Ex Parte Thompson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2017

14013913 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 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.
14/013,913 08/29/2013 Scott James Thompson 83371134 1538
28395 7590 07/07/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2017 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 SCOTT JAMES THOMPSON
(Applicant: Ford Global Technologies, LLC)
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-21, which are all the claims pending on
appeal.1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claim 14 is cancelled. See Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to using the
generator of a hybrid vehicle to drive the crankshaft with the engine turned
off to provide lubricant to the engine by actuating the oil pump. See Spec. 7,
38.2 Claims 1,8, and 13 are independent. Claims 1,13, and 21 are
representative and are reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A hybrid vehicle comprising:
an engine having a crankshaft;
an electric machine coupled to the crankshaft;
a pump driven by rotation of the crankshaft and coupled to
the engine by a fluid circuit; and
a controller configured to control the electric machine in
response to a wheel torque request to drive the crankshaft with
the engine off to provide lubricant to the engine.
Appeal Br. (Claims App’x 1).
13. A vehicle system comprising:
a pump coupled to a crankshaft of an engme to provide
lubricant thereto in response to rotation of the crankshaft; and
a controller configured to control an electric machine to
drive the crankshaft with the engine off after a predetermined
time from a prior lubrication event;
wherein the controller is further configured to control the
electric machine to drive the crankshaft with the engine off after
a second predetermined time from the lubrication event and in
response to a wheel torque request exceeding an available engine
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following documents:
(1) Appellant’s Specification, filed August 29, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed October 23, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”), filed March 24, 2016; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”),
mailed October 7, 2016; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed
December 7, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
braking torque, wherein the second predetermined time is less
than the predetermined time.
Appeal Br. (Claims App’x 3).
21. The vehicle system of claim 1 wherein the
controller is further configured to determine a total braking
torque based on the wheel torque request.
Appeal Br. (Claims App’x 4).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Downs et al. (“Downs”) US 2002/0093202 A1 July 18, 2002
Ledger et al. (“Ledger”) US 7,395,803 B2 July 8, 2008
Shibata et al. (“Shibata”) US 2009/0236159 Al Sept. 24, 2009
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1—4, 8-13, 15-17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Downs. Final Act. 3-7.
(2) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Downs and Shibata. Final Act. 7-8.
(3) Claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Downs and Ledger. Final Act. 8-9.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Downs discloses “a controller
configured to control the electric machine in response to a wheel torque
request to drive the crankshaft with the engine off to provide lubricant to the
engine,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Downs discloses
a controller configured to control an electric machine to drive the
crankshaft with the engine off after a predetermined time from a
prior lubrication event; wherein the controller is further
configured to control the electric machine to drive the crankshaft
with the engine off after a second predetermined time from the
lubrication event,
as recited in claim 13?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding Downs discloses “wherein the
controller is further configured to determine a total braking torque based on
the wheel torque request,” as recited in claim 21?
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Issue 1
The Examiner finds Downs discloses “a controller configured to
control the electric machine in response to a wheel torque request to drive
the crankshaft with the engine off to provide lubricant to the engine,” as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans 2-3 (citing Downs 7-8, 14, 17, 20-
30, and 33).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding. As an initial matter, we note
that paragraph 28 of Downs, cited by the Examiner, discloses the entire
disputed limitation other than “in response to a wheel torque request,” i.e.,
“controlling [the] engine crankshaft” using electric motor-generator 31
4
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
“when the engine is stalled” (off) to maintain engine lubricant. Downs ^ 28;
see also Ans. 3.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Downs discloses the
disputed limitation because “Downs discloses a control method that controls
the electric motor-generator 31 to drive the crankshaft in response to the
time the engine is stalled, and not ‘in response to a wheel torque request’ as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Downs discloses “[i]f the
driver demands acceleration after the engine speed has dropped below a
minimum reference, the motor-generator 14 may again act as a motor to
turn the crankshaft 28, in conjunction with fuel delivery, to restart
combustion in the spinning engine.” Downs ^ 20 (emphasis added). The
Examiner interprets “the recited wheel torque request... as ... a change in
speed or an acceleration/deceleration requested on the engine or to the
wheels, or, for example, through the drive gear of the transmission, from the
driver.” Ans. 2 (citing Spec. 30, 33). Appellant fails to establish the
Examiner’s interpretation is not the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellant’s Specification. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In view of this interpretation,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Down’s driver-demanded
acceleration discloses “a wheel torque request,” as claimed. Ans. 2-3.
We further agree that “a minimum reference engine speed” is
contemplated in Downs to include a zero value, i.e., a stalled engine,
because Downs discusses stopping fuel delivery to the engine in response to
the driver applying the brake pedal in the preceding paragraph. See Downs
19. Moreover, Downs indicates that combustion is restarted, thus,
5
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
confirming combustion was stopped i.e., the engine turned off. See Downs
120.
Accordingly, because Downs discloses a control method that controls
the electric motor-generator 31 to drive the crankshaft in response to the
driver’s demand for acceleration, we disagree with Appellant’s argument
that Downs discloses “a control method ... in response to the time the
engine is stalled, and not ‘in response to a wheel torque request’ as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 7.
We therefore find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s findings, which we adopt as our own. We find Downs discloses
“a controller configured to control the electric machine in response to a
wheel torque request to drive the crankshaft with the engine off to provide
lubricant to the engine,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 2-3. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claim 8
and dependent claims 2—4 and 9-12, which are not argued separately.
Appeal Br. 8; See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue 2
The Examiner finds Downs discloses “a controller configured to
control an electric machine to drive the crankshaft with the engine off after a
predetermined time from a prior lubrication event; wherein the controller is
further configured to control the electric machine to drive the crankshaft
with the engine off after a second predetermined time from the lubrication
event,” as recited in claim 13. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 4 (citing Downs 7-8,
14, 17, 20-28, and claim 8).
6
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
Appellant argues “Downs does not disclose two different conditions,
including two different predetermined times, to determine when to start
pulsing the motor-generator/driving the crankshaft.” Appeal Br. 10. Rather,
Appellant argues, Downs teaches a comparison to a predetermined time (i.e.,
the critical time) to determine when to start pulsing the motor-
generator/driving the crankshaft; and a comparison to a different
predetermined time (i.e., the maximum time) to determine when to stop
pulsing the motorgenerator/ driving the crankshaft. Id. (citing Downs 29,
31).
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because Appellant fails
to specifically respond to the Examiner’s finding that “[i]f the summed pulse
time is less than the maximum [time], then the controller continues to
monitor the input variables and run the lubrication redistribution routine
until the engine restart command is given, fig. 4 lubrication redistribution
control ref. 120-130 and related text, ‘effective lube time > critical time?’,
NO/YES.” Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted, citing Downs Fig. 4 [sic] [recte
Fig. 3C]). We agree with the Examiner’s finding, noting that if the cycle
illustrated in Figure 3C of Downs repeats at step 130 because the X pulse
time is not greater than the maximum time, the ensuing second cycle results
in a second predetermined time elapsing since the prior lube event (in
contrast with the first predetermined time of the first cycle). The Examiner’s
finding is reasonable, particularly in view of the lack of clarity in the term
“the lubrication event” in claim 13.3
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should determine
whether there is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the lubrication
event” in claim 13.
7
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
rejection of claim 13. Dependent claims 15-20 are not argued separately, so
the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reason. Appeal Br. 8.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue 3
The Examiner finds Downs discloses “wherein the controller is
further configured to determine a total braking torque based on the wheel
torque request,” as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5 (citing Downs
19-26, and claim 2). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Down’s
discussion of applying a pre loading torque in the direction of the crankshaft
rotation and applying regenerative braking to slow the crankshaft to the
desired position. Id.
Appellant argues “Downs generally describes starting and stopping
the engine and regenerative braking in paragraphs [0019], [0021] and a ‘Pre-
Positioning Control Method’ for controlling a ‘crankshaft stall position,”’
but “Downs does not disclose a ‘ wheel torque request,’ nor does Downs
disclose a controller ‘configured to determine a total braking torque based
on the wheel torque request,’” as claimed. Appeal Br. 10-11.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because Appellant has
not specifically addressed the Examiner’s findings and reasoning regarding
Downs and, thus, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s findings
and reasoning are in error. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
8
Appeal 2017-002927
Application 14/013,913
Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 7, 18 and 19 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant does not make any other substantive argument regarding
the rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 7, 18, and 19. See Appeal Br. 8.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9