Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13769416 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
13/769,416 02/18/2013 Yimin Liu 83250276 1095
28395 7590 03/31/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER ROBERSON, JASON R
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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 YIMIN LIU, PERRY ROBINSON MACNEILLE, and
MICHAEL EDWARD LOFTUS
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yimin Liu et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4 and 6—20.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
2 Claim 5 is cancelled. Br. (Claims App. 1).
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
INVENTION
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
send likelihood-of-success request, including vehicle state
information;
receive information representing probability of reaching
route points, calculated utilizing a current vehicle charge, along
with effects on the probability based on vehicle system power
utilization changes;
display selectable vehicle system power utilization
changes;
receive vehicle system power utilization change selection;
calculate a new probability of reaching the points based on
the selection; and
display updated information based on the calculation.
Br. (Claims App. 1).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 6—11, and 13—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gutman (US 2012/0173134 Al, published July 5, 2012)
and Luke (US 2013/0030630 Al, published Jan. 31, 2013).
Claims 2, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gutman, Luke, and Diller (US 5,487,002, Jan. 13, 1996).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 6—11, and 13—20 as unpatentable over Gutman and Luke
Claims E 3, 6, and 7
The Examiner finds that Gutman discloses the system of claim 1
except for the limitations “along with effects on the probability based on
selectable vehicle system power utilization changes” and “receive vehicle
2
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
power utilization change selection.” Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds
that Luke teaches these limitations (id. at 3 (citing Luke Tflf 12, 93)), and
concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate these teachings
into Gutman (id. at 3^4 (citing Gutman 19)).
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s findings, first contending that
Gutman fails to disclose the limitation “display selectable vehicle system
power utilization changes.” Br. 7; Final Act. 3 (citing Gutman, Figs. 2, 3
(“items 310, 316, and 374”)). Appellants do not explain, however, why
estimated resource level 310, estimated consumption level 316, or feasibility
374, as displayed on display interface 202 in Figure 3 of Gutman, fails to
meet this limitation. See Gutman 176, Fig. 3.
Appellants’ Specification does not describe the term “vehicle system
power utilization changes.” The Examiner notes that paragraph 35 of the
Specification describes “trade off options” for drivers. Ans. 3. Appellants
reference paragraph 42 of the Specification for support. Br. 4. This
paragraph describes examples of “options” that a driver can select from to
increase the likelihood of reaching a destination. Spec. 142. Figure 4
shows such “options.” See id. 1 58. The Examiner determines, however,
that the “trade off options” are not described as “power utilization changes.”
Ans. 3. The Examiner construes “power utilization changes” “as any system
changes that increase or decrease the consumption level of the vehicle power
source.” Id. at 4. Appellants do not dispute this construction.
The Examiner further notes that Figure 3 of Gutman illustrates a
display showing current cost model 338. Ans. 4. Gutman defines cost
model 338 “as the pattern of consumption by the vehicle for resource, fuel,
or the combination thereof selected by the navigation system 100 for
3
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
reaching the destination 206.” Gutman 1115. The Examiner notes that the
cost model is selected by the navigation system based on feasibility 374 of
travel route 216. Ans. 4 (citing Gutman 1116). The Examiner determines
that “cost model 338 is the same as vehicle system power utilization
because the different cost models are based on different fuel consumption
levels.” Ans. 5. The Examiner adds that the different cost models are
selectable and changeable by the system and displayed. Id. (citing Gutman,
Fig. 4).
Appellants assert that, in Gutman, “[t]he cost model setting is selected
by the vehicle, but. . . there would be no reason to ‘display selectable
changes,’ as claimed, because the vehicle does not need to ‘see’ the changes
displayed in a selectable manner in order to select a change.” Br. 6.
Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. Figure 3 of Gutman shows
cost model 338 (“FAST”) displayed on interface 202, and Appellants
acknowledge that cost model 338 is “selected.” Br. 6. Appellants do not
explain persuasively why Gutman does not “display selectable vehicle
system power utilization changes.”
Second, Appellants contend that Luke does not disclose the limitation
“receive vehicle system power utilization change selection.'1'’ Br. 7
(emphasis added); see Final Act. 3 (citing Luke 193, “vehicle accessories”).
Paragraph 93 of Luke states (emphasis added):
At 508, the controller of the vehicle or the backend system
determines whether to limit operational characteristic of a prime
mover and/or vehicle accessories based at least in part on result
of comparison of determined travel distance and determined
estimated range. Thus, for example if the determined travel
distance is more than 90% of the estimated available range, the
4
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
controller or backend system may determine that vehicle
operation should be limited in order extend the estimate range.
Paragraph 94 of Luke states, “[a]t 510, the controller of the vehicle or the
backend system limits at least one operational characteristic (e.g., speed,
acceleration) of a prime mover of the vehicle (e.g., traction electric motor)
and/or operation of electrically powered vehicle accessories in response to
determination.” See also Luke, Fig. 5.
Appellants acknowledge that these paragraphs of Luke disclose
limiting use of a particular system. Br. 7. However, Appellants contend that
even if Gutman teaches the “display of utilization changes,” Luke does not
teach selection of such displayed utilization changes. Id.
The Examiner responds that the disputed limitation can be considered
an inherent characteristic of displaying a cost model selection in Gutman.
Ans. 5. Appellants’ contentions do not apprise us of any error in this
finding. As to Luke, the Examiner finds that the determination by the
controller to limit operational characteristics (step 510) and the selection of
an override from the vehicle operator (step 512) meet the disputed
limitation. Ans. 5—7 (citing Luke 193, Fig. 5). Appellants’ contentions also
do not apprise us of any error in this determination.
The Examiner further notes that claim 1 does not specify from where
the selection is received. Ans. 5. Nor does claim 1 recite how the selection
is made. Also, claim 1 does not recite that the received “selection” is of a
“displayed” vehicle system power utilization change, but only requires the
processor to be configured to “receive” the selection. Limitations that do not
appear in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Hence, Appellants’ contention that Luke
5
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
does not teach selection of displayed utilization changes does not apprise us
of any error in the Examiner’s position.
Third, Appellants contest the Examiner’s finding that Gutman
discloses the limitations “calculate a new probability of reaching the points
based on the selection” and “display updated information based on the
calculation.” Br. 7; Final Act. 3 (citing Gutman 1116 (“feasibility 374”)).
Appellants contend that paragraph 116 of Gutman:
teaches vehicle selection of a cost model based on the feasibility
(or probability) of reaching a destination. That is, before the
selection is made, various feasibilities are calculated and based
on the calculated feasibilities, a vehicle selects a cost model. In
other words, there is not calculation based on the selected change
because the selected change is based on the feasibility.
Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that feasibility 374 in Gutman corresponds to
the claimed “information representing a probability of reaching route
points.” Ans. 7 (citing Gutman, Fig. 3). Gutman discloses that “navigation
system 100 can verily a feasibility 374 of the entirety of the travel route 216
to reach the destination 206. The feasibility 374 is defined as the ability for
the user’s vehicle to reach the next of the intermediate stops 210, the
replenishment locations 218, and the destination 206.” Gutman 1109
(italics added), Figs. 2, 3. The Examiner finds that Gutman discloses
updating feasibility 374 of travel route 216 while traversing along this route.
Ans. 8 (citing Gutman 1114). The Examiner determines that updating the
feasibility when a cost model selection occurs is inherent to Gutman’s
navigation system, and, therefore, Gutman fully meets the limitation
“calculate a new probability (i.e. feasibility) of reaching the points based on
6
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
the selection.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants’ contentions do not
apprise us of any error in the Examiner’s determination.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims
3, 6, and 7 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Gutman and Luke.
Claims 8—11, 13, and 14
Independent claim 8 recites a system comprising a processor
configured to “calculate percentage chance changes based on possible
vehicle system power utilization changes'’ and “return the calculated varied
percentage chances and percentage chance changes to a requesting entity.”
Br. (Claims App. 2, emphasis added). Claim 8 specifies that the “percentage
chances” are “of reaching a plurality of points along a route.” Id. The
Examiner finds that Luke discloses the calculate percentage chance changes
limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Luke 193 (“see comparison of travel
distance and estimated range”).
Luke discloses:
At 508, the controller of the vehicle or the backend system
determines whether to limit operational characteristic of a prime
mover and/or vehicle accessories based at least in part on result
of comparison of determined travel distance and determined
estimated range. Thus, for example if the determined travel
distance is more than 90% of the estimated available range, the
controller or backend system may determine that vehicle
operation should be limited in order extend the estimate range.
Luke 193 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend:
What is not taught, however, in the cited portion of Luke, is that,
following the limiting, or in anticipation of limiting, differing
percentage chance changes are calculated based on possible
changes. Luke’s decision is a binary one. If current travel
distance ~= estimated range, then limit power to one or more
7
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
systems. Luke does not teach, estimate effect that changes to
various systems will have on estimated range, and then return
these estimations to a requesting entity, as claimed.
Br. 8.
The Examiner responds that Luke discloses “percentage calculations
based on the reduction of power usage by vehicle systems.” Ans. 10 (citing
Luke 192). The Examiner also determines that Luke discloses that the
percentage calculations are based on “possible changes.” Id. The Examiner
notes that Luke discloses possible systems that can be modified, and the
controller selects systems to be limited during the trip based on a percentage
difference calculation. Id. (citing Luke 112).
In Luke, limiting the operational characteristics increases the
estimated range. Luke discloses limiting the operational characteristics
based on a comparison (i.e., percentage value) of the determined travel
distance to the estimated available range. The Examiner does not establish
that Luke discloses this percentage value is based on possible changes of the
operational characteristics. Also, the Examiner does not establish that Luke
discloses to then “return the calculated varied percentage chances and
percentage chance changes to a requesting entity,” as claimed. Accordingly,
we are persuaded that the Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that Gutman and Luke meet the disputed limitations in claim 8.
Lor the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, and
claims 9—11, 13, and 14 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Gutman
and Luke.
Claims 15—20
Independent claim 15 recites a system comprising a processor
configured to “lock-out the lockable vehicle system to prevent utilization of
8
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
the lockable vehicle system for the duration of a journey.” Br. (Claims App.
2—3). The Examiner construes a “lockable system” “simply as a system that
has been disabled for the duration of a journey.” Ans. 12. The Examiner
finds that Luke discloses the “lock-out” limitation. Id. at 11 (citing Luke
12, 93, Fig. 5).3
Appellants’ Specification states:
Lockable options, in this example, are options such as HVAC or
media that can be locked out by the vehicle. Since the driver may
not want to automatically lock out an option, the process may ask
the driver if a lock-out is desired 507. If the driver agrees, the
option can be locked out from use 509, or at least prevented on
a temporary basis.
Spec. 1 60 (emphasis added). According to this description, a “lockable
vehicle system” is one that can be locked out by the vehicle. Claim 15
recites that the processor is configured to lock-out the lockable vehicle
system to prevent it from being utilized “for the duration of a journey.”
Claim 17, which depends from claim 15, recites that the processor is further
configured to “unlock the vehicle system.” Br. (Claims App. 3). Such
unlocked vehicle system can then be employed. See Spec. 1 63. As the
claimed lockable vehicle system can be unlocked during the journey, we
construe the “duration of a journey” to mean the remainder of a journey
unless the system is unlocked.
Appellants contend that neither Gutman nor Luke teaches locking out
a lockable system for the duration of a journey. Br. 9. Appellants
acknowledge that, in Luke, “the user can presumably limit power usage to
3 The Examiner explains that these citations were erroneously attributed to
Gutman in the Final Office Action. Id.', see Final Act. 7.
9
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
an accessory,” but contend Luke does not disclose or suggest “locking out a
system entirely for the duration of a journey.” Id.
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive. Luke’s vehicle controller
is operable to determine “whether to limit operational characteristic of a
prime mover and/or vehicle accessories based at least in part on result of
comparison of determined travel distance and determined estimated range.”
Luke 193 (emphasis added), Fig. 5. In Luke’s “limp home” mode, for
example, operational performance is limited. Luke 1102. “As part of
limiting the operation ... the controller may shut down, or reduce power
consumption of other ‘non-necessary’ or ‘non-essential’ components, such
as components not necessary to operation and/or safety.” Id. (emphasis
added). For example, an entertainment system can be controlled. Id. Luke
discloses that “electric power to the accessory can be disconnected via a
switching circuit, to reduce electric energy consumption by the accessory.”
Id. at 197. As such, the controller in Luke can limit operation of systems to
prevent their utilization until the vehicle reaches a desired destination, which
can be for “the duration of a journey.” The limiting function can be
overridden. Id. at 95. We are not persuaded that Luke fails to meet the
disputed claim limitation.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 15, and claims
16—20 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Gutman and Luke.
Claims 2, 4, and 12 as unpatentable over Gutman, Luke, and Diller
Appellants rely solely on claims 2 and 4 depending from claim 1 for
patentability. Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of rejection of
claims 2 and 4 as unpatentable over Gutman, Luke, and Diller for the same
reasons as for claim 1.
10
Appeal 2015-003344
Application 13/769,416
Claim 12 depends from claim 8. The Examiner’s application of
Diller to reject claim 12 does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of
claim 8. Final Act. 11—12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 12 as unpatentable over Gutman, Luke, and Diller.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 15—20 is
affirmed, and to reject claims 8—14 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11