Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2022

2021002351 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/493,862 04/21/2017 Allan Roy Gale 83571615 3512 28395 7590 02/08/2022 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER HERNANDEZ, MANUEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2022 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 ALLAN ROY GALE, MICHAEL W. DEGNER, and LARRY DEAN ELLE ____________ Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1-15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed November 18, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), 2 (unnumbered). 2 Non-Final Office Action entered August 17, 2020 (“Non-Final Act.”), 1. Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant claims a system of a vehicle. Appeal Br. 6-8. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A system of a vehicle comprising: a processor configured to control output current of a remote grid power distribution circuit (PDC) connected to the vehicle, via a power cable that includes a power line, return line, and ground line each physically connected with and spanning between a wall outlet associated with the grid PDC and the vehicle, according to a temperature change of the power line or return line that is derived from a grid PDC output voltage or output current change, the grid PDC output voltage and output current being measured at an input to a load connected to the grid PDC, and the grid PDC output voltage being measured between the ground line and one of the power and return lines. Appeal Br. Claims Appendix, 1 (emphasis added). The remaining independent claims on appeal-claims 6 and 11-recite a system comprising a processor configured similarly to the processor recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 1-2. REJECTION The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mukai in view of Karam and Gotou in the Examiner’s Answer entered December 17, 2020 (“Ans.”). Compare Non- Final Act. 4-10, with Ans. 3. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of the Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 3 claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below. The Examiner finds that Mukai discloses a vehicle system comprising a processor configured to control output current of a remote grid power distribution circuit (PDC) connected to the vehicle via a power cable including a power line, a return line, and a ground line, according to a temperature change of the power line or return line. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Mukai Abstr.; ¶¶ 53, 56-59, 61, 64; Fig. 2A). The Examiner finds that Mukai discloses that the power line, return line, and ground line are each physically connected with, and span between, a wall outlet associated with the grid PDC and the vehicle. Id. (citing Mukai ¶¶ 59, 61, 64). The Examiner finds that Mukai does not disclose that the temperature change of the power line or the return line is derived from a grid PDC output voltage change or output current change. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that “KARAM discloses the temperature change of the power line or return line is derived from an output voltage or output current change, the output voltage and output current being measured at an input to a load connected to the output voltage.” Id. (citing Karam col. 7, l. 20-col. 8, l. 45). In view of this disclosure in Karam, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to include deriving the temperature change [in Mukai’s system] based on [the grid PDC] output voltage/current in order to provide improved techniques of control [sic] delivery of power which are easily obtainable, and provide convenient and reliable means of temperature measurement without temperature sensors.” Id. 4-5 (citing Karam col. 2, ll. 5-50). Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 4 On the record before us, however, for reasons expressed by the Appellant and discussed below, the Examiner does not provide persuasive reasoning that explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relied-upon disclosures of Mukai and Karam to arrive at a processor configured to control output current of a remote grid power distribution circuit (PDC) according to a temperature change of a power line or return line, which lines are each included in a power cable physically connected with, and spanning between, a wall outlet associated with the grid PDC and a vehicle, and where the temperature change is derived from an output voltage or output current change of the grid PDC. Mukai explains that electric vehicles are usually charged by plugging a charging cable for the vehicle into a power socket supplied with commercial power, and pulling the charging cable out of the power socket when the vehicle is not being charged. Mukai ¶ 4. Mukai explains, however, that such power sockets are “designed under the assumption that a plug would be kept plugged in the socket for a long period of time,” and, “[t]herefore, if the plug is frequently pulled out and inserted, abnormal heating may be generated due to an imperfect connection.” Id. ¶ 5. Mukai further explains that abnormal heating of the plug may also be “induced by a tracking phenomenon due to high humidity and large amounts of particles and dust outdoors accumulated.” Id. Mukai’s invention addresses such abnormal plug heating by providing charging cable A for an electric vehicle that connects between power outlet socket B and connector Cl of electric vehicle C. Id. at ¶ 53; Fig. 2A. Mukai discloses that charging cable A includes power plug 3 that detachably connects to power outlet socket B, cable connector G that connects to Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 5 vehicle connector Cl, power cable 6 (6a, 6b) that connects power plug 3 and cable connector G, and control box 2 provided on the power cable 6. Id. ¶ 55; Fig. 2A. Mukai discloses that power plug 3 has connection terminals 31, 32 connected to power line L1 and ground line L2, respectively, included inside power cable 6a. Id. ¶ 56; Fig. 2A. Mukai discloses that temperature sensor 13 is buried inside power plug 3, and a temperature signal from temperature sensor 13 is transmitted to control circuit 21 via signal line L3. Id. Mukai discloses that if an insulation state between terminals 31, 32 deteriorates due to accumulation of particles or dust containing moisture in power outlet socket B or in power plug 3, contact failure occurs between power outlet socket B and power plug 3, generating heat, which is detected by temperature sensor 13. Id. ¶ 62. Mukai discloses that when the detected temperature exceeds a preset threshold, control circuit 21 sends a signal to switching circuit 22 to open a switch to cut off current flowing through the line L1. Id. In contrast to Mukai’s system, Karam discloses a power-over-ethernet (PoE) system for supplying power from power-sourcing equipment (PSE) to a powered device (PD) through a cable. Karam col. 1, ll. 8-10. Karam discloses that “[w]hen the PSE supplies power to the PD through the cable, the possibility exists that the temperature of the conductive material within the cable (e.g., copper) could increase beyond a safe limit,” and “[o]nce the temperature exceeds this limit, the PoE infrastructure and perhaps the surrounding environment could sustain permanent damage.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 22-27. Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 6 Karam discloses that infrared cameras have been used in the art to scan cables in PoE systems in an attempt to monitor cable temperature in order to determine “whether the temperature of the cable ever surpasses a critical level.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 61-67. Karam explains, however, that due to obstructions, such infrared cameras typically cannot scan the entire cable, and the cameras do not provide an accurate temperature measurement of the cable’s conductive material because the cameras only sense the temperature of the insulation material on the outside surface of the cable. Id. at col. 2, ll. 7-19. Karam discloses that other means for detecting cable temperature “such as embedding temperature sensors within a bundle of cables along an entire run (e.g., across a building) would require the proper embedding of such sensors, taking apart the infrastructure, and cost money and network downtime and would still fail to predict the temperature of the metal inside the cable.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 22-27. Karam’s invention addresses these problems by providing power- over-ethernet system 22 that includes power-sourcing equipment 24, remotely powerable device 26, and communications pathway 28. Id. at col. 3, ll. 41-43; Fig. 1. Karam discloses that system 22 derives a change in temperature over time of communications pathway 28 from resistance measured in the pathway. Id. at col. 7, ll. 6-60. More specifically, Karam discloses that system 22 measures the output voltage of power-sourcing equipment 24, the input voltage of powerable device 26, and the current of either power-sourcing equipment 24 or powerable device 26, and uses these values to compute the resistance over time of cabling 30 containing conductor material that forms communications pathway 28. Id. at col. 7, ll. 15-23. Karam discloses that system 22 uses the change in resistance over Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 7 time and the temperature coefficient of the conductor material to derive a value for a change in temperature over time of the conductor material. Id. at col. 7, ll. 49-60. Karam disclose that when a change in temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold, a controller considers communications pathway 28 to be at a potentially dangerous temperature, and “transitions to an error handling mode.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 31-35. Mukai’s temperature sensor 13 thus directly measures the temperature of plug 3 of vehicle charging cable A to detect abnormal heating of plug 3, whereas Karam’s system derives a temperature change in conductor material used in a communications pathway in a power-over-ethernet system from a change in resistance of the conductor material when direct measurement of the conductor material using temperature sensors is not feasible. As the Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 4), the Examiner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial, or even useful, to determine the temperature of Mukai’s power plug 3 by deriving a temperature value from a change in resistance calculated from the output voltage and current of socket B (power-sourcing equipment) and the input voltage of the electric vehicle battery (powered device) as disclosed in Karam, rather than directly measuring the temperature of plug 3 with sensor 13, as disclosed in Mukai. The Examiner responds to this argument in the Answer by indicating that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize modifying MUKAI to include the determination of the temperature change of the power or return line based on output voltage or output current as disclosed in KARAM would provide the benefits of increased accuracy due to sensing of the temperature of the conductor of the cable directly and reduced cost due to Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 8 sensing the temperature of the conductor without a dedicated temperature sensor” as disclosed in Karam. Ans. 5 (citing Karam col. 2, ll. 6-27). As the Appellant points out in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2), however, the Examiner’s proposed modification of Mukai’s system as set forth in the Non-Final Action appears to involve deriving a temperature change of Mukai’s power line L1 from a change in resistance calculated from a change in output voltage or output current of power supplied from a grid to socket B, rather than “sensing of the temperature of the conductor of the cable directly” as the Examiner indicates in the Answer. Compare Non-Final Act. 4-5, with Ans. 5. As discussed above, Mukai’s temperature sensor 13 actually does directly measure the temperature of plug 3. Furthermore, the Examiner does not provide any evidence to support the assertion in the Answer that the proposed modification of Mukai’s system would improve accuracy and reduce costs. The Examiner’s unsupported assertion to this effect, therefore, appears to be based on improper speculation. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office . . . may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). As a consequence, on the record before us, the Examiner does not provide reasoning having rational underpinning that explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the relied-upon disclosures of Mukai and Karam to arrive at a system including a processor configured as recited in claims 1, 6, and 11. We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, and 11, and claims 2-5, 7-10, and Appeal 2021-002351 Application 15/493,862 9 12-15, which each depend from either claim 1, 6, or 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15 103 Mukai, Karam, Gotou 1-15 REVERSED