Ex Parte Okubo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

13834218 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/834,218 03/15/2013
28395 7590 10/24/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carol Louise Okubo
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.
83245866 2071
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAROL LOUISE OKUBO
Appeal 2018-003 069
Application 13/834,218
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the Applicant and is identified as the
real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "compensating for altitude conditions when
setting a target engine speed" in a hybrid electric vehicle. Spec. ,r 1.
Independent claims 1 and 7, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling a vehicle comprising:
in response to a currently reduced maximum engine torque
capable of being produced by the engine due to ambient
operating conditions, commanding an engine to run at a target
engine speed exceeding an engine speed based on desired fuel
efficiency, where a calculated maximum engine torque at the
target engine speed exceeds a torque required to satisfy a driver
power request at the target engine speed.
7. A hybrid vehicle comprising:
an engine; and
a controller programmed to set a first target engine speed
in response to a driver power request and increase the target
engine speed if a calculated available torque at the first target
engine speed is insufficient to satisfy the driver power request
due to ambient operating conditions reducing maximum torque
that the engine is currently capable of producing.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as
anticipated by Takeuchi (US 2013/0166121 Al, published June 27, 2013).
2) Claims 2---6, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Takeuchi and Rayl (US 2005/0076882 Al,
published Apr. 14, 2005).
2
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, "commanding an engine to run at a target
engine speed exceeding an engine speed based on desired fuel efficiency,
where a calculated maximum engine torque at the target engine speed
exceeds a torque required to satisfy a driver power request at the target
engine speed." Br. (Claims App. 1).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner states that Takeuchi meets this
limitation because Takeuchi discloses that "when the engine has a small
sportiness index (lout) set, the torque available to the driver is restricted. If
the driver requests more power, the maximum available torque is increased
(at the cost of fuel efficiency)." Final Act. 8.
Appellant argues that the claimed "maximum torque" is distinct from
Takeuchi's "sportiness index" in that "when Takeuchi has selected the fuel
economy preference, the engine is still capable of producing a higher
maximum torque." Br. 3. Appellant asserts that Takeuchi's disclosure of
different operating modes "is not a reduced engine torque availability as
described by Applicant and would not be understood as such by one of
ordinary skill in the art based on Applicant's specification." Id. at 5.
Appellant contends that Takeuchi provides "a sporty feel or a more
comfortable feel and uses a correction factor based on the desired feel," but
does not "disclose conditions with a currently reduced maximum engine
torque capable of being produced by the engine due to ambient or engine
operating conditions." Id.
3
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
The Examiner responds that Takeuchi operates in two states, namely,
a first state, "which emphasizes fuel efficiency," and a second state, which
provides "more power." Ans. 14. The Examiner asserts that
in the first state ( emphasizing fuel efficiency) there is a reduced
torque available to the driver. When the driver requests more
torque than is currently available in the first state (by
aggressively driving, braking/accelerating as described in
Paragraph 007 6), the engine enters a second state which leaves
the engine running at a higher rotational speed than it would have
in the first state. And, in the first state ( emphasizing fuel
efficiency) the amount of torque available is less than the
maximum possible output of the engine ( as a "Correction
Coefficient" ofless than 1.0 (see Fig 8) is being applied. As long
as the engine remains in that first state, the available torque is in
a reduced state. If the driver requests more torque than is
available, [] the engine enters a second state.
Id. at 15. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection.
Although we appreciate that Takeuchi has lower rotation speed and
lower torque in the first state than in the second state, the claim requires that
a calculated maximum engine torque at the target engine speed exceeds a
torque required to satisfy a driver power request at the target engine speed.
Thus, if the target engine speed is the higher rotational state of the second
state, the calculated maximum engine torque in the second state must exceed
a requested torque in the second state. In the Examiner's analysis, the
engine is going from a reduced torque in the first state to the maximum
torque in the second state, whereas the claims require the torque in the
second state to be less than the maximum engine torque at that speed. The
Examiner does not direct us to any portion of Takeuchi that discloses that a
calculated maximum engine torque at the target engine speed exceeds a
4
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
torque required to satisfy a driver power request at the target engine speed,
as required by claim 1.
For these reasons, we determine that the Examiner's finding that
Takeuchi anticipates claim 1 is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Takeuchi.
Claims 7, 10, and 11
Claim 7 requires a controller to "increase the target engine speed if a
calculated available torque at the first target engine speed is insufficient to
satisfy the driver power request due to ambient operating conditions
reducing maximum torque that the engine is currently capable of
producing." Br. (Claims App. 2).
Appellant contends that Takeuchi provides "a sporty feel or a more
comfortable feel," by changing engine speed, but does not operate the engine
under "currently reduced maximum engine torque capable of being produced
by the engine due to ambient or engine operating conditions." Id. at 5.
Appellant further contends that "[ c ]hanging target engine speed based on a
sportiness index does not anticipate or suggest changing target engine speed
if calculated available torque is insufficient to meet the driver power
request." Br. 6.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Appellant's Specification
discloses in the Background section that it is known in the prior art that "[ a ]t
some environmental conditions, such as at increased altitudes or high
ambient temperatures, the torque availability of the engine may be reduced ..
. . The engine speed should be increased to a point where the engine may
deliver sufficient torque to satisfy the power demand." Spec. ,r 3. Thus, it is
5
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
known that conditions including temperature and altitude reduce torque and
that engine speed must be increased to compensate. See id. at Fig. 1.
Appellant does not explain adequately why Takeuchi does not operate in this
known manner. See Ans. 16 ("Takeuchi operates the same as recited.").
Specifically, Takeuchi adjusts output power (torque x rotational
speed) based on an engine rotational speed map, and controls a speed ratio to
achieve the target engine rotational speed. Takeuchi ,r 84. Takeuchi's
controller increases or decreases the command sportiness index lout to
satisfy the driver power request. Takeuchi ,r,r 73 and 75; Final Act. 9.
Takeuchi discloses that "the command sportiness index lout is, for example,
set on the basis of ... running environment information, such as gradient
information of an ascending/descending road." Takeuchi ,r 72; see also Ans.
14. Thus, Takeuchi controls engine running conditions (speed and torque)
based on environmental information. Appellant does not provide evidence
or persuasive technical arguments that distinguish Takeuchi' s environmental
information for adjusting speed or torque, from the claimed ambient
operating conditions that reduce torque.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the controller of Takeuchi
increases the engine speed due to the driver desiring more power, and that
Takeuchi's "controller would still be capable of increasing the engine output
when the driver desires more power ... 'due to ambient operating conditions
reducing maximum torque that the engine is currently capable of
producing."' Final Act. 9--10. Given that Takeuchi changes speed to adjust
a sportiness index that is based in part on environmental information,
Appellant does not explain adequately why Takeuchi is not capable of
increasing the engine speed to adjust for operating conditions, as the
Examiner finds. As Appellant does not apprise us of error, we sustain the
6
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
rejection of claim 7. Appellant does not separately argue for the
patentability of claims 10 and 11. Br. 7. We summarily sustain the rejection
of claims 10 and 11.
Claims 12-15
Independent claim 12 is directed to a method of controlling engine
speed based on a difference between a driver power request and an available
engine power, and requires that "the available engine power equals the
product of a target engine speed and an available engine torque that is less
than a calculated reduced maximum engine torque at the target engine
speed." Br. (Claims App. 2).
The Examiner rejects claim 12 based on the same findings and
reasoning regarding the claimed target engine speed of claim 1, but also
relies on Takeuchi's Figure 9 as showing "wherein the power output from
the engine is somewhere below the 'Max Torque Curve'[] due to engine or
ambient operating conditions (in this case, the engine operating condition
being that the engine has a small sportiness index, lout, set)." Final Act. 11.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's reliance on Takeuchi's
Figure 9 "is misplaced." Br. 6. Similar to claim 1, the power output of
claim 12 is determined for "a calculated reduced maximum engine torque at
the target engine speed." (Emphasis added). As discussed above,
Takeuchi's engine is going from a reduced torque in the first state to the
maximum torque in the second state, whereas, the claims require the torque
to be less than the maximum at the target engine speed, i.e. in the second
state. Takeuchi's Figure 9 depicts an "operating range (minimum fuel
consumption range, i.e. maximum fuel efficiency range) in which the fuel
consumption is minimum may be expressed by an ellipse about a
7
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
predetermined rotational speed and a predetermined torque." Takeuchi ,r 74.
Within this ellipse, Takeuchi is operating at maximum fuel efficiency in "the
first state." See Ans. 15. When the driver in Takeuchi requests more torque,
the engine enters "the second state" (see Ans. 15), to achieve the maximum
torque, i.e., on Takeuchi's "Max Torque Curve." Takeuchi Fig. 9. Given
that Takeuchi's Figure 9 only shows a maximum torque, we agree with
Appellant that Takeuchi's Figure 9 does not show an available engine torque
that is less than a calculated reduced maximum engine torque at the target
engine speed, as required by claim 12, and thus, does not remedy the
shortcomings of Takeuchi discussed above for claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 and
claims 13-15, which depend from claim 12, as anticipated by Takeuchi.
Rejection 2
Claims 2---6, 16, and 1 7
Claims 2-6 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claims 16
and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12. Br. (Claims App. 1-3).
The Examiner's reliance on additional disclosure from Rayl in this rejection
fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection based on Takeuchi discussed
above in connection with the rejection of claims 1 and 12. Final Act. 12-16.
Specifically, the "torque reserve" in Rayl is used to transition between an
activated mode where the engine operates on all cylinders and a deactivated
mode that operates the engine using less than all cylinders. Rayl ,r,r 2, 9.
Given that Takeuchi does not transition between activated and deactivated
modes, the Examiner does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to control Takeuchi's engine output
based on in the teachings of Rayl. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
8
Appeal2018-003069
Application 13/834,218
of claims 2-6, 16, and 17 for the same reasons stated above in connection
with claims 1 and 12.
Claims 8 and 9
Claims 8 and 9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 7. Appellant
does not separately argue for the patentability of claims 8 and 9. Br. 8. For
the same reasons discussed above for claim 7, we likewise summarily
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7, and 10-15 as anticipated by
Takeuchi is reversed as to claims 1 and 12-15, and is affirmed as to claims
7, 10, and 11.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2---6, 8, 9, 16, and 17 as
unpatentable over Takeuchi and Rayl is reversed as to claims 2-6, 16, and
1 7, and is affirmed as to claims 8 and 9.
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
9