Ex Parte Yamazaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

13346976 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

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.
13/346,976 01/10/2012 Mark Steven Yamazaki 83209602 8090
28395 7590 11/23/2016
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER JABR, FADEY S
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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 MARK STEVEN YAMAZAKI, FAZAL URRAHMAN SYED,
and MING LANG KUANG
Appeal 2015-0000631,2
Application 13/346,976
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3—11, and 13—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Jan. 10,
2012) and Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 25, 2014), as well as the Final
Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed Dec. 27, 2013) and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Answer,” mailed July 21, 2014). We note that although the
Examiner references “the Office action dated February 24, 2014[,] from
which the appeal is taken” (Answer 3), this appears to be a typographical
error, as the record does not appear to include such an Office Action.
2 According to Appellants, Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the real party
in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-000063
Application 13/346,976
According to Appellants, the invention “relate[s] to a control system
for controlling distribution of energy from a battery in a powertrain for a
hybrid electric vehicle.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the only
independent claims. See Br., Claims App. We reproduce claims 1 and 15,
below, with formatting added, as representative of the appealed claims.
1. A method for controlling energy distribution within
a HEV powertrain including sensors in signal communication
with a controller, the method comprising:
generating, by the controller, a feedforward battery power
value in response to input indicative of a driver torque request;
generating, by the controller, a feedback battery power
modification value in response to input indicative of actual
battery power and the driver torque request;
selectively disabling, by the controller, feedback by setting
the feedback power modification value to zero; and
calculating, by the controller, a battery power request
based on a sum of the feedforward battery power value and the
feedback battery power modification value.
15. A hybrid electric vehicle comprising:
a control unit configured to generate output indicative of a
gear selection in response to a transmission input speed; and
a controller communicating with the control unit and
configured to generate output indicative of an engine torque
command and a motor torque command in response to input
indicative of a driver torque request and actual battery power,
and independent of the gear selection.
Id.
2
Appeal 2015-000063
Application 13/346,976
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART3
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bose
(US 8,080,971 B2, iss. Dec. 20, 2011) and De La Salle
(US 6,687,582 Bl, iss. Feb. 3, 2004);
II. claims 3—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bose,
De La Salle, Yoshida (US 2011/0245034 Al, pub. Oct. 6,
2011), and Mashadi & Emadi, Dual-Mode Power-Split
Transmission for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, 59 IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology 3223-3232 (2010)
(hereinafter “Mashadi”);
III. claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bose,
De La Salle, and Nakashima (US 6,441,506 B2, iss. Aug. 27,
2002);
IV. claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bose,
De La Salle, and Joshi et al., Modeling and Simulation of a
Dual Clutch Hybrid Vehicle Powertrain, 1666—1673 (2009)
(hereinafter “Joshi”);
V. claims 8—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
De La Salle, Mashadi, and Bose;
VI. claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
De La Salle, Mashadi, Yoshida, and Nakashima;
3 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
that the Examiner made in the Final Action. See Answer 3; see Final
Action 6.
3
Appeal 2015-000063
Application 13/346,976
VII. claims 15—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
De La Salle; and
VIII. claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
De La Salle and Kaneko (US 2008/0190680 Al, pub. Aug. 14,
2008).
See Final Action 7—28.
ANALYSIS
Rejections I—IV
With respect to claim 1, Appellants argue that the obviousness
rejection is erroneous because, among other things, neither Bose nor De La
Salle discloses using a controller to selectively disable feedback. See, e.g.,
Br. 7—8. Based on our review, we agree with Appellants, and, thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner finds that “Bose discloses selectively disabling
feedback (see at least [c]ol[.] 5, lines 42[—]44, feedforward torque
adjustment term may be selectively applied to either motor or engine;
[c]ol[.] 6, lines 51[—]64, [c]ol[.] 8, lines 10[—] 18, driving cycle, performance
indices are selected / minimized).” Answer 4. But, none of these portions
discloses, to our understanding, disabling feedback. The cited portion of
column 5 states that “[a]ll present technology in controlling a fuel cell or
battery are based on system internal characteristics, but none of them are
formed by using the described mathematics before.” Bose, col. 5,11. 42^45.
Column 6 of Bose states, in part:
The main part of the invention is the control of power flow
between the various energy storage device sources. For a
vehicle, power requirements are going to vary at different times
4
Appeal 2015-000063
Application 13/346,976
in the driving cycle. Demands could range from drawing large
power from the sources while accelerating up hill to supplying
regenerative braking power to the sources when going downhill
or braking. Also, power needs to flow between the various
energy sources in order to maintain the proper charge on the
batteries and capacitors. This component of the invention uses
optimal control theory to determine the power flow in the various
components. A performance index is determined based on the
battery state of charge and the fuel cell power output is
determined to minimize this index.
Id. at col. 6,11. 51—64. The cited portion of Bose’s column 8 states:
In summary, first, the system dynamics are given by the
physics of the problem (1), while the performance index (2) is
what is chosen to achieve the desired system response. Second,
to achieve different control objectives, different types of
performance indices J are selected. Finally, the optimal control
problem is characterized by compromises and trade-offs, with
different weighting factors in J resulting in different balances
between conformability with performance objectives and
magnitude of the required optimal controls.
Id. at col. 8,11. 10-18.
Because it is not clear that any of the above-reproduced portions of
Bose teach disabling feedback, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1. Further, we do not sustain any of the rejections of
claims 3—7 that depend from claim 1, inasmuch as the Examiner does not
establish that any other reference remedies the deficiency in the rejection of
claim 1.
Rejections V and VI
Appellants argue that the rejection of independent claim 8 is
erroneous for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to
claim 1. See Br. 10—12. Claim 8 recites a similar limitation regarding
selectively disabling feedback. See id. at Claims App. Thus, we do not
5
Appeal 2015-000063
Application 13/346,976
sustain the rejection of independent claim 8 for reasons similar to the
reasons we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Further, we do not
sustain any of the rejections of claims 9—11, 13, and 14 that depend from
claim 8, inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish that any other
reference remedies the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 8.
Rejections VII and VIII
Appellants argue the rejection of independent claim 15 is erroneous
because De La Salle fails to disclose “a controller communicating with the
control unit and configured to generate output indicative of an engine torque
command and a motor torque command in response to input indicative of a
driver torque request and actual battery power, and independent of the gear
selection.” Br. 12—13 (emphasis omitted and added). The Examiner relies
on column 3, lines 17—22 of De La Salle, for example, to disclose the claim
limitation. See Final Action 25. Appellants argue, however, that this
portion of De La Salle at most discusses “battery health (state of charge),”
which is not the same as actual battery power. See id. at 13. We agree with
Appellants. The cited portion of De La Salle discusses receiving input
regarding the state of charge of the battery , i.e., “the present battery capacity
as opposed to a percentage of the maximum capacity,” generally used to
“determine the change in battery capacity over time.” MIT Electric Vehicle
Team, “A Guide to Understanding Battery Specifications,” December 2008,
available at http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_battery_specifications.pdf. The
Examiner does not establish that this or any other portion of De La Salle
refers to actual battery power as opposed to the battery’s capacity. While
the Examiner emphasizes statements from De La Salle describing an input
including auxiliary loads and electric motor power (see Answer 6), it is not
6
Appeal 2015-000063
Application 13/346,976
reasonably certain that any of these are indicative of actual battery power.
Thus, we are unable to sustain the rejection of independent claim 15, or the
rejections of claims 16—20 depending from the independent claim, because
the Examiner does not establish that any other reference remedies the
deficiency in the rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 3—11, and 13—20.
REVERSED
7