Ex Parte McGrath et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 24, 201814309560 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/309,560 06/19/2014 Seamus McGRATH 00041-4003-00000 1094 108449 7590 01/26/2018 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC 2020 K Street NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER ZHOU, ZIXUAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2018 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): u sptomail @ borne ip .com KRoss@bomcip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEAMUS MCGRATH and REUBEN SARKAR Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,5601 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MARKNAGUMO, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to35U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner’ rejections adverse to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 21, 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Proterra, Inc., which is also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 22, 24, and 252 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hendrix,3 and claims 10-16 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hendrix in view of Hill.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse, and enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 1 and 17 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, with key limitations at issue in this appeal italicized for emphasis: 1. A method for controlling the charging of multiple electric vehicles operating in a geographic area using a control system, the geographic area including one or more charging stations configured to charge the multiple electric vehicles, comprising: inputting a tariff schedule into the control system, the tariff schedule identifying the cost of energy at different times in the geographic area; receiving, using the control system, data from each electric vehicle of the multiple electric vehicles, the multiple electric vehicles including (i) at least one electric vehicle coupled to a charging station of the multiple charging stations and (ii) at least one electric vehicle not coupled to a charging station of the multiple charging stations, the data including at least a state of charge of the vehicle; and 2 The rejection heading erroneously includes claims 10-16 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Final Act. 4. We treat this as a typographical error because no specific anticipation grounds for these claims are set forth in the Final Rejection, and because these claims are also rejected for obviousness. See generally Final Act. 3 US 2012/0330494 Al, published December 27, 2012. 4 US 2013/0221918 Al, published August 29, 2013. 2 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 sending instructions from the control system to at least one vehicle of the multiple electric vehicles or at least one charging station of the one or more charging stations, the instructions including at least an amount of energy to transfer to the at least one vehicle based at least on (a) the tariff schedule and (b) the state of charge of each vehicle of the multiple electric vehicles. 17. A control system for controlling the charging of a fleet of electric vehicles operating in a geographic area, the geographic area including one or more charging stations configured to charge the fleet of electric vehicles, comprising: a computer system configured to receive a tariff schedule, the tariff schedule identifying the cost of energy at different times in the geographic area; a receiver configured to receive data related to a state of charge from multiple electric vehicles of the fleet of electric vehicles, the multiple electric vehicles including (i) at least one vehicle coupled to a charging station of the one or more charging stations and (ii) at least one vehicle not coupled to a charging station of the one or more charging stations; and a processor configured to determine an amount of energy to transfer to an electric vehicle of the multiple electric vehicles during charging based on at least (a) the tariff schedule and (b) the state of charge of each electric vehicle of the multiple electric vehicles. App. Br. 29, 32 (emphasis added). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner finds that Hendrix discloses each of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17. Final Act. 4—11, 14—15. Appellant contends, inter alia, that Hendrix fails to disclose the “sending” limitation recited in claim 1, and the “processor” limitation recited in claim 17. App. Br. 15, 20— 21. Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that Hendrix’s method “does not determine the amount of energy to provide to an electric vehicle based on the state of charge of a vehicle ‘not coupled to a charging 3 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 station’” as required by the claim. Id. at 16. Similarly, regarding claim 17, Appellant urges that Hendrix’s processor is not configured to determine an amount of energy to be transferred to an electric vehicle (“EV”) based on the state of charge of each of the multiple vehicles in the fleet, which includes at least one vehicle not coupled to a charging station. Id. at 20-21. OPINION We agree with Appellant, and thus need only address the independent claims. On this record, the Examiner has not identified any disclosure within Hendrix that evinces that the control system necessarily sends instructions to a vehicle regarding the amount of energy to transfer to such vehicle based on the state of charge of each vehicle of the recited multiple electric vehicles (i.e., those coupled and uncoupled to a charging station) as required by claim 1. As corrected noted by Appellant (App. Br. 16), the Examiner relies on Figures 24c and 28b and paragraphs 94 and 98 to satisfy this limitation. None of this disclosure, however, includes an uncoupled EV and therefore cannot anticipate the sending of instructions regarding an amount of energy to provide a vehicle based on the state of charge of all vehicles in the fleet, including at least one vehicle that is not coupled to a charging station. We recognize the Examiner’s finding that Hendrix discloses an electric vehicle (EV) network module (“EV-M”) “located within the vehicle and Fig. 5b discloses all the instruction communication 510.” Final Act. 5, citing Hendrix Fig. 23. While we agree that Hendrix discloses that the module may wirelessly communicate the state of charge of a vehicle uncoupled to the charging station flflf 76, 93, Fig. 14a), the Examiner fails to point to any disclosure that establishes that the charge state of such an 4 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 uncoupled vehicle is then used in the development of instructions (i.e., where the instructions are “based on”) regarding how much energy is to be transferred to a vehicle. Indeed, as correctly noted by Appellant (App. Br. 17), there is no disclosure in Hendrix’s discussion of Figure 14a to support a finding that the data that is accessed from the uncoupled EVs via the EV-M is then used to determine the amount of energy to provide a vehicle during charging. See Hendrix || 75, 76. In view of the above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom. Because the Examiner relies on substantially the same erroneous findings to support the rejections of independent claims 11 (Final Act. 20), and 17 (id. at 14— 15), we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these independent claims and their dependent claims for the reasons expressed above. New ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendrix. We also newly reject independent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendrix in view of Hill for reasons that differ from those provided by the Examiner.5 5 Our new grounds of rejection focus on independent claims 1,11, and 17. We leave to the sound discretion of the Examiner to determine the propriety of rejecting dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8—10, 12—16, 18, and 21—25 based on the factual findings and reasoning set forth in our new grounds of rejection. 5 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 Claims 1 & 11 We adopt each of the Examiner’s findings regarding claims 1 and 11 as our own, except for those findings that the limitation requiring “sending instructions from the control system to at least one vehicle [the at least one bus] of the multiple vehicles or at least one charging station . . . the instructions including at least an amount of energy to transfer to the at least one vehicle [bus] based at least on (a) the tariff schedule and (b) the state of charge of each vehicle [bus] of the multiple electric vehicles [plurality of electric buses]” is described, expressly or inherently. Final Act. 4—5, 19-20. Hendrix discloses sending instructions from the control system to at least one vehicle of the multiple electric vehicles or at least one charging station of the one or more charging stations. | 88. Hendrix discloses further that the communication between the charging station and the control system includes, but is not limited to, “charge control.” Id. Hendrix discloses that data, such as battery charge level, is collected from vehicles in the fleet including vehicles that are coupled and not coupled to a charging station, and that this data is stored and may be accessed by the control system. || 76, 77, 82, 93, 94. Once the data is gathered, it may be manipulated by an algorithm to determine parameters such as electricity used, electricity cost for charging, and electricity rate. H 77, 82. Hendrix discloses a processor which performs “various logic routines like optimizing charging schedules as a function of utility rate . . . and adjusting charging parameters to meet charging deadlines and economy goals.” 172. While Hendrix discloses that charging instructions for a vehicle are based on a utility tariff schedule in order to minimize energy consumption, Hendrix does not expressly indicate that the charging instructions are also based on the charge status data that is collected from each of the vehicles in 6 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 the fleet. However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to include fleet charge status data, in combination with the tariff schedule, to further optimize the charging schedule for the vehicles in the fleet and realize additional economic savings because charge status data is already being collected, stored, and accessed regarding each of the fleet vehicles. Based on the logic routines disclosed by Hendrix to be well-known to those skilled in the art, we find that skilled artisan would have had sufficient skill and motivation to utilize the collected data to optimize the charging schedule for the vehicles in the fleet. Therefore, we hold that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hendrix. Regarding claim 11, Hendrix does not expressly disclose that the electric vehicle is a bus. Hendrix also does not expressly indicate that the charging instructions are also based on the charge status data that is collected from each of the vehicles, e.g., buses, in the fleet. Hill, however, discloses an electric bus may interface with a vehicle charging system (138), and that a plurality of electric buses may be present in a fleet of electric vehicles flflf 83, 96). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Hendrix as set forth above regarding claim 1 to include using such fleet charge status data, in combination with the tariff schedule, to further optimize the charging schedule for the vehicles in the fleet and realize additional economic savings. As evinced by Hill, the skilled artisan would have recognized that an electric bus is a known type of electric vehicle. Therefore, it also would have been obvious to use electric buses as Hendrix’s electric vehicles, in order to expand the universe of vehicles using an optimized charging schedule and, therefore, predictably reduce the 7 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 charging costs for such vehicles. Therefore, independent claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hendrix in view of Hill. Claim 17 We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 17 as our own, except for the finding regarding the control system’s processor. Hendrix discloses a processor configured to perform “various logic routines like optimizing charging schedules as a function of utility rate . . . and adjusting charging parameters to meet charging deadlines and economy goals.” 172. While Hendrix discloses a processor that is configured to determine an amount of energy to transfer to a vehicle based on a utility tariff schedule in order to minimize energy consumption, Hendrix does not expressly indicate that the charging instructions are also based on the charge status data that is collected from each of the vehicles in the fleet. However, because charge status data is already being collected, stored, and accessed regarding each of the fleet vehicles flflf 76, 77, 82, 93, 94), it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use such data, in combination with the tariff schedule, to further optimize the charging schedule for the vehicles in the fleet and realize additional economic savings. Therefore, we determine that independent claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hendrix. SUMMARY The Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—18, and 21—25 is reversed. Claims 1,11, and 17 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 8 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 REVERSED 37 C.F.R. $ 41.50(b) TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides: When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. 9 Appeal 2017-003487 Application 14/309,560 Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation