
7
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
generally disclosed by Shiozaki for its periodic authentication, which
determines whether a power receiving side is transmitting signals (i.e.,
varying between a high load state and a low load state), which affirms the
power receiving side is receiving power from the power transmission side.
Appellants' arguments amount to Shiozaki's periodic authentication
being different (Appeal Br. 7-10) from the claimed transmission of
affirmative association signals to reaffirm a previously established
association, as recited in claim 1. However, Appellants fail to identify any
difference. In view of the above, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us
that the Examiner reversibly erred in the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants do not argue claims 3---6 and 14--18 separately from claim
1. Appeal Br. 10-11.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the
controller is further configured to transmit the association signal at
predetermined time intervals."
Appellants contend Shiozaki discloses its periodic authentication
includes intermittently varying the load on the power receiving side but this
does not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 2. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. As noted by the Examiner (Ans.
10), the very name of Shiozaki's "periodic authentication" suggests
transmission at predetermined (i.e., periodic) time intervals. Further, as
indicated by the Examiner (id.), Shiozaki's Figure 19 suggests alternating
loads between high and low states at predetermined time intervals.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1---6 and 14--18.
8
Appeal 2018-004884
Application 13/553,465
Rejection II
Claims 7-13 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Sarkar in view of Maugars and Shiozaki.
Appellants assert Maugars does not cure the deficiencies of Sarkar
and Shiozaki discussed above with regard to claim 1 because Maugars also
does not disclose "intermittently or continuously transmit, to the charge
system, an affirmative association signal that reaffirms a previously
established affirmative association established in response to detecting an
authenticated charge system," as recited in claim 7, and therefore the
combination of Sarkar, Maugars, and Shiozaki does not disclose or suggest
the limitations of claim 7. Appeal Br 10-11. As discussed above with
regard to the rejection of claim 1, Shiozaki suggests the limitation argued by
Appellants and there is no need for Maugars to cure a deficiency with
respect to that limitation.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's § 103(a) rejection of claims 7-13.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is 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).
AFFIRMED
9