Ex Parte MILLER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

14575053 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/575,053 12/18/2014
28395 7590 09/25/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth James MILLER
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.
83484175 3386
EXAMINER
MOTT, GENNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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 KENNETH JAMES MILLER 1
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Appellant) is the Applicant, as provided
in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to a system and method for
controlling the switchover from motor propulsion of a hybrid vehicle to
engine propulsion, upon a driver depressing an accelerator pedal, for
example. See Spec. ,r,r 1, 2, 17. Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent.
Claims App. 1-3. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 1 of the Claims
Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A vehicle control method comprising:
in response to an engine starting and achieving a target
speed while an electric machine is generating torque to drive
the vehicle, retarding engine spark to reduce engine torque; and
in response to the engine torque falling below a threshold
value, locking a clutch configured to mechanically couple the
engine and the electric machine.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shimabukuro et al. (US 2002/0170758 Al, pub.
Nov. 21, 2002, hereinafter "Shimabukuro") and Genise et al.
(US 6,042,507, iss. Mar. 28, 2000, hereinafter "Genise").
II. Claims 3-5, 8-10, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Shimabukuro, Genise, and Kato et al.
(US 2013/0325238 Al, pub. Dec. 5, 2013, hereinafter "Kato").
III. Claims 6, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shimabukuro, Genise, and Matsuda
(US 2012/0022751 Al, pub. Jan. 26, 2012).
2
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Each of Appellant's independent claims 1, 7, and 12 requires, in
response to the engine starting and achieving a target speed while an electric
machine ( e.g., a traction motor) generates torque to drive the vehicle,
retarding engine spark to reduce engine torque and, in response to the engine
torque falling below a threshold value, locking a clutch to couple the engine
to the electric machine ( or traction motor).
The Examiner finds that Shimabukuro discloses, in response to the
engine starting and achieving a target speed while an electric machine is
generating torque to drive the vehicle (Shimabukuro ,r,r 70, 103-104, Figs. 3
and 13, steps SlO and S300), retarding ignition timing to temporarily reduce
engine torque (id., Fig. 13, step S302; ,r 104), and, after the torque falls (id.,
Fig. 6), locking a clutch by sharply increasing the hydraulic pressure applied
thereto to mechanically couple the engine and motor/machine (id., Fig. 6;
,r 111 ). Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds that "Shimabukuro does not
teach locking the clutch 'in response to' the engine torque falling 'below a
threshold value."' Id. at 4 (boldface omitted).
The Examiner finds that it was well known to wait until engine torque
is sufficiently low to engage a clutch to improve the quality of the clutch
engagement, as evidenced by Genise, which "teaches reducing engine torque
to a desired dwell torque before fully engaging a lockup clutch." Id.
( emphasis omitted) ( citing Genise 1 :40--46; Figs. 3--4). The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious "to modify the invention of
Shimabukuro by waiting for the engine torque to fall below a threshold
3
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
value before responding by fully engaging the clutch in order to achieve a
relatively smooth, high quality lockup event." Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rationale assumes that
Shimabukuro does not achieve a smooth, high quality lockup event, but
nothing in Shimabukuro suggests this is the case. Appeal Br. 3. In fact,
Appellant submits that Shimabukuro explains that in response to the
difference between engine and motor speeds becoming smaller than a
threshold, increasing the pressure to the clutch to fully engage the clutch,
and that this aspect of the process effectively reduces shock at clutch
engagement during switchover. Id. According to Appellant, since
Shimabukuro already achieves a smooth, high quality lockup event, "there is
no motivation to replace Shimabukuro's speed-based clutch-lock initiation
with Genise's purported torque-based clutch-lock initiation." Appeal
Br. 3--4.
In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that the rejection does not
propose to replace Shimabukuro's speed-based technique with a torque-
based approach. Ans. 2. The Examiner emphasizes that Shimabukuro
already teaches reducing engine torque by retarding ignition timing prior to
clutch engagement in order to avoid abrupt changes in engine output during
the engagement. Id. at 2-3 (citing Shimabukuro ,r 104). The Examiner finds
Shimabukuro deficient only "in that it does not evaluate engine torque with
respect to a threshold to determine how much it is reduced." Id. at 3. Thus,
the clutch locking is not in response to the torque falling below the
threshold. Id. The Examiner explains that the rejection merely proposes "a
threshold to evaluate whether the engine torque has been sufficiently
lowered, as a torque criterion subsequent to the speed criteria taught by
4
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
Shimabukuro, before engaging the clutch." Id. According to the Examiner,
"[ s ]uch a modification would ensure the intended effect of Shimabukuro -
that of avoiding abrupt changes in engine output during the engagement
thereby providing a smooth and high quality lock-up event-which is a
motivation also supported by Genise." Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner also sets forth an alternative rationale for
the combination. Id. In particular, the Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to use "the added torque-based criterion ... as an alternative to
the speed-based criterion," such that the clutch is "engaged when either the
torque-based criterion or the speed-based criterion is met." Id. According to
the Examiner, "[t]his would provide a more robust system capable of the
same function and effect even if one parameter became unavailable ( e.g. a
faulted sensor)." Id.
In reply, Appellant essentially repeats the aforementioned arguments
set forth in the Appeal Brief, and adds that the new alternative rationale set
forth in the Answer "is problematic" because such a modification "would
prompt an attempt to fully engage the clutch responsive to the torque-based
criterion being met even if there are significant speed differences between
the engine and motor," which, according to Appellant, "would ... not result
in a smooth and high quality lock-up event." Reply Br. 2.
Shimabukuro discloses simultaneous motor control, engine control,
and clutch pressure control during the switchover from electric motor-
powered driving to internal combustion engine-powered driving. See
Shimabukuro, Fig. 3. All of these controls are based on the speed difference
( dN) between the engine and the motor. See id., Figs. 11-13.
5
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
Shimabukuro' s Figure 11 is a flowchart showing the motor control.
Id., Fig. 11; ,r,r 77-86. The controller checks to see if the speed difference
( dN) is less than a first threshold ( dN2), and increases motor torque
command until the speed difference is less than the first threshold; then, the
controller checks to see if the speed difference is less than a second
threshold ( dN5), and further increases motor torque command until the
speed difference is less than the second threshold. Id., Fig. 11 (steps S102-
S106); ,r,r 79-82. Next, Shimabukuro's controller checks to see whether the
motor torque command (MTO) exceeds a third threshold and decreases the
motor torque command sharply until it no longer exceeds the third threshold.
Id., Fig. 11 (steps Sl 10-Sl 12); ,r 83-84. Finally, the controller decreases
the motor torque command down to zero. Id., Fig. 11 (steps Sl 14--Sl 16);
i185.
Figure 13 is a flowchart showing the engine control. Id. ,r 101. As
soon as the speed difference is less than a sixth threshold ( dN3),
Shimabukuro begins retarding ignition timing by a small amount ( dQ); then,
when the speed difference is less than a fifth threshold (dN4) ignition timing
is retarded by a large amount (QTRTD). Id., Fig. 13 (steps S300-S308);
,r,r 103-105. Next, the controller waits for a timer to exceed a predetermined
time value (trtd), during which engine output torque is decreased markedly.
Id., Fig. 13 (step S310); ,r,r 105-106. Notably, Shimabukuro does not
disclose measuring or determining engine output torque during this time
delay. After passage of the predetermined time (trtd), the ignition timing is
increased, or advanced, by an amount equal to the large retard amount
(QTRTD), and then by the small retard amount (dQ), back to the original
ignition timing. Id., Fig. 13 (steps S312-S314); ,r 107.
6
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
Meanwhile, the clutch pressure is controlled as shown in Figure 12.
Id. ,r,r 87-88. The clutch pressure command is increased by an addition term
(CLCUl) until the speed difference ( dN) is less than a fourth threshold
(dNl). Id., Fig. 12 (steps S202-S204); ,r 93. Then, once the speed
difference ( dN) is less than the fourth threshold ( dNl ), the control loops
around until the speed difference (dN) is less than a fifth threshold (dN4).
Id., Fig. 13 (step S206); ,r 94. Once the speed difference (dN) is less than
the fifth threshold, the clutch pressure command is increased to cause a rapid
increase in the pressure supplied to the clutch, until it reaches the line
pressure equivalent value shown in Figure 6. Id., Fig. 13 (steps S208-
S21 O); ,r,r 94--96.
Genise does not specifically mention hybrid vehicles, but, rather,
deals broadly with engagement of an engine and a mechanical transmission
with a torque converter lockup assembly. Genise 1 :5--40. In particular,
Genise teaches ramping engine torque "smoothly down to a relatively low
'dwell torque' ... while the torque converter is locked up and [then ramping
engine torque] smoothly back to the driver-demanded torque." Id. 1:43--47.
According to Genise,
[ s ]moothly ramping engine torque down to a predetermined
dwell torque value and arriving at or dwelling at that value until
the lockup clutch engagement is expected to be engaged, and
thereafter smoothly ramping fuel back to operator's demand,
has been shown to provide a smooth and high quality torque
converter lockup event.
Id. 4:44--49. Genise discloses using speed sensors "to provide input signals
... indicative of engine speed, transmission input shaft speed, ...
transmission output shaft speed," and the operator setting of the throttle
pedal to the controller to generate command output signals. Id. 2:32--42.
7
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
Genise also discloses that "the function of the control [is] to monitor the
torque level and determine how to best achieve the torque converter lockup
event at the desired torque level for overall best driver impression (i.e., for
best torque converter lockup event quality)," but does not elaborate on how
torque level is determined from the sensors. Id. 3: 54--5 8.
Shimabukuro discusses a prior art control technique in which motor
output torque is detected while the motor is absorbing the output torque of
the engine, engine output torque is estimated, and the desired torque of the
motor is adjusted based on the difference between the detected torque and
the estimated torque. Shimabukuro ,r 7. However, Shimabukuro considers
this prior art technique to be unsatisfactory because engine output torque is
difficult to estimate accurately. Id. ,r 8. Further, Shimabukuro teaches that,
as a result of the control method shown in Fig. 6 ( and the flowcharts in Figs.
11-13), which is governed by the speed difference between the engine and
the motor, shock at the time of engagement of the clutch can be reduced and
the load on the clutch lowered, "with no need to estimate the output torque .
. . of the engine." Shimabukuro ,r 112.
In view of Shimabukuro' s teaching that estimating engine output
torque is both difficult and not needed to achieve a smooth and high quality
(low shock, low clutch load) clutch engagement using Shimabukuro' s
control method, we agree with Appellant that a person having ordinary skill
in the art would not have been prompted to modify Shimabukuro' s method
by monitoring engine output torque and locking the clutch in response to the
engine torque falling below a threshold value. Moreover, with respect to the
Examiner's alternative rationale, the Examiner has not pointed to any
evidence, or proffered any technical reasoning, to establish that fully
8
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
engaging the clutch in response to an indication that engine output torque is
below a predetermined threshold, in the absence of an indication in
Shimabukuro' s control system that the speed difference is below the
predetermined thresholds, would achieve a smooth and high quality clutch
engagement.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
7, and 12, or of claims 2 and 13, which depend from claims 1 and 12,
respectively, as unpatentable over Shimabukuro and Genise.
Re} ection II
The teachings of Kato relied on by the Examiner in rejecting
claims 3-5, 8-10, and 14--16, each of which depends from claim 1, claim 7,
or claim 12, are directed to determining a target engine torque and electric
motor torque required to achieve the desired change in operating speed of
the engine during the process of shifting the transmission in response to an
operation by the vehicle operator. See Final Act. 7-11. The Examiner does
not articulate any additional findings or reasoning that would remedy the
aforementioned deficiency in the combination of Shimabukuro and Genise.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 8-10, and 14--16
as unpatentable over Shimabukuro, Genise, and Kato.
Rejection III
In rejecting claims 6, 11, and 17, which depend, directly or indirectly,
from claims 1, 7, and 12, respectively, the Examiner relies on Matsuda for
its teaching of "reducing engine torque by reducing air intake amount in
addition to ignition retard control," and not for any teaching that would
9
Appeal2018-000449
Application 14/575,053
remedy the aforementioned deficiency in the combination of Shimabukuro
and Genise. See Final Act. 11-12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 11, and 17 as unpatentable over Shimabukuro, Genise,
and Matsuda.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 is reversed.
REVERSED
10