Ex Parte Lavoie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2019

14618368 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/618,368 02/10/2015
28415 7590 01/22/2019
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
695 KENMOOR S.E.
P. 0. BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erick Michael Lavoie
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.
83480060 9250
EXAMINER
WHITTINGTON, JESS G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2019 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):
ptomail@priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERICK MICHAEL LAVOIE, NATHANIEL A. ROLFES,
BRADLEL Y G. HOCHREIN, DARREL ALAN RECKER,
DONALD JACOB MATTERN, and MICHAEL HAFNER
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 16-18 and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Ford Global Technologies, LLC is also the Applicant
under 37 C.F.R. section l.46(a).
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated August 9, 2016.
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 16, the sole independent claim on appeal, reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
16. A method of controlling a speed of a motor vehicle and
trailer, comprising:
utilizing a controller to:
determine a desired vehicle and trailer path while
the vehicle is moving in reverse utilizing input from a
rotatable knob inside the vehicle;
limit a speed of a vehicle such that the vehicle does
not exceed a maximum allowable speed for a measured
trailer angle and moves along the desired vehicle path
within predefined error criteria.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 16, 17, 21, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hoel (WO 2014/092611 Al; published June 19,
2014)3 and Pliefke (US 2015/0217693 Al; published Aug. 6, 2015).
II. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hoel, Pliefke, and Morishita (US 4,754,828; issued July 5, 1988).
III. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hoel, Pliefke, and Guamizo Martinez (US 2014/0142798 Al; published
May 22, 2014).
3 Although the copy of WO 2014/092611 Al on the record appears to be in
English, we rely on the corresponding publication, US 2015/0298738 Al
(published October 22, 2015), as an English language translation, as relied
on by the Examiner. See Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
IV. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hoel, Pliefke, and Sabelstrom (US 2010/0063702 Al; published Mar.
11,2010).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 16, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Hoel "does in fact have a trailer angle" and that Hoel "determines the
maximum speed for a reversing vehicle-trailer comb[ination] based on many
variables, one of them being a trailer angle." Ans. 6 (citing Hoel ,r 33, Fig.
2). The Examiner determines that the trailer angle disclosed in Hoel is
"measured and used in the calculations of the maximum speed." Ans. 6
( citing Hoel ,r,r 23-26). In particular, the Examiner finds that "Hoel does not
just predetermine the route of the vehicle-trailer combination before
reversing, it also measures angles of the vehicle-trailer combination, while
backing up and further controls the maximum speed of the vehicle-trailer
combination based on 'measured angles."' Ans. 8 (citing Hoel ,r 39)
( emphasis added); cf Final Act. 5 ("Hoel does not disclose ... using a
'measured trailer angle"').
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Hoel for disclosing
"measuring an articulation angle ( trailer angle)" is based on "an erroneous
interpretation of the Hoel disclosure," because "Hoel itself clearly
distinguishes the 'pre-calculated values' from the simulation with actual
measured values," and "[t]he assertion that the articulation angle (a 'pre-
3
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
calculated value') is a measured angle is directly contrary to Hoel itself."4
Reply Br. 4 ( citing Hoel ,r 39). Appellants submit that "[i]n Hoel, the
articulation ( trailer angle) is only used in the predefined simulation that
occurs in advance, before the vehicle moves." Id. at 5.
Paragraph 39 of Hoel discloses that:
It is thus possible to determine a maximum speed limit
... based on predefined limiting conditions of ... the vehicle
combination 5 . . . . In addition to limiting the speed to these pre-
calculated values, it is also possible to measure actual values
during the actual reversing of the vehicle combination, e.g., to
measure the actual steering actuator rate and the actual lateral
acceleration during the manoeuvre. If the maximum values of
the measured units [(e.g., azat,max)] 6 are exceeded, the speed can
be dynamically decreased during the manoeuvre. In this way,
[the] determined maximum speed limit can be overridden by the
actual measured values, should e.g.[,] the load on the vehicle
combination cause the vehicle combination to behave in a
different way than expected.
(Emphasis added).
Regarding lateral acceleration (i.e., the measured actual value or the
measured unit), Hoel discloses, in the context of the simulation, that:
4 Although Appellants contend that "the Examiner's Answer is inconsistent
with the [F]inal Office Action," Appellants did not file a petition, but rather
submitted a Reply Brief. Reply Br. 3--4; see 37 C.F.R. § 4I.40(a) ('"[a]ny
request to seek review of the primary examiner's failure to designate a
rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer must be by
way of a petition to the Director").
5 See, e.g., Hoel ,r 20 ( disclosing, with reference to "a kinematic vehicle
model of a tractor-semitrailer vehicle combination" shown in Figure 2, that
"[t ]he vehicle combination contains two rigid bodies attached by a joint
which has one rotational degree of freedom").
6 See WO 2014/092611, p. 11, 1. 19.
4
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
it is also possible to limit the speed in sharp turns, in order to
limit the lateral forces experienced by the driver and/or imposed
on the load. This maximum lateral acceleration is azat,max· The
simulation gives values for ¢7, 88 and 88/os, along the path.
From this, the maximum speed ... v1(s) is given by the solution
to the
differential equation
a V1 ( C ) alat,max = as V1 cos¢ 1 - L1 tan¢tan <) tan<)
( (
c ) 1 as tans)
+ Vi cos¢ 1 - Li tan¢tan S cos 2 6 as + Li
using the boundary condition [ V1 (sfinaz)] = 0, i.e. the vehicle is
going [t]o stop at the end of the path ....
In this way, a maximum speed limit for the vehicle can be
determined during a reverse assistance manoeuvre.
Id. ,r,r 33-35 (emphasis added).
Thus, Hoel discloses calculating a maximum lateral acceleration (i.e.,
azat,max) using values given by a simulation for the articulation (or trailer)
angle ( cp) (in addition to steering angle 8), and separately, Hoel discloses
measuring actual values (while the vehicle is reversing), wherein an example
of a value, or unit, that is measured is the actual lateral acceleration.
However, Hoel is silent with respect to measuring an actual value for angles,
including articulation angle cp. Further, Hoel is silent as to how to measure
the actual lateral acceleration; for example, Hoel does not disclose that the
measurement of trailer angle cp ( or even steering angle 8) is required to
7 Hoel discloses that the variable cp is "the articulation angle" (Hoel ,r 24),
and Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that "an 'articulation
angle (phi) ... is known in the art as a trailer angle" (Ans. 6).
8 Hoel discloses that the variable 8 is "the steering angle." Hoel ,r 24.
5
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
measure the actual lateral acceleration. Thus, the Examiner's reliance on
Hoel's use of a trailer angle cp as a variable in the simulation equations as a
disclosure of measuring trailer angle cp when determining an actual lateral
acceleration is not adequately supported by Hoel.
Additionally, the Examiner relies on Pliefke for disclosing using a
measured trailer angle while the vehicle is moving in reverse, and reasons
that it would have been obvious
to incorporate the teachings of Pliefke into the invention of Hoel
to not only include speed limitations when backing up a vehicle
based on angles as Hoel discloses but to also allow the system to
control the vehicle while backing up, with a knob, and finally
with using a measured angle as taught by Pliefke with a
motivation of "[t]he driver of the vehicle may manually adjust
the steering of the vehicle to more accurately or precisely steer
the vehicle in the desired direction ... " [ and s ]ince the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements
back up assist systems with trailers and in the combination each
element merely would have performed the same function as it
did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention would have
recognized that the results of the combination would have been
predictable.
Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Pliefke, Abstract, ,r,r 5, 18, 25, 28) ( emphasis added);
see also Ans. 7 ("Pliefke ... was introduced ... to further teach that
'measuring a trailer angle' as to 'calculating a trailer angle' during backing
up of a vehicle is known"); id. at 9 ("if Hoel was not to be understood as
having a 'measured trailer angle', Pliefke would further teach this").
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Pliefke discloses measuring the
tracker angle for use in a "'steering algorithm' that 'attempts to steer the
trailer ... to control the direction of the trailer ... , not the speed." Appeal
Br. 3 ( citing Pliefke ,r,r 19, 21, 22, 25); see also id. at 5 ("Pliefke discloses
6
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
use of a trailer angle to control steering, not vehicle speed."). Appellants
submit that, absent hindsight, one "would not select a measured input
variable utilized in the 'steering algorithm,"' as disclosed in Pliefke, "to
determine a maximum vehicle speed," as disclosed in Hoel. Id. at 3.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's
reliance on Pliefke for disclosing measuring a trailer angle to determine
steering does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's erroneous reliance on
Hoel for disclosing measuring a trailer angle to determine speed, as
discussed supra. Nor does the Examiner provide sufficient rationale that
one skilled in the art would have measured the trailer angle, in view of
Pliefke' s teaching that the trailer angle may be measured to determine
steering, in order to determine the actual lateral acceleration, as disclosed by
Hoel, as discussed supra. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d
1132, 1143 (Fed.Cir.1985) ("When prior art references require selective
combination by the court to render obvious a subsequent invention, there
must be some reason for the combination other than the hindsight gleaned
from the invention itself.").
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 16, and of claims 1 7, 21, and 23-25 depending therefrom.
Rejections II-IV
The Examiner's reliance on Morishita, Guamizo Martinez, and
Sabelstroem in the rejection of claims 18, 20, and 22, which depend from
independent claim 16, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's
reliance on Hoel in the rejection of claim 16, as set forth supra. Therefore,
for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 18, 20, and 22.
7
Appeal 2017-011364
Application 14/618,368
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 16-18 and 20-25 are
REVERSED.
REVERSED
8