Ex Parte Dai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2017

13465145 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2017)

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.
13/465,145 05/07/2012 Zhengyu Dai 83242063 3723
28395 7590 02/03/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER HLAVKA, DAVID J
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2017 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 ZHENGYU DAI, PETER JOHN GRUTTER,
ROGER LYLE HUFFMASTER, HONG JIANG, and
FELIX NEDOREZOV
Appeal 2014-0078291
Application 13/465,1452
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, AMEE A. SHAH, and
MATTHEW S. METERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by to Kitano (US 8,061,463 B2, iss. Nov. 22, 2011). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Feb. 6, 2014), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 9,
2014), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 7, 2012), and to the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 7, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Jan. 29, 2014).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-007829
Application 13/465,145
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to controlling motor torque in a
hybrid vehicle powertrain in the presence of changes in driver demand.”
Spec. 11.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
which we reproduce below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of controlling a hybrid vehicle having a traction
motor between an engine and a transmission having a torque
converter with a bypass clutch, comprising:
engaging the bypass clutch to a position that provides a
non-zero slip;
controlling traction motor torque to prevent the slip from
decreasing while the clutch is maintained in the position, in lieu
of disengaging the clutch to increase the slip, in response to a
decrease in driver demanded torque.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at
least by a preponderance of the evidence.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue independent claims 1, 9, and 15 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 4. We select claim 1 as representative of the group; claims 9 and
15 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Appellants contend the rejection of claim 1 is in error because
Kitano does not disclose “controlling motor torque to prevent a non-zero slip
of the bypass clutch from decreasing while the clutch is maintained in an
engaged position, and the motor is controlled in this manner in lieu of the
2
Appeal 2014-007829
Application 13/465,145
clutch being disengaged to prevent the slip from decreasing,” as required by
claim 1. Appeal Br. 4.
After careful review of the Appellants’ arguments presented in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner relies on Example 4 and Figures 8 A— 8E of Kitano,
reproduced below, for the contested limitation. Final Act. 3—4, Ans. 4—5.
Figures 8A—8E show the relationships between the accelerator, rotational
speed, slip ratio, pressure, and torque in the fourth example of the control
system.
Kitano discloses that at time t2, the slip ratio increases above the first
threshold value; at this point, the cooperative lock-up control, in which the
3
Appeal 2014-007829
Application 13/465,145
lock-up clutch is engaged by the lock-up controlling means, and the
cooperative operation of the motor generator are executed. Kitano, col. 4,
11. 49—54, col. 14,11. 50—55. The slip ratio remains in the range between the
first and second threshold values for a predetermined period of time, e.g.,
until time t3, at which point the cooperative operation of the motor generator
is terminated. Id. at col. 14,1. 63—15,1. 4. After time t3, only the
deceleration lock-up control is executed, and the slip ratio may decrease in
response to a change in the driving condition. Id. at col. 15,11. 6—17.
We find unsupported the Appellants’ interpretation of Kitano that
the motor is controlled between times t2 and t3 as shown in
Figure 8E to attempt to cause the slip ratio to decrease back
towards 100%. As shown in Figure 8C, the attempt to cause the
slip ratio to decrease by controlling the motor is not successful
as the slip ratio stays within the range between the slip ratio
thresholds SHI and SH2 as shown in Figure 8C.
Appeal Br. 7—8; see also Reply Br. 2. Rather, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Kitano discloses that between a time t2 and a time t3, the clutch
is not disengaged; there is a reduction in engine speed; and the cooperative
operation of the motor generator controls motor torque and “impacts the slip
maintained” by maintaining the slip ratio in the range between the first and
second thresholds, i.e., preventing the slip ratio from decreasing during that
time period. Ans. 4 (citing Kitano, Example 4, Figs. 8A—8E). We note that
although Kitano discloses that between times t2 and t3, “the control system
preferably brings the lock-up clutch into engagement by the lock-up­
controlling means while it is operating the motor generator cooperatively to
reduce the slip ratio,” (Kitano, col. 3,11. 52—59; see also Appeal Br. 5, 6, 8;
Reply Br. 2), Kitano does not specify that the slip ratio is actually reduced
during that time period between times t2 and t3. As can be seen from Figure
4
Appeal 2014-007829
Application 13/465,145
8C, above, between times t2 and t3, during which the cooperative operation
of the motor generator is executed, the slip ratio is constant, or, at least not
reduced. After t3, the slip ratio can either increase or decrease.
We further find unpersuasive the Appellants’ argument that Kitano
does not teach the limitation because “the motor torque is controlled to
prevent the slip from decreasing as opposed to being controlled to decrease
(reduce) the slip as described by Kitano; and the motor torque is controlled
in this manner in lieu of disengaging the clutch as opposed to engaging the
clutch in conjunction with controlling the motor torque as described by
Kitano.” Appeal Br. 8. Rather, as discussed above, we find that Kitano’s
cooperative operation of the motor generator prevents the slip from
decreasing while not disengaging the clutch, as required by the claim.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error on the part of
the Examiner and sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, independent
claims 9 and 15, which fall with claim 1, and dependent claims 2—8, 11—14,
and 16—20, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
AFFIRMED.
No time period of taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5