2019006886 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2021)

FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 8, 2021

2019006886 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2021)

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. 14/813,704 07/30/2015 Xiao Guang YANG 83553874; 67186-190 PUS1 7389 46442 7590 03/08/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford 400 W. MAPLE RD. SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER MAHASE, PAMESHANAND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2021 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): cgolaw@yahoo.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte XIAO GUANG YANG and JIANBO LU ____________________ Appeal 2019-006886 Application 14/813,704 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3–25. Final Act. 1. Claim 2 has been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-006886 Application 14/813,704 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method, comprising: controlling a vehicle system to refine a travel range estimation of an electrified vehicle if a desired destination cannot be reached under current driving conditions, the controlling step including [A.] warning a driver about a travel range based on the driver’s driving habits, coaching the driver to modify the driving habits, and adjusting operation of at least one vehicle subsystem in a manner that refines the travel range estimation, wherein the vehicle system includes a control system configured to execute the controlling of the vehicle system. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references:2 Name Reference Date Ji US 2009/0157290 A1 Jun. 18, 2009 Kishiyama US 2011/0156641 A1 Jun. 30, 2011 Skaff US 2012/0176231 A1 Jul. 12, 2012 Jagannathan US 2012/0251876 A1 Oct. 4, 2012 Larson US 2013/0206493 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 Sellschopp US 2014/0142770 A1 May 22, 2014 2 Citations are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-006886 Application 14/813,704 3 REJECTIONS A. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 2, 3. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Advisory Act. 1. Therefore, the merits of the § 112(b) rejection are no longer before us. B. Claims 1, 3–7, 11, and 13–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Skaff.3 C. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Skaff, and in further view of Kishiyama. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Skaff, and in further view of Larson. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Skaff, and in further view of Jagannathan. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Skaff, and in further view of Sellschopp. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed in detail herein. 3 Claim 2 has been canceled. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-006886 Application 14/813,704 4 We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merit of the § 103 rejections of claims 3–25 further herein. B. § 103 As reproduced supra, part A. of claim 1 requires (emphasis added): [A.] warning a driver about a travel range based on the driver’s driving habits, coaching the driver to modify the driving habits, and adjusting operation of at least one vehicle subsystem in a manner that refines the travel range estimation As to the part [A.] of claim 1, the Examiner provides the following: Ji discloses a vehicle system prompting a driver to decrease a vehicle's travel speed and extending an uneconomical region of driving (figure 6 and paragraph 0041). This procedure advises the driver to perform more conservative driving behaviors and actions which extend the travel range of a vehicle. Figure 6 of Ji has been misinterpreted by the Appellants as the system disclosed by Ji as the flowchart shows the determination of conditions which can and cannot increase the travel range of a vehicle. And in the scenario where a driving condition can lead to a decreased driving range, the system would advise the driver to decrease the travel speed in order to maintain or increase the travel range. Ans. 4. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the combination of Skaff and Ji does not teach the disputed “based on the driver’s driving habits” claim limitation of part [A] of claim 1. Appeal Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant contends: Appeal 2019-006886 Application 14/813,704 5 Ji prompts the driver if the vehicle is about to reach a curved or inclined portion of the road. See, e.g., paragraph [0031]. This prompt, however, has nothing to do with the “driver’s driving habits.” Instead, the prompt is related to the condition of the road that the vehicle is traveling on (i.e., curved road, dangerous road, etc.). See, e.g., Figure 6. Ji therefore does not warn a driver about travel range based on the driver’s own driving habits as part of the fuel efficient driving technique disclosed therein. Appeal Br. 4. (emphasis added). Paragraph 41 of Ji discloses: [0041] FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating a process of implementing a system for providing fuel-efficient driving information according to an embodiment of the present invention. A curved road is detected using the GPS module unit. In the case of the curved road, the semi- economical regions are increased in advance, and thus the decrease in speed is prompted. In the case of an inclined road, the inclined road is determined using the GPS module unit and the G-sensor. The economical region is extended in the direction of the increase of speed on the uphill road so that the increase of speed is maintained, but is extended in the direction of the decrease of speed on the downhill so that the decrease of speed is maintained. (Emphasis added). The Specification of the present invention discloses: [00043] The driver information collected and monitored by the control system 58 may include driving habits, behavior, or aggressiveness (e.g., acceleration aggressiveness, braking aggressiveness, etc.), driving patterns, favorite or frequent routes, driver preferences (e.g., climate control preferences, etc.), etc. The driver information may be obtained by analyzing a driver’s driving behaviors, routines, and preferences. Appeal 2019-006886 Application 14/813,704 6 (Emphasis added). In the present case, the claimed driving habits include the driver’s aggressiveness, driving patterns, favorite/frequent routes, and climate control preferences etc.; but not the road conditions such as a curved road that is taught by Ji. Also, note that the present Specification refers to road conditions as telematics information (see paragraph 42 of the Specification) that is different from the driving habits, as recited in claim 1. As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. As such, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding fails to meet this standard because the Examiner’s determination that Ji teaches “warning a driver about a travel range based on the driver’s driving habits, coaching the driver to modify the driving habits, and adjusting operation of at least one vehicle subsystem” in a manner that refines the travel range estimation, (Ans. 5 (emphasis added)) is not properly supported. Thus, the Examiner’s findings of fact as to the “based on the driver’s driving habits” is based on error. Appeal 2019-006886 Application 14/813,704 7 CONCLUSION The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3–25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 11, 13–25 103 Ji, Skaff 1, 3–7, 11, 13–25 8 103 Ji, Skaff, Kishiyama 8 9 103 Ji, Skaff, Larson 9 10 103 Ji, Skaff, Jagannathan 10 12 103 Ji, Skaff, Sellschopp 12 Overall Outcome 1, 3–25 REVERSED