Ex Parte Nefcy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14299513 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/299,513 06/09/2014 Bernard D. Nefcy
28866 7590 09/26/2018
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83390912 2158
EXAMINER
KLEINMAN, LAIL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
MST@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARD D. NEFCY, MARVIN P. KRASKA, and
DANIEL S. COL VIN 1
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Ford Global Technologies LLC (Appellant) is the Applicant, as provided in
3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are independent. Appeal Br. 16-18 ( Claims
App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of controlling a hybrid powertrain comprising:
receiving a transmission shift request while an electric
machine, which is always drivingly connected to vehicle
wheels, is propelling a vehicle and an engine is stopped; and
timing completion of the shift request as a function of a
torque capacity of the machine relative to a shifting torque
required to complete the shift request.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
II. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Tanishima (US 2007 /0259755 Al, pub. Nov. 8, 2007).
III. Claims 1-5, 7, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tanishima and Soliman (US 2008/0196952 Al,
pub. Aug. 21, 2008).
IV. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Tanishima, Soliman, and Ortmann et al. (US 2005/0054480
Al, pub. Mar. 10, 2005, hereinafter "Ortmann").
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that claim 1, as well as claims 2-7, which
depend from claim 1, are indefinite because "the recitation 'an electric
machine, which is always drivingly connected to vehicle wheels" is vague
2
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
and indefinite." Final Act. 6. The Examiner's basis for this determination is
that, in Appellant's disclosed invention, "there is a torque converter disposed
between the electric machine and the vehicle wheels." Id. The Examiner
explains that "a torque converter is a fluid coupling which engages and
disengages drivetrain components, similar in purpose to the clutch of'
Tanishima, which Appellant contends does not always drivingly connect the
motor ( electric machine) to vehicle wheels. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds an
inconsistency between the claim language "an electric machine, which is
always drivingly connected to vehicle wheels," and the disclosed invention,
in which the electric machine is connected to the vehicle wheels via a torque
converter, thereby rendering it unclear "what is being claimed in light of
[Appellant's] original disclosure." Id.
Appellant argues, persuasively, that there is no inconsistency between
the claim language and the disclosure of a torque converter between the
electric machine and the wheels. See Appeal Br. 7. As Appellant explains,
"[ w ]hile a torque converter may allow for slippage within the converter that
allows torque being transmitted by the motor to be overcome by brakes on
the vehicle wheels, this does not disengage the electric machine [(i.e., the
motor)] from being driving[ly] connected to the wheels." Id. "[T]he electric
machine is drivingly connected to the vehicle wheels, even if a vehicle's
brakes overcome the torque produced by this driving connection." Id. A
person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claim
language "always drivingly connected to vehicle wheels" requires that the
electric machine be connected to the vehicle wheels in such a manner that at
least some portion of any torque produced by the electric machine is
transferred to the vehicle wheels, even if that transferred torque is so small
3
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
that it may be overcome by brakes. Thus, an electric machine connected to
vehicle wheels by a torque converter, as disclosed in the present application,
satisfies this limitation, but an electric machine connected to vehicle wheels
by a clutch that can be completely disengaged so as to decouple, or
disconnect, the electric machine from the vehicle wheels, would not satisfy
this limitation.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ).
The Examiner determines that claim 8, as well as claims 9 and 10,
which depend from claim 8, are indefinite because "it appears the engine is
started prior to the completion of the transmission shift request as part of the
delaying limitation," and, according to the Examiner, this is inconsistent
with the "engine remaining stopped after the transmission gear change"
language in the "completing the shift request" limitation. See Final Act. 6-
7.
The Examiner's position is untenable. As Appellant explains, each of
the two steps recited in claim 8 is performed only when one of two mutually
exclusive conditions is met. The step of "completing the shift request" is
performed "when a torque capacity of the machine exceeds a shifting torque
required to complete the shift request with the engine remaining stopped
after the transmission gear change" (i.e., without the assistance of the
engine), and the step of "delaying completing the shift request while starting
the engine" is performed "when the shifting torque [ required to complete the
shift request without the assistance of the engine] exceeds the torque
capacity" of the machine. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Claim 8 does not
recite starting the engine prior to completing the shift request and then
4
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
completing the shift request with the engine remaining stopped after the
transmission gear change, as the Examiner's rejection suggests.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b ).
Rejection II
In rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tanishima, the Examiner finds that Tanishima discloses receiving a
transmission shift request while an electric machine is propelling a vehicle
and an engine is stopped, in that Tanishima's controller provides a gear shift
in the transmission when operating in electric drive (EV) mode. Final Act.
14 ( citing Tanishima ,r 8); see Tanishima ,r,r 5, 7 ( disclosing that, in EV
mode, the engine is stopped, the first clutch is disengaged, and the second
clutch is engaged, such that the vehicle travels only by power from the
motor-generator). In this regard, Tanishima discloses that, in addition to
providing a mode shift between EV mode and hybrid drive (HEV) mode, the
controller is operable "to selectively provide a gear shift in the
transmission." Tanishima ,r 8. Although Tanishima is particularly
concerned with addressing situations when "a request for the mode shift and
a request for the gear shift are received at or substantially at the same time"
(id.), Tanishima at least implicitly contemplates completing gear shifts in
EV mode, without a simultaneous request for a mode shift. See id.; see also
id. ,r,r 4 7--48 ( disclosing operation in EV mode, including the automatic
transmission changing the speed of rotation from the motor-generator
between input shaft 3a and output shaft 3b "in accordance with a selected
gear").
5
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
The Examiner finds that Tanishima's disclosure of operating in EV
mode with a transmission gear shift constitutes "completing the shift request
using the machine to change gearings in a transmission when a torque
capacity of the machine exceeds a shifting torque required to complete the
shift request." Final Act. 14 (citing Tanishima ,r,r 47--48). The Examiner
finds that "Tanishima fails to explicitly disclose completing the shift request
using the machine to change gearings in a transmission when a torque
capacity of the machine exceeds a shifting torque required to complete the
shift request with the engine remaining stopped after the transmission"
gear change, as required in claim 8. Id. at 15. However, the Examiner finds
that "Tanishima discloses ... controlling a hybrid vehicle powertrain, in part
by shifting gears of a transmission when a hybrid vehicle is in an electric
only, or EV, mode." Id. (citing Tanishima ,r,r 47--48). The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to modify Tanishima by
Id.
completing the shift request using the machine to change
gearings in a transmission when a torque capacity of the
machine exceeds a shifting torque required to complete the shift
request with the engine remaining stopped after the
transmission [gear change], because the shift is completed
while the vehicle is in an EV only mode, i.e.[,] engine is off.
The Examiner's rationale as to why the step of "completing the shift
request ... when a torque capacity of the machine exceeds a shifting torque
required to complete the shift request with the engine remaining stopped
after the transmission gear change" would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of Tanishima has rational
underpinnings. For the reasons set forth above, although Tanishima may not
explicitly mention transmission gear changes during EV mode, one would
6
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
reasonably infer from Tanishima's teachings of selectively providing a gear
shift in the transmission (Tanishima ,r 8) and changing the speed of rotation
from the motor-generator between the input shaft and the output shaft in
accordance with a selected gear while operating in EV mode (id. ,r 48) that
such transmission gear changes are made in EV mode (i.e., with the engine
remaining stopped after the transmission gear change). Clearly, such
transmission gear changes occur in EV mode when a torque capacity of the
motor-generator exceeds a shifting torque required to complete the shift
request with the engine remaining stopped after the transmission gear
change (i.e., with the motor-generator only, without assistance from the
engine).
In contesting the rejection of claim 8, Appellant argues only that the
portions of Tanishima cited by the Examiner in addressing the "delaying"
step are not related to the claimed step of "delaying the shift request while
starting the engine when the shifting torque exceeds the torque capacity,
then completing the shift request while supplying torque from the machine
and started engine." Appeal Br. 14--15. This argument is unavailing
because the claimed method can be completed without performing this
"delaying" step. As Appellant recognizes, "the steps in claim 8 are
conditional," and "the engine being started prior to completion of the shift
request relates to the condition where the shifting torque exceeds torque
capacity." Appeal Br. 8. In other words, the step of "delaying completing
the shift request while starting the engine" is not performed when the torque
capacity of the machine exceeds the required shifting torque. See Ex parte
Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB Apr. 28,
2016) (precedential) (holding "[t]he Examiner did not need to present
7
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of claim 1 that
are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claim").
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8, as
well as claims 9 and 10, for which Appellant relies solely on their
dependence from claim 8 (see Appeal Br. 15), under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tanishima.
Re} ection III
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "timing completion of
the shift request as a function of a torque capacity of the machine relative to
a shifting torque required to complete the shift request." Appeal Br. 16
(Claims App.). Independent claim 11 contains a similar limitation-namely,
"timing downshifting the transmission as a function of a torque capacity of
the machine relative to a shifting torque required to downshift the
transmission by changing transmission gearings." Id. at 18.
As best illustrated in Figure 11, Tanishima discloses performing the
mode shift and the gear shift in tum, rather than in parallel, during vehicle
operating states in which it is suitable to prioritize minimizing shock and
unintended driving force drop over minimizing response time to complete
both the mode shift and the gear shift, and performing the mode shift and the
gear shift in parallel during vehicle operating states in which it is suitable to
prioritize minimizing response time over minimizing shock and unintended
driving force drop. Tanishima ,r 27. More specifically, where the
accelerator pedal is operated in a "slow or 'soft"' manner, the mode shift is
8
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
performed first and the downshift is performed after that, thereby
minimizing shock and unintended driving force drop. Id. ,r 80. On the other
hand, where the accelerator pedal is operated in a "quick or 'hard"' manner,
the mode shift and downshift are performed in parallel, thereby reducing the
response time of mode shifting and gear shifting. Id. ,r 81.
The Examiner finds that Tanishima does not disclose timing the
downshift as a function of a torque capacity of the machine (i.e.,
motor-generator) relative to a shifting torque required to complete the
downshift, and relies on Soliman for this aspect of the invention. See Final
Act. 8, 10-11. The Examiner finds that "Soliman teaches controlling a
hybrid vehicle powertrain, wherein transmission shifting is adjusted based in
part on the tractive effort capabilities of a motor/generator" and "timing
downshifting the transmission as a function of a torque capacity of the
machine relative to a shifting torque required to downshift the transmission
by changing transmission gearings." Id. at 8, 11 (citing Soliman ,r,r 7, 30).
Appellant argues that "the [E]xaminer' s combination of Soliman with
Tanishima changes the operation of Tanishima to remove the specific
desired shift order for either the 'smooth' shift or the 'fast' shift, which
Tanishima is trying to accomplish," namely, "sequential shift from EV to
HEV first then downshift for smoother shifting, or simultaneously EV mode
to HEV mode and downshift to get faster shift." Appeal Br. 10 (citing
Tanishima ,r,r 79--81 ).
Soliman's disclosure is directed, in part, to appropriately distributing
tractive effort between the available torque sources. See Soliman ,r,r 40, 72.
Although the preferred embodiment specifically described in detail by
Soliman includes the internal combustion (IC) engine and a first electric
9
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
energy conversion device (CISG) motor in a first flowpath through a fixed-
ratio transmission and a second electric energy conversion device (ERAD)
motor in a second flowpath, each connected to the wheels by a planetary
gear set, Soliman also discloses that, "[i]n some embodiments, the ERAD
motor may be omitted and the tractive effort distribution may be split
between the IC engine and the CISG motor." Soliman ,r,r 18, 40-46, 48, 72.
Soliman also teaches that the timing of the shift schedule may be adjusted
"such that shifting between gears of the transmission may occur earlier or
later in the powerband of the engine based on desired torque output." Id.
,r 30. For example, under low driver demand, "the shift schedule may be
adjusted so that shifts occur earlier to improve fuel economy performance
since the desired torque output can be met in all gears." Id. Under high
driver demand, "the shift schedule may be adjusted so that shifts occur later
to improve torque output and performance of the engine since the desired
torque output may not necessarily be met in all gears." Id.
Soliman teaches adjusting the timing of shifts between gears to
improve engine fuel efficiency performance and to improve torque output
and engine performance. In order to address these concerns, Soliman
teaches shifting gears earlier when driver demand is low ( e.g., when the
driver operates the accelerator pedal in a "slow or 'soft"' manner) and
shifting gears later when driver demand is high (e.g., when the driver
operates the accelerator pedal in a "fast or 'hard"' manner). Id. In this
regard, Soliman operates under a fundamentally different principle than
Tanishima. As discussed above, Tanishima teaches controlling the shift
schedule to prioritize minimizing shock and unintended driving force drop,
by delaying the shift until after the mode shift, when the accelerator pedal is
10
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
operated in a "slow or 'soft"' manner, and controlling the shift schedule to
prioritize response, by shifting gears in parallel with the mode shift, when
the accelerator pedal is operated in a "fast or 'hard"' manner. Tanishima
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the combination of Tanishima and
Soliman proposed by the Examiner would fundamentally change the basic
principle of operation of Tanishima and undermine its objectives, and, thus,
would not have been obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 11, or claims 2-5, 7, or 12-14, which depend
from claim 1 or claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tanishima and Soliman.
Re} ection IV
The aforementioned deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
also pervades the rejection of claim 6, which depends from claim 1. See
Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner's application of Ortmann does not make up
for this deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tanishima, Soliman,
and Ortmann.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Tanishima is AFFIRMED.
11
Appeal2018-000912
Application 14/299,513
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, and 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tanishima and Soliman is
REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tanishima, Soliman, and Ortmann is REVERSED.
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-IN-PART
12