Ex Parte WANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2018

14057618 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/057,618 10/18/2013
28395 7590 10/10/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaoyong WANG
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.
83374598 2020
EXAMINER
FLUHART, STACEY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2018 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 XIAOYONG WANG,
MARK STEVEN YAMAZAKI, WEI LIANG, RAJIT JOHRI,
RYAN ABRAHAM MCGEE, and MING LANG KUANG
Appeal 2018-001181
Application 14/057,618
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Xiaoyong Wang et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-12. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001181
Application 14/057,618
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to "controlling vehicle creep in a hybrid
vehicle." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle comprising:
an engine including a crankshaft;
a transmission having an input;
a torque converter mechanically coupled to the input;
an electric machine mechanically coupled to the torque
converter;
a clutch configured to mechanically couple the electric
machine and crankshaft;
one or more controllers programmed to, in response to the
transmission being in a drive or reverse gear and a speed of the
vehicle being less than a predetermined value in an absence of
driver demand, control the electric machine to achieve a target
speed to cause the torque converter to output torque such that the
speed of the vehicle approaches a generally constant speed less
than or equal to the predetermined value when the vehicle is on
generally flat grade.
10. A hybrid vehicle comprising:
an engine including a crankshaft;
a transmission including an oil pump and having an input;
a torque converter mechanically coupled to the input;
an electric machine mechanically coupled to the torque
converter;
a clutch configured to mechanically couple the electric machine
and crankshaft;
one or more controllers programmed to, in response to the
transmission being in a neutral or park gear and the engine being off,
control the electric machine to achieve a target speed less than engine
idle or equal to a predetermined value in an absence of driver demand
to output torque to the oil pump for control of oil pressure in the
transmission.
2
Appeal 2018-001181
Application 14/057,618
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as
anticipated by Kim (KR 1020050098681 A, published Oct. 12, 2005).
2) Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kim and Reed (US 2013/0296119 Al, published Nov. 7,
2013).
3) Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ortmann (US 2011/0118915 Al, published May 19, 2011)
and Doering (US 2013/0296123 Al, published Nov. 7, 2013).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that the English language Abstract of Kim
discloses all the limitations of independent claim 6. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner explains the rejection with the finding that "in Kim the vehicle is
driving and the amount of torque is based on the gear ratio and thus the
transmission is in some drive gear. Additionally, the vehicle is at a stopped
state during this control and thus the vehicle speed is less than a
predetermined (positive value)." Id. at 3.
Appellants contend that Kim does not anticipate claim 6 because it
does not disclose "in response to a transmission being in a drive gear and
vehicle speed being less than a predetermined value .... controlling an
electric machine to achieve a target speed" as recited in claim 6. Appeal Br.
3--4. Appellants argue that the Examiner's explanation of Kim does not
satisfy the claim because a vehicle in a drive gear and a vehicle speed that is
stopped are "contradictory." Id. at 4. The Examiner responds that "[a]
3
Appeal 2018-001181
Application 14/057,618
transmission can and oftentimes is in some gear upon starting of the vehicle,
i.e., while the vehicle is stopped as in Kim." Ans. 3. In the Reply Brief,
Appellants argue that a vehicle is in park when it is stopped, and thus not in
a drive gear as required by claim 6. Reply Br. 3. Appellants also assert that
a stopped vehicle "cannot suggest circumstances in which an electric
machine is being controlled to cause a torque converter to output torque such
that the vehicle speed approaches a generally constant value." Id. For the
following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Independent claim 6 is directed to a method for controlling a vehicle
and requires "a transmission being in a drive gear" and "controlling an
electric machine . . . to output torque such that the vehicle speed"
approaches a target speed. Appeal Br. Claims App. 1. Accordingly, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner's finding that Kim's vehicle is "in a
stopped state during this control" contradicts controlling output torque such
that the vehicle speed approaches a generally constant value as one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that there is no need to control
output torque when the vehicle is stopped. See Reply Br. 3. Nor does the
Examiner direct us to any disclosure in Kim that the transmission is in a
drive gear when the vehicle is in a stopped state. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 6, and claims 7 and 8 depending from claim 6.
Rejection 2
Independent claim 1 includes substantially similar limitations as those
in claim 6 discussed above. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1 ). The Examiner
rejects independent claim 1 based on Kim with additional disclosure from
Reed. Final Act. 4---6. The Examiner does not rely on the additional
4
Appeal 2018-001181
Application 14/057,618
disclosure from Reed to cure the deficiencies in the disclosure of Kim as
discussed above. Id. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 6. Claims 2-5
depend from claim 1, and claim 9 depends from claim 6. Appeal Br.
(Claims App. 1-2). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5
and claim 9 for the same reasons.
Rejection 3
Claim 10 recites, in part, "one or more controllers programmed to, in
response to the transmission being in a neutral or park gear and the engine
being off, control the electric machine ... to output torque to the oil pump
for control of oil pressure in the transmission."
The Examiner finds that Ortmann discloses a controller that when the
transmission is in a neutral or park gear and the engine off, controls an
electric machine, but does not disclose that the transmission includes an oil
pump or that the controlled torque of the electric machine is used to output
torque to an oil pump for control of oil pressure in the transmission. Final
Act. 8-9. The Examiner finds that Doering discloses a mechanical pump in
fluid communication with the transmission that may be operated with the
torque converter and driven by the rotation of the electric machine. Id. at 9.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify "Ortmann to include a pump on the torque
converter in order to provide fluid to the transmission to operate clutches
and/ or lubricate components therein without the need for a distinct motor to
operate such a pump." Id. The Examiner states that in the modification to
5
Appeal 2018-001181
Application 14/057,618
Ortmann, "the torque controlled to the motor would necessarily also provide
output torque to the oil pump." Id.
Appellants assert that the control of the electric machine in Ortmann
is based on a key start, when the electric machine is not operating. Appeal
Br. 5. Appellants argue that during the key start, Ortmann uses an auxiliary
electric pump to control oil pressure in the transmission. Id. Appellants
contend that because Ortmann's electric machine "M/G 14 is not operating,"
the addition of Doering does not suggest the claimed invention. Id.
The Examiner responds that Doering is relied on to control oil
pressure and Appellants have not stated "how Doering fails to disclose the
subject feature or why it would not have been obvious to have combined
Ortmann and Doering according to the rejection." Ans. 5.
Appellants reply that "Ortmann already uses an electric pump to
control oil pressure because MIG 14 is not operating," and that it would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ortmann to add control
of oil pressure when this is already present in Ortmann. Reply Br. 3 ( citing
Ex parte Tessier, Appeal 2012-006616 (PTAB October 2, 2014). For the
following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection.
Paragraphs 43--45 of Ortmann, upon which the Examiner relies, are
directed to a "key start" of the vehicle. Ortmann ,r 43; Final Act. 8.
Specifically, Ortmann discloses that "[a] difference between a key start and
other engine start routines is that an auxiliary electric pump may be used to
provide the initial fill requirements of the disconnect clutch 18 ... the M/G
14 is not operating and an auxiliary electric pump can be used." Ortmann ,r
44. Thus, Appellants are correct that Ortmann already uses an auxiliary
electric pump for oil fill when MIG 14 is not operating. See Reply Br. 3.
6
Appeal 2018-001181
Application 14/057,618
Although we appreciate that Doering's electric machine controls an oil
pump, given that the electric machine of Ortmann (M/G 14) is not operating
(see Ortmann ,r 44), the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or
explanation of how or why Ortman would be modified by Doering to
support the assertion that output torque from the electric machine (motor) to
the oil pump "necessarily" would be provided. Final Act. 9. We, thus, do
not sustain the rejection of claim 10 because it is not supported by a rational
underpinning. Claims 11 and 12 depend directly from claim 10. Appeal Br.
(Claims App. 2). We do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12 for the
same reasons stated for claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
7