Ex Parte Kuang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13539928 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/539,928 07/02/2012
28395 7590 06/22/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ming Lang Kuang
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.
83225048 1553
EXAMINER
WONG,YUENH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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 MING LANG KUANG, QING WANG, and
JEFFREY RANDOLPH HOLMES
Appeal2014-006555 1
Application 13/539 ,9282
Technology Center 3600
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
March 17, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 13, 2014), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 29, 2014), and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed November 19, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-006555
Application 13/539,928
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates generally to controlling the
engine speed and combined output torque of a hybrid vehicle in response to
driver inputs" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with brackets added, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for controlling a hybrid electric vehicle having
an engine and a traction motor, comprising:
[a] when a shift lever is in a first drive position, using the
traction motor to propel the vehicle with the engine off; and
[b ]when the shift lever is in a second drive position,
stopping the engine when the vehicle is stationary with a brake
pedal depressed and starting the engine in response to brake
pedal release.
REJECTION
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Akebono et al. (US 2012/0109438 Al, pub. May 3, 2012 (hereinafter
"Akebono")) and Tuckfield et al. (US 2008/0147284 Al, pub. June 19, 2008
(hereinafter "Tuckfield")).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2--4
W e are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Akebono and Tuckfield fails to disclose or suggest
"when ... in a second drive position, stopping the engine when the vehicle
is stationary with a brake pedal depressed and starting the engine in response
2
Appeal2014-006555
Application 13/539,928
to brake pedal release," as recited by limitation [b] of independent claim 1
(see Appeal Br. 5---6; see also Reply Br. 1-2). The Examiner maintains that
the rejection is proper, and cites paragraphs 4, 23, 31, 55, 69, 99-106, as
well as Figures 1, 17 A, and 17B, of Akebono as disclosing limitation [b] of
independent claim 1 (see Ans. 3-5; see also Final Act. 3-5).
Akebono is directed to a method "for controlling slippage of a
coupling member connected between a driving source and a driving wheel in
a motor vehicle" (Akebono i-f 1 ). More particularly, Akebono discloses that
its "method is capable of smoothly driving the vehicle in quick response to a
driver's request while preventing the coupling member from being
overheated and deteriorated due to slippage" (id. i-f 4). Akebono discloses
a drive mode, which is referred to as "WSC drive mode", in
which both of power of the engine and power of the electric
motor are utilized to drive and start the vehicle while slippage of
a clutch connected between the electric motor and a driving
wheel of the vehicle is allowed.
(Id. il 2; see also id. at Fig. 1.) Akebono further discloses
[t]he WSC drive mode allows hybrid electric vehicle 51 to creep
especially when the state of charge (SOC) of battery 4 is low or
when engine coolant temperature is low. Transition from the EV
drive mode to HEV drive mode is implemented by engaging the
first clutch CLl and cranking and starting the engine E with the
output torque of motor generator MG.
(Id. i-f 31.) In "WSC drive mode," Akebono discloses that"[ w ]hen hybrid
electric vehicle 51 is stationary, the stationary generation mode is employed
in which the output power of engine E is used to make motor generator MG
function as a generator" (id. i-f 32; see also id. i-f 55). Akebono further
discloses that "[t]he WSC drive mode is characterized in that the operation
3
Appeal2014-006555
Application 13/539,928
of engine Eis maintained active, which serves to quickly respond to changes
in driver's requested driving torque" (id. i-f 55).
Akebono also discloses
[t]he WSC drive mode includes an exceptional MWSC drive
mode. In the MWSC drive mode, first clutch CLl is disengaged
but rotation of engine E is maintained, and the transmitted torque
capacity TCL2 of second clutch CL2 is conformed to the driver's
requested driving torque, and the rotational speed of motor
generator MG is controlled to be higher by a controlled
difference than the output rotational speed of second clutch CL2.
(Id. i-f 68.) In this drive mode, Akebono discloses
when a shift from the EV drive mode to the WSC drive mode
occurs, engine starting operation is necessary and carried out
with part of the output torque of motor generator MG. This
reduces available part of the output torque of motor generator
MG for driving the vehicle, and thereby reduce the upper limit
of the driving torque.
(Id. i-f 69.) Akebono discloses a "clutch standby control when the vehicle is
stationary" wherein "the brake pedal is depressed, the accelerator pedal is
released, hybrid electric vehicle 51 is stationary, and the motor generator
ISC control is performed continuously" (id. i-f 99; see also id. i-fi-1 100-106,
Figs. 17 A, 17B). Akebono further discloses
[a]t a time instant tlO, the brake pedal is released, and the
accelerator pedal is depressed by a driver so that the target
driving torque is set to rise. In response to this condition, the
clutch hydraulic pressure control setpoint P2 * is set to increase.
At this moment, hybrid electric vehicle 51 can be started quickly
and smoothly, because the piston loss stroke of second clutch
CL2 is eliminated and second clutch CL2 is ready to increase the
transmitted torque capacity TCL2 from the neutral point
described above.
(Id. i-f 106; see also id. at Figs. 17 A, 17B.)
4
Appeal2014-006555
Application 13/539,928
The Examiner finds that "Akebono explicitly states that the status of
the engine for the shift from the first drive position (i.e. EV drive mode) to
the second drive position (i.e. WSC drive mode) as follows: 'when a shift
from the EV drive mode to the WSC drive mode occurs, engine starting
operation is necessary'"(Ans. 3 (citing Akebono i-f 69)). However, as
Appellants point out "[t]he fact that the engine is started when transitioning
from EV mode to WSC mode is irrelevant to the claim limitation in question
which discusses an engine start in response to a brake release" (Appeal
Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2). In this regard, although the cited portion of
Akebono discloses "starting the engine," as required by limitation [b] of
independent claim 1, Akebono discloses that the engine is started when
larger driving torque is needed because "the estimated road gradient is
greater than a predetermined value" (Akebono i-f 69), which is not the same
as "starting the engine in response to brake pedal release," as recited by
limitation [b] of independent claim 1.
The Examiner also finds that "[b ]etween the WSC drive mode
initiation time tl and tlO, the vehicle is stationary with engine in a non-start
state. At time tlO, the vehicle enters the WSC mode i.e. second drive
position, with brake pedal release, the engine starts" (Ans. 4 (citation
omitted) (citing Akebono i-fi-169, 99, 106)). The difficulty with the
Examiner's analysis is that Akebono, at the cited portions, fails to disclose
or suggest "starting the engine in response to brake pedal release," as recited
by limitation [b] of independent claim 1. Instead, Akebono discloses
when hybrid electric vehicle 51 shifts into stationary state in
response to depression of the brake pedal while the WSC drive
mode is selected ... the rotational speed of motor generator MG
5
Appeal2014-006555
Application 13/539,928
is controlled at the idle speed of engine E that is coupled rigidly
to motor generator MG in the WSC drive mode.
(Id. i-f 76.) The Examiner does not rely on Tuckfield to cure this deficiency.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2--4.
Independent claims 5 and 8, and dependent claims 6, 7, and 9-11
Independent claims 5 and 8 include a limitation substantially similar
to independent claim 1 's limitation discussed above. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent
claims 5 and 8, and claims 6, 7, and 9-11 that depend therefrom, for the
same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
6