Ex Parte Klabjan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13369855 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/369,855 02/09/2012 Diego Klabjan 20178/2010-156-03 4760
123501 7590 02/02/2017
Hanley, Flight and Zimmerman, LLC
150 S.Wacker Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
STARKS, WILBERT L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
mailroom @ hfzlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIEGO KLABJAN
Appeal 2016-005925
Application 13/369,855
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-05925
Application 13/369,855
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—11 and 14—20 of the pending claims
on appeal. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 13 and 21 have been
indicated as being allowable (Final Act. 27; Ans. 27). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent Claims 1 and 14 are exemplary of Appellant’s disclosed
invention, and are reproduced below with emphases added to disputed
portions of the claims:1
1. A method to generate a deployment plan for one or
more electric vehicle charging stations, the method comprising:
gathering data for a specified geographic area, the
gathered data including data regarding daily trips by a modeled
driver from an origin to a destination in the
specified geographic area;
forecasting a demand for electric vehicles for the
specified geographic area;
modeling driving patterns in the specified area using the
gathered data;
improving a charging infrastructure model based on the
driving pattern and demand forecast information for the
specified geographic area; and
1 Remaining independent claim 8 contains limitations commensurate in
scope with claim 1, and recites a computer readable storage medium having
computer program code for execution by a processor to implement a system
including an optimizer to provide a deployment strategy using a computation
of a combination of the same four elements at issue in claim 1. Therefore,
we decide the outcome of claim 8 on the same basis as claim 1.
2
Appeal 2016-05925
Application 13/369,855
generating and providing a recommendation regarding an
electric vehicle charging infrastructure and deployment strategy
for the specified geographic area based on the improved
charging infrastructure model, the recommendation including
street address location recommendations for one or more
electric vehicle charging stations in the specified geographic
area based on computation of a combination of i) a number of
electric vehicle charging stations to be deployed in the specified
geographic area, ii) a set of potential charging station sites, Hi)
averase traffic of a nearest arterial road to each of the set
of potential charsins station sites, and iv) a distance of the
nearest arterial road to each of the set of potential charsins
stations sites, evaluated with respect to a decision variable.
14. A method of forecasting electric vehicle usage in a
defined geographic area, the method comprising;
using an adoption forecasting model to forecast an
electric vehicle allocation at a national level',
determining a forecast for an electric vehicle allocation at
a state level using the electric vehicle allocation forecast at the
national level and one or more factors; and
forecasting an electric vehicle allocation at a zip code
level based on the electric vehicle allocation at the state level
and the one or more factors including driving
pattern information within the zip code, maximum electric
vehicle driving range, and charging ability of an electric vehicle
charging station.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 7—16) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—7) that the Examiner’s rejections
of (i) claims 1—11, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andy Ip et. al., Optimization for Allocating BEV
3
Appeal 2016-05925
Application 13/369,855
Recharging Stations in Urban Areas by Using Hierarchical Clustering,
Advanced Information Management and Service (IMS) 6th
International Conference held on Nov. 30-Dec. 30, pp. 460-65
(2010)(hereinafter, “Ip”) and Pierrick Tranouez et. al., A Multiagent
Urban Traffic Simulation Part I: Dealing with the Ordinary, ICCSA
2009, pp. 1—5 (2009) (hereinafter, “Tranouez”) (Final Act. 2—26; Ans. 2—
25); and (ii) claim 15 as being unpatentable over Ip, Tranouez, and Maik
Schneider et. al., Innovation Process ‘Fuel Cell Vehicle’: What Strategy
Promises To Be Most Successful?, 9th International Conference of The
Society of Computational Economics Computing in Economics and
Finance held in Seattle, USA, (July 2003) (hereinafter, “Schneider”) (Final
Act. 26—27; Ans. 26—27) are in error, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—6).2
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 7—9) that a proper
interpretation of independent claims 1 and 8 requires generating and
providing a recommendation regarding an electric vehicle charging
infrastructure and deployment strategy for a specified geographic area based
2 We note the Examiner mistakenly states in the heading of the rejection that
claim 15 is rejected over Ip and Tranouez (Final Act. 2; Ans. 2). This is
evident from (i) the failure of the Examiner to discuss/address the merits of
claim 15 in the rejection over Ip and Tranouez (see Final Act. 3—7; Ans. 3—
7); and (ii) the fact that claim 15 is otherwise rejected over the combination
of Ip, Tranouez, and Schneider where the merits are discussed/addressed
(Final Act. 26—27; Ans. 26—27). We consider this harmless error, and treat
the rejection of claim 15 as including Schneider in the combination.
Accordingly, we consider claim 1—11, 14, and 16 to stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ip and Tranouez.
4
Appeal 2016-05925
Application 13/369,855
on computation of a combination of all four elements listed in the claims.
While the Examiner initially finds that Ip teaches or suggests only two of the
computation elements (the first two) found at the end of claims 1 and 8
(Final Act. 7 and 15; Ans. 7 and 15), the Examiner, in the Answer, then
responds that Ip teaches the remaining two computation elements (Ans. 28—
31). We find that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that the applied
references, and Ip in particular, meet these last two listed computation
elements.
The Examiner’s reliance upon the statement at page 462 of Ip (“any
information about the location that is related to the demands in the allocation
problems”) as suggesting the use of one or more of the four recited elements
for computation in claims 1 and 8 is conclusory. Despite the Examiner’s
assertion that “the prior art anticipates the use of each of the four factors”
(Ans. 28), the Examiner does not demonstrate that Ip discloses any operation
based on “the nearest arterial road” as provided by the last two elements
found in claims 1 and 8 (elements (iii) and (iv)). See generally Ans. 29-30.
Finally, even if we were to agree with the Examiner that the Specification
fails to define “arterial road” (Ans. 30), one of ordinary skill in the art would
(i) understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “arterial road” to be a main
road (as opposed to a small, dead end, or road leading to a cul-de-sac), and
(ii) therefore understand that a “road” (as disclosed by Ip) is not the
equivalent of an “arterial road.”
Although we agree with the Examiner that Ip teaches an electric
vehicle recharging station locator algorithm, and Tranouez teaches a driving
model, the Examiner has not rationally articulated how/why one of ordinary
5
Appeal 2016-05925
Application 13/369,855
skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention would use the driving
model of Tranouez to modify the computations of Ip and arrive at the
method and system for generating a deployment plan for electric vehicle
charging stations as recited in claims 1 and 8. See, e.g., Final Act. 3
(concluding, without articulating sufficient reasoning, that “[i]t would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the modeled
driver in Tranouez, et al. for the unmodeled driver in Ip, et al. because it
helps to account for driver actions.”).
With regard to remaining independent claim 14, we also agree with
Appellant’s contentions (App. Br. 15—16) that the combination, and
specifically Ip, fails to teach or suggest forecasting an electric vehicle
allocation “at a zip code level” based on forecasts taken at the “state level”
and the “national level.”
Based on the foregoing, we concur with Appellant’s assertions (see
App. Br. 7—16; Reply Br. 3—7) that the Examiner has not properly
established factual determinations and articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for independent
claims 1, 8, and 14, resulting in a failure to establish a prima facie of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 14, as well as corresponding dependent claims
2—7, 9-11, and 15—20 depending respectively therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting (i) claims 1—11, 14, and 16—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the base combination of Ip
6
Appeal 2016-05925
Application 13/369,855
and Tranouez; and (ii) claim 15 over the base combination of Ip and
Tranouez, further taken with Schneider.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11 and 14—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
7