Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14564567 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/564,567 12/09/2014
113140 7590 11/30/2018
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth James Miller
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.
83490355(65080-1473) 8042
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH JAMES MILLER,
THOMAS G. LEONE, WILLIAM PAUL PERKINS,
and DOUGLAS RAYMOND MARTIN 1
Appeal2018-004252
Application 14/564,567
Technology Center 3600
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 2) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-004252
Application 14/564,567
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A vehicle system comprising:
a sensor configured to identify a first location and a
second location; and
a processing device programmed to estimate a plurality
of energy usages each based at least in part on a different
possible speed of a host vehicle at the first location, select one
of the plurality of energy usages as a target useable energy, and,
upon reaching the first location, control the host vehicle during
a cornering maneuver, including braking, turning, and
accelerating, in accordance with the speed associated with the
selected target useable energy.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dalum (US 2013/0179007 Al, pub. July 11, 2013) and Anderson (US 2014/
0297116 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2014).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Dalum to teach a system and method recited
in independent claims 1, 9, and 17 using a processing device programmed to
estimate a plurality of energy usages based in part on a host vehicle speed at
a first location, select one of the energy usages as a target useable energy (by
assisting personnel in selection of the power estimate), and control the host
vehicle in accordance with a speed associated with the target useable energy.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Dalum's processor runs software to
refine energy usage estimates to improve fuel efficiency based on a vehicle's
speed among other parameters. Id. (citing Dalum ,r,r 47, 48, 78).
2
Appeal2018-004252
Application 14/564,567
The Examiner finds that Dalum does not disclose "selecting a target
useable energy" but selects similar power estimations by assisting personnel
in selecting a power estimate. Id. at 4 (citing Dalum ,r 48). The Examiner
interprets a "target useable energy" to mean "a current available energy of a
vehicle" and finds that this feature is not new when a travel distance/time is
calculated as in Dalum because the currently available energy must be a
common factor to compute a travel distance or time. Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses the control of a vehicle
during a cornering maneuver including braking, turning, and accelerating.
Ans. 3 (citing Anderson ,r 12, Fig. 15-4); Final Act. 5.
We agree with Appellants that neither Dalum nor Anderson teaches or
suggests selection of a target useable energy as recited in independent claims
1, 9, and 17. The claim language itself requires a "target useable energy" to
be selected from one of the plurality of energy usages that are estimated for
a host vehicle based on a different possible speed of the host vehicle at a first
location (i.e., the start of a curve). Appeal Br. 13-16 (Claims App.).
The Specification discloses that the claimed systems and method can
control a vehicle autonomously at optimized speeds going into and coming
out of a tum to reduce energy loss. Spec. ,r 6. After the processor estimates
energy usages for multiple speeds that can be used to negotiate a curve, the
processor selects the speed with the most efficient energy usage as the target
useable energy. Id. ,r,r 8, 29, Fig. 4.
Dalum optimizes routes 56 for a hybrid vehicle traveling between a
home location 52 and job sites 54 based on estimated energy usages during
travel or work at the job sites. Dalum ,r,r 47, 48, 78. Dalum can minimize
travel time or fuel use or maximize regenerative energy. Id. ,r 4 7.
3
Appeal2018-004252
Application 14/564,567
The Examiner is correct that Dalum can base the energy estimate on
rotational speed. Id. However, the Examiner has not explained how Dalum
estimates plural energy usages at different possible vehicle speeds at a first
location or selects one of the estimated energy usages as the target useable
energy as claimed. Nor has the Examiner explained how Dalum controls the
vehicle at a speed associated with the selected target useable energy during a
cornering maneuver as claimed.
Anderson does not remedy these deficiencies of Dal um. Anderson
instead controls acceleration feel through adaptive pitch and tilt correction.
Anderson ,r 12. Anderson also identifies when a vehicle approaches a rough
road that would allow a significant amount of energy to be regenerated by a
regenerative suspension system. Id. ,r 44. The Examiner has not explained
how Anderson selects a target useable energy from a plurality of estimated
energy usages at a first location and then controls a vehicle at a speed that is
associated with the target useable energy during a cornering maneuver as
claimed. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9,
and 17 or their dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
4