Ex Parte Klymenko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2017

14351233 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017)

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.
14/351,233 04/11/2014 Mykhaylo Klymenko 022862-1974-US00 2691
34044 7590 09/08/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MYKHAYLO KLYMENKO, MICHAEL MECKS,
MARKUS KRETSCHMER, and GUNTHER GOETTING
Appeal 2017-003459
Application 14/351,233
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-003459
Application 14/351,233
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a second rejection of
claims 1 and 4—13. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to an active damping control for an electric
vehicle or hybrid vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method (30) for active damping control for an electric
vehicle or hybrid vehicle with an electric motor drive element,
comprising
obtaining a current target torque value (tqEimDes) of the
electric motor drive element (4);
determining a current angle of rotation value (0|,imAct) of
the electric motor drive element (4);
determining, by a controller, a current damping torque value
(tqDmp)?
determining, by the controller, a current drive torque value
(tqEimAct) for controlling the electric motor drive element (4) from
the difference of the current target torque value (tqEimDes)
and the current damping torque value (tqDmp) as tqEimAct = tqEimDes
- tqDmP; and
controlling the electric motor drive element (4) based on
the current drive torque value (tqEimAct);
wherein the current damping torque value (tqDmp), is
determined using a reduced drive train model (rDTM), and is
limited to a maximum value (tqompmax), and is set to zero below
an activation threshold (tqDmpmin).
2
Appeal 2017-003459
Application 14/351,233
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kuang et al. US 2006/0030979 A1 Feb. 9, 2006
Kinoshita et al. US 2012/0059544 Al Mar. 8, 2012
REJECTION1
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1 and 4—13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kuang in view of Kinoshita.
ANALYSIS
With respect to the objection to the drawings, the Examiner correctly
indicates that this is a petitionable matter. (Ans. 2). We do not address this
issue in our decision because we do not have jurisdiction.
With respect to the Examiner’s written description rejection, the
Examiner indicates that the rejection is withdrawn. (Ans. 2).
35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants provide an illustration of the claimed limitation. (App. Br.
8). Appellants contend that the Examiner admits that the Kuang reference
does not teach the recited subject matter of claim 1, and the Examiner relies
1 We leave it to the Examiner to consider whether claims 9 and 10 are proper
independent claims because they are directed to different statutory classes of
invention than the method of independent claim 1, and they are not proper
dependent claims because they do not further limit the method of
independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-003459
Application 14/351,233
on the Kinoshita reference to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter,
identifying paragraphs “136-137, 185-187, and 195+” to teach or suggest the
disputed portion of the claimed invention. (App. Br. 8). Appellants further
contend that the Kinoshita reference teaches adjusting limits for performing
sprung mass damping control, but does not teach setting a damping torque
value to zero nor the use of a predetermined minimum and maximum
damping torque value.
The Examiner attempts to clarify the rejection by stating “see at least
Fig.4A & Fig.4B, [0077-0078]+),” “see at least [0079]),” and “see at least
[0081])” of the Kinoshita reference in the Examiner’s Answer. (Ans. 3).
The Examiner further maintains that “[t]he sprung mass damping control
system is executed if determining the Twc is a value other 0. If on the other
hand, the Twc is 0, the sprung mass damping control is prohibited from
being executed.” (Ans. 3).
Appellants argue in response to the Examiner’s clarifications that:
[t]he claimed operation would set the current damping
torque value to zero when the value is greater than zero but less
than a non-zero activation threshold. Kinoshita teaches simply
doing nothing when the damping control amount is zero. At no
point does Kinoshita teach setting the damping control amount
(i.e., the current damping torque value) to zero, much less, doing
so when the damping control amount is less than a non-zero
activation threshold.
(Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that the
Kinoshita reference teaches or suggests the use of threshold values as recited
in the language of independent claim 1, and we cannot sustain the rejection
4
Appeal 2017-003459
Application 14/351,233
of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 4—13 which contain the
same limitations.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 4—13 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 4—13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
5