Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 9, 2020

2020000044 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2020)

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.
15/263,529 09/13/2016 Mark Steven YAMAZAKI 83657867 1449
28395 7590 11/09/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
KISWANTO, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2020 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 MARK STEVEN YAMAZAKI, JASON MEYER,
JEFFREY ALLEN DOERING, and BERNARD D. NEFCY
____________

Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JILL D. HILL, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 20, 2018, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 2–16 and 18–20. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real
party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2019, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for controlling a
hybrid vehicle when entering a lash zone where torque changes direction.
Spec. paras 1, 2.
Claims 2, 12, and 18 are independent. Claim 2 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
2. A vehicle comprising:
an engine selectively coupled by an upstream clutch to
an electric machine, which is selectively coupled by a
downstream clutch to a step-ratio transmission; and
at least one controller programmed to control the engine
and the electric machine in response to entering a lash zone in
anticipation of a wheel torque reversal to adjust a gain
applied to an active motor damping torque controller to reduce
driveline oscillations and backlash, wherein the at least one
controller reduces the gain prior to a zero torque point where
meshing gear teeth of driveline components are floating.

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 2–16 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as being indefinite.
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 6–8, 10–15, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morris.2
III. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 5, 9, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Morris.

2 Morris, US 7,577,507 B2, issued Aug. 18, 2009.
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

3

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that claims 2–16 and 18–20 are “incomplete for
emitting essential steps,” wherein “such omission amounts to a gap between
the steps.” Final Act. 2.

Claims 2–11
The Examiner finds claims 2–11 omit the steps of “detecting a zero
torque point where meshing gear teeth of driveline components are floating.”
Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner explains that the terms “lash zone” and
“zero torque point” in claim 2 are indefinite because “‘lash zone’ is a known
term in the art for zero torque point,” and, thus, represents a failure to
interrelate essential elements.” Examiner Answer (dated Aug. 22, 2019,
hereinafter “Ans.”) 4.
Although we appreciate that “detecting” a “zero torque point” is required in
order to “reduce[] the gain prior to a zero torque point where meshing gear teeth
of driveline components are floating,” as per independent claim 2, we do not agree
that a “detecting” step constitutes an essential element of independent claim 2 for
the following reasons.
First, we note that the Specification nowhere discloses that “detecting” a
“zero torque point” constitutes an essential element or a critical feature of the
invention, and, moreover, the Examiner does not point to any statement of record
that a skilled artisan would reasonably understand to mean that “detecting” a “zero
torque point” necessarily constitutes an essential step performed by the controller
of claim 2. See MPEP § 2172.01 (“A claim which omits matter disclosed to be
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

4

essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of
record may be rejected.” (Emphasis added)).
Second, Appellant’s Specification describes “detecting” a backlash
condition, which includes a “zero torque point,” as being performed according to
US 9,037,329 B2 (issued May 19, 2015) and US 7,223,203 B2 (issued May 29,
2007), which are incorporated by reference in their entirety. See Spec. para. 36.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the
art is well aware of techniques(s) for determining the zero torque point,” and, thus,
the step of “detecting a “zero torque point” does not constitute omitted matter
essential to the invention. Appeal Br. 3–4; see e.g., Streck, Inc. v. Research &
Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1269, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that a
patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art).
Third, we agree with Appellant that in light of Appellant’s Specification a
person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the term “zero
point torque” represents a state when meshing gear teeth are floating and the term
“lash zone” represents “a region of time surrounding the ‘zero point torque.’”
Reply Brief (filed Sept. 30, 2019, hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 2–3; see also Spec.
paras. 72, 73, Figs. 7, 8.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, by not specifying the step of “detecting a
zero torque point where meshing gear teeth of driveline components are floating,”
the claim is merely broad, not indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016
n.17 (CCPA 1977) (breadth is not indefiniteness). That is to say, it is clear that
the controller of claim 2 “reduces the gain prior to the zero torque point;” no
further detail is necessary to know the metes and bounds of the claim. Appeal Br.
3.
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

5

In conclusion, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of
claims 2–11 as being indefinite for omitting essential elements.

Claims 12–16 and 18–20
The Examiner finds claims 12–16 and 18–20 omit the steps of
“detecting a change in driver demanded torque” and “detecting input torque
to the transmission approaching zero.” Final Act. 2. (Emphasis added). The
Examiner explains that because the step of “reducing at least one gain” in
claim 12 and “reducing the gain” in claim 18 is performed “in response to”
“a change” or an “increase,” respectively, “in driver demanded torque[] and
input torque to the transmission input torque approaching zero,” the omitted
“detecting” steps noted above are essential. Ans. 4.
The Examiner further finds that claims 18–20 omit the step of
“[d]etecting a change in driver demanded torque anticipated to result in a
driveline torque reversal or a wheel torque reversal.” Final Act. 2.
According to the Examiner, because the step of “adjusting a gain” in claim
18 is performed “in response to” “a change in driver demanded torque
anticipated to result in a driveline torque reversal or a wheel torque
reversal,” the omitted step must be essential. Ans. 4–5. Furthermore, the
Examiner finds claim 18 is indefinite because it is not clear “which changes
in driver demanded torque would be anticipated” as “the bounds of
‘anticipated’” are not clear, and, moreover, it is not clear “which changes in
driver demanded torque the gain adjustment responds to.” Id. at 5.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that because the “increase” in gain in
claims 15 and 19 is “in response” to the input torque to the transmission
passing through zero, claims 15 and 19 omit the essential step of “detecting”
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

6

the transmission input torque passing through zero. Similarly, the Examiner
finds that because “reducing the gain to zero” occurs “as the transmission
input torque approaches zero,” claim 20 omits the essential step of
“detecting” the transmission input torque approaching zero. Final Act. 2–3;
Ans. 5.
Appellant’s Specification nowhere discloses, and the Examiner does not
point to any statement of record that a skilled artisan would reasonably understand
to mean, that the omitted “detecting” steps noted above constitute essential
elements or critical features of the invention. Therefore, we do not agree with the
Examiner’s position that claims 12–16 and 18–20 are indefinite for omitting the
“detecting” steps noted above.
Furthermore, as discussed supra, Appellant’s Specification describes
“detecting” a backlash condition as being performed according to US 9,037,329
B2 (issued May 19, 2015) and US 7,223,203 B2 (issued May 29, 2007), which are
incorporated by reference in their entirety. Spec. para. 36; Figs. 7, 8. Hence, we
agree with Appellant that a skilled artisan was well aware of techniques(s) for
determining a backlash condition, which includes a zero torque point or a
transmission input torque passing a zero torque or a wheel torque reversal, and,
thus, the “detecting” steps noted above, do not constitute omitted matter essential
to the invention. See e.g., Appeal Br. 3–4; see also Spec. para. 62 (“lash zone
crossings or wheel torque reversals”).
Lastly, we agree with Appellant that the term “anticipated” in claim 18 is
not a term of degree, but rather describes “a prediction compared to a measured
value” to determine whether a change in driver demanded torque ultimately
results in a wheel torque reversal. See Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. Fig. 3); see also
Spec. 61 (The control system 42 is configured to determine a lash zone for the
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

7

vehicle 10 based on the gear of the transmission, and to use the determined lash
zone during vehicle operation to predict or detect an impending lash zone.”)
(Emphasis added).
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 12–16 and 18–20 as being indefinite for
omitting essential elements.

Rejection II
Claims 2, 4, 6–8, 10, and 11
The Examiner finds that Morris discloses, inter alia, a controller
“programmed to control the engine [14] and the electric machine [56] in
response to entering a lash zone in anticipation of a wheel torque reversal to
adjust a gain applied to an active motor damping torque controller,” wherein
the controller “reduces the gain prior to a zero torque point where meshing
gear teeth of driveline components are floating.” Final Act. 3 (citing Morris,
col. 2, ll. 49–60, col. 7, ll. 6–10, col. 11, ll. 58–62, col. 12, ll. 48–56). The
Examiner explains that because in Morris “controlling the torque-generative
devices such that the torque transmitted between the powertrain system and
the driveline is less than the operator commanded torque for a period of
time,” Morris discloses that “the reduction in driveline torques would have
been the result of a reduction in gain.” Id. at 8 (citing Morris, col. 3, ll. 22–
35, Figs. 4, 5). The Examiner further notes that because Morris discloses
“that the gain reduction is based on estimator results,” Morris discloses “that
the gain reduction occurs prior to the zero torque point since estimators
estimate future states.” Id.
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

8

Appellant argues that because Morris discloses “limit[ing] axle torque
during torque reversal to reduce clunk,” Morris fails to disclose a reduction
in gain. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Morris, col. 2, ll. 49–60). According to
Appellant, “limiting axle torque is not synonymous with reducing gain.” Id.
Appellant further contends that because Morris defines the neutral lash
phase when the axle torque (Taxle) reaches zero and states that “no action
occurs in the control system based upon the lash” unless the lash is in a
neutral state, Morris’ controller does not take any action until the zero torque
point, rather than “prior to a zero torque point,” as called for by independent
claim 2. Id. (citing Morris, col. 12, ll. 44–47, Fig. 6); see also Morris, col. 3,
ll. 22–35 (“[S]electing the gain matrix for the multivariate feedback control
system operable to control the plurality of torque-generative devices . . .
when the lash state is neutral.).
In response, the Examiner takes the position that because “there is
nothing in the claim that limits the zero torque point to one that occurs
within the claimed lash zone” and “Morris discloses zero torque points
occurring throughout operation of the vehicle, any of Morris’ reductions in
gain prior to any zero torque point anticipates the claimed invention.” Ans.
5.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this
case, we do not agree with the Examiner’s position because as Appellant
correctly notes, the Specification describes the “zero torque point” as a
physical state where “meshing gear teeth or otherwise coupled components
are floating or not touching” and Figures 7 and 8 illustrate “zero torque
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

9

point” 734, 834 as being within “lash zone” 716, 816, respectively. Reply
Br. 4 (citing Spec. para. 2). Hence, we do not agree with the Examiner that
“the claimed zero torque point can be any zero torque point subsequent to
the claimed lash zone.” Ans. 6 (emphasis added). Rather, consistent with
Appellant’s disclosure, the claimed “zero torque point” is limited to a
location within the “lash zone.”
Morris discloses a positive lash state when torque is transmitted in a
positive direction, a negative lash state when torque is transmitted in a
negative direction, and a neutral lash state when substantially no torque is
transmitted through the transmission to the driveline. Morris, col. 12, ll. 31–
43. Morris further discloses that its controller takes no action when a
positive or a negative lash state is indicated. Id., col. 12, ll. 44–47. Rather,
according to Morris, the controller dampens actual axle torque output
“during the period of time in which the neutral lash state is detected.” Id.,
col. 12, ll. 60–63. As such, we agree with Appellant that Morris’ controller
does not take any action “prior to a zero torque point,” but rather during a
period of time when zero torque is detected. See Appeal Br. 6. Therefore,
Morris’ controller fails to “reduce[] the gain prior to a zero torque point,” as
called for by claim 2.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) of claims 2, 4, 6–8, 10, and 11 as anticipated by
Morris.

Claims 12–15, 18, and 19
With respect to independent claims 12 and 18, Appellant argues that
“Morris fails to disclose to reduce a gain.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

10

The Examiner disagrees noting that “Morris discloses a plurality of
gain matrices and further discloses that the gain matrix is adjusted when lash
state is neutral.” Ans. 5 (citing Morris, col. 11, 58–62, col. 12, ll. 48–56).
The Examiner further states that Morris’ “selection of the gain matrix is an
adjustment in gain which corresponds to the reduction in axle torque.” Id.
(citing Morris, col. 2, ll. 49–60) (Emphasis added); see also Final Act. 4
(citing col. 7, ll. 6–10).
We appreciate that Morris discloses the use of at least two sets of gain
matrices, wherein “one set is for use when the driveline is in a neutral lash
state, and one set is for use when the driveline is in a drive state.” Morris,
col. 11, ll. 58–62. We also appreciate that in Morris, “the torque transmitted
to the driveline . . . is less than operated-commanded torque . . . when the
lash state is neutral.” Id., col. 13, ll. 6–8. However, using a gain matrix
during a neutral lash state, which is different from a gain matrix for a drive
state (positive or negative), to reduce the torque transmitted to the driveline,
does not constitute reducing the gain of a controller, as called for by each of
independent claims 12 and 18. The Examiner’s determination that changing
the gain matrix from a gain matrix for a drive state (positive or negative) to a
gain matrix for a neutral lash state constitutes reducing the gain of a
controller requires speculation on the Examiner’s part. The Examiner fails
to adequately explain how reducing the torque transmitted to the driveline by
employing the neutral lash gain matrix, rather than the drive state gain
matrix, constitutes a reduction of the gain of the controller, as called for by
independent claims 12 and 18.
Appeal 2020-000044
Application 15/263,529

11

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) of claims 12–15, 18, and 19 as anticipated by
Morris.

Rejection III
The Examiner’s modification of Morris does not remedy the
deficiencies of Morris discussed supra. See Final Act. 6. Therefore, for the
same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3, 5, 9, 16, and 20 as unpatentable over Morris.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
2–16, 18–20 112(b) Indefinite 2–16, 18–20
2, 4, 6–8,
10–15, 18, 19
102(a)(2) Morris 2, 4, 6–8,
10–15, 18, 19
3, 5, 9, 16, 20 103 Morris 3, 5, 9, 16, 20
Overall
Outcome
2–16, 18–20

REVERSED