Ex Parte Miller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201814564567 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation