Ex Parte Maass et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2017

13265687 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
13/265,687 01/06/2012 Alexander Maass BOSC.P7037US/11602998 7356
24972 7590 07/31/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
EVANS, GARRETT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER MAASS and
MANFRED HELLMANN
Appeal 2015-000213
Application 13/265,687
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 15, 17—24, 26—28, and 31—33. Final Act. 1 (Office
Action Summary). Claims 1—14, 16, 25, 29, and 30 have been canceled.
See Amendment dated December 3, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-000213
Application 13/265,687
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a method for operating a
vehicle, in particular a hybrid vehicle.” Spec. 1:2—3. Method claim 15 and
apparatus claim 24 are independent. Claim 15 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal and is reproduced below:
15. A method for operating a vehicle, which is a
hybrid vehicle, in which at least one of the axles of the vehicle
is driven by a drive unit and causes the vehicle to be accelerated
at a predefined setpoint torque, in that a partial drive torque is
transferred to at least one of the axles and the wheels coupled to
it, the method comprising:
correcting, while negotiating a curve, the partial drive
torque of at least one of a steered axle and an unsteered axle so
that the vehicle is accelerated at the predefined setpoint torque,
wherein the partial drive torque of the at least one of the
steered axle and the unsteered axle is corrected as a function of
a distance of the wheels to a center of rotation of the vehicle
external to the vehicle.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Ishikawa US 2006/0108170 A1 May 25, 2006
Yamaguchi US 2008/0071451 A1 Mar. 20,2008
Mori US 2009/0157246 A1 June 18, 2009
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 15, 17—24, 26—28, 31—33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Yamaguchi, Mori, and Ishikawa.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue all the claims together. App. Br. 3^4. We select
independent claim 15 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims 17—
2
Appeal 2015-000213
Application 13/265,687
24, 26—28, and 31—33) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Yamaguchi for
disclosing the recited limitations, including the limitation directed to
“correcting” the partial drive torque imparted to a vehicle when in a curve.
Final Act. 2—3 (referencing Yamaguchi 1124 and Figures 15A—15G). The
Examiner further finds that Yamaguchi discloses this correction “as a
function of a distance of the wheels to the center of rotation of the vehicle”
as recited, but acknowledges that Yamaguchi does “not explicitly disclose[]”
where such center of rotation of the vehicle is “external to the vehicle” as
also recited. Final Act. 3.
Regarding this “external to the vehicle” limitation, the Examiner
states, “Yamaguchi teaches a step for estimating road surface friction
coefficients at each wheel” (see Yamaguchi || 127, 128) but that
“Yamaguchi directs to other publications as examples of how road friction
coefficients can be estimated.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3 (referencing Yamaguchi
H 116, 117 and Fig. 12A). In view of such instructions to refer to other
publications, the Examiner references Ishikawa. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner states, “Ishikawa teaches a method for estimating road surface
friction coefficients by means of Ackerman theory and formula” to a center
of rotation “external to the vehicle.” Final Act. 3 (referencing Ishikawa Fig.
10); see also Ans. 2 (additionally referencing Ishikawa 1159). Figure 10 of
Ishikawa illustrates “[a] method of finding the road friction coefficient for
each wheel at the curve running time” which involves ascertaining the
distance each wheel is from a “center O” external to the vehicle. Ishikawa |
159; see also id. 1158.
3
Appeal 2015-000213
Application 13/265,687
Hence, as above, the primary reference to Yamaguchi employs road
friction coefficients in its calculations but leaves it to others as to how such
coefficients are to be ascertained. Ishikawa explicitly discloses how to
ascertain such values by teaching the use of radii to each tire from a center
point O external to the vehicle while traversing a curve. In view of such
teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to use
the teachings of Ishikawa with the system of Yamaguchi to provide an
implementation which more precisely/accurately estimates road surface
friction coefficients particularly during a vehicle turn.”1 Final Act. 3^4;
Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that the theory employed in Ishikawa “may
include a center O external to the vehicle,” but that Ishikawa, and
particularly referenced Figure 10 thereof, “does not disclose how to correct a
partial drive torque” per the recited function. App. Br. 3; see also Reply Br.
2. As indicated above, the Examiner relies on Yamaguchi (not Ishikawa) for
teaching the limitation directed to correcting the partial drive torque and that
the function recited is taught via a combination of the teachings of
Yamaguchi and Ishikawa. Final Act. 2—3; see also Ans. 3, 5.
Appellants also contend, “Yamaguchi relates to the center of gravity
of a vehicle, which cannot be external to the vehicle itself.” App. Br. 3;
Reply Br. 2. Appellants provide only a partial telling of the teachings of
Yamaguchi, which does not focus solely on the forces acting upon a
vehicles’ center of gravity. Instead, Yamaguchi is concerned with a
1 Regarding the Examiner’s third reference, the Examiner finds that “Mori
teaches vehicle kinematics calculated explicitly as torques (see at least
abstract).” Final Act. 4. Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Mori or
the reason it was relied upon.
4
Appeal 2015-000213
Application 13/265,687
“variation in the relationship between a vehicle lateral force generated by the
tire lateral forces [arising during a turn] and a yaw moment about the center
of gravity of the vehicle.” Yamaguchi 17. The “object” of Yamaguchi is
“to redistribute the drive force to vary the front/aft force, the lateral [skid]
force, and the yaw moment, which act on the vehicle.” Yamaguchi | 8.
Hence, as above, Appellants’ contention that “Yamaguchi relates to the
center of gravity of a vehicle” is only a partial description of the teachings
of Yamaguchi (that is also concerned with lateral forces incurred during a
turn based upon a point external to the vehicle). Thus, Appellants’
contention that “Yamaguchi is referring to the ‘center of gravity’ of the
vehicle, not the ‘center of rotation’” (App. Br. 3) is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Appellants also state, “one skilled in the art would not have combined
this feature (i.e., use of Ishikawa’s external center O) with the device
disclosed by Yamaguchi which deals with an internal center of gravity.”
App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. Appellants do not explain how the Examiner’s
reason for combining Yamaguchi and Ishikawa might be in error. See Final
Act. 3^4; Ans. 3. Further, Appellants’ contention is not persuasive because
Ishikawa is additionally concerned with “motion at the center of gravity of
the vehicle” and that “acceleration at the center of gravity is found.”
Ishikawa 1159. In other words, forces at the center of gravity of the vehicle
and those incurred during a vehicle turn are addressed in both references.
Appellants further contend, “Yamaguchi does not disclose ‘a distance
of the wheels'1 but rather a distance from the front and rear wheels axis.'"
App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. “[N]owhere does Yamaguchi disclose correcting as
a function of a distance of the wheels to a center of rotation of the vehicle.'"
5
Appeal 2015-000213
Application 13/265,687
App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. However, regarding the focus being to a distance of
each of the wheels (see also Reply Br. 3), Ishikawa discloses this teaching.
Final Act. 3; see also Ishikawa Fig. 10. Further (and perhaps alternatively),
the Examiner states, “[a]s part of the correction process, Yamaguchi
discloses estimating road friction coefficients at each wheel” and that
Yamaguchi discloses “making corrections to partial drive torques as a
function of those estimates.” Ans. 4 (referencing Yamaguchi Figs. 12A and
12B). Thus, as per the Examiner, in addition to Ishikawa, “Yamaguchi
discloses correcting the partial drive torque as a function of estimated road
friction coefficients at each wheel.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also reiterates
that “Yamaguchi as combined with Ishikawa” is relied upon for the
recited limitations. Ans. 4.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred because the
Examiner “does not directly rebut any of the arguments” made in
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 1. However, we do not fault the
Examiner for not responding to arguments that, as indicated above, do not
themselves respond to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 (and claims 17—24, 26—28, and 31—
33) as being obvious over Yamaguchi and Ishikawa. We affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 17—24, 26—28, and 31—33 is
affirmed.
6
Appeal 2015-000213
Application 13/265,687
No time period for 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
7