Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

11750716 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111750,716 05/18/2007 Ajith Kuttannair Kumar
91959 7590 08/22/2016
GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
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.
204173-6 1603
EXAMINER
PATTON, SPENCERD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AJITH KUTTANNAIR KUMAR and
WOLFGANG DAUM
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 32--43 and 45-56. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 32, 39, 41, and 42 are independent. Claim 32 is shown below.
32. A control system for operating a vehicle, comprising:
a mission optimizer on board the vehicle and configured
to determine a trip plan for a trip of the vehicle, the trip plan
comprising at least one of plural speed settings, plural power
settings, or plural throttle settings as a function of at least one of
time or distance of the vehicle along a route of the trip, based
on information of the vehicle and information of the route,
wherein the mission optimizer is configured to determine the
trip plan before the vehicle commences a trip along the route,
and wherein the mission optimizer is further configured to
output signals representative of the at least one of plural speed
settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings for
control of an engine system of the vehicle along the route;
a sensor on board the vehicle configured to collect
operational data of the vehicle, the operational data comprising
data of at least one of tractive effort or emissions actually
generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route;
and
a communication system on board the vehicle configured
to communicate the operational data to the mission optimizer;
wherein the mission optimizer is configured to change
the signals representative of the at least one of plural speed
settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings that are
output from the mission optimizer as the vehicle travels along
the route, based in part on the data of the at least one of tractive
effort or emissions actually generated by the vehicle.
REJECTIONS 1
Claims 32, 33, 36-43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pudney (WO 03/097424 Al,
pub. Nov. 27, 2003) and Kumar (US 2004/0133315 Al, pub. July 8, 2004).
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 32--43 and 45-56 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
Claims 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pudney, Kuman, and Matheson (US 5, 794, 172, iss. Aug.
11, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Claims 32, 33, 36--43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56 as unpatentable
over Pudney and Kumar
Claims 32, 33, 36-43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56
The Examiner found that Pudney teaches the claimed control system
and method except for a sensor on board the vehicle configured to collect
operational data of the vehicle of at least one of tractive effort or emissions
actually generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route as
recited in independent claims 32, 41, and 42, or detecting such operational
condition as recited in independent claim 39. See Final Act. 3--4, 6-9.
The Examiner found that Kumar teaches on-board instrumentation
that is used to determine the tractive effort of a locomotive and uses this
tractive effort for consist and locomotive optimization to include optimizing
power distribution. Id. at 4, 9. The Examiner determined that it would have
been obvious to include an on-board sensor in Pudney to collect operational
data of the vehicle, including tractive effort or emissions actually generated
by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route, so the mission optimizer
could use that data to change the signals for one of speed settings, throttle
settings, or power settings that are output by the mission optimizer as the
vehicle travels along the route. Id. at 5, 10. The Examiner also found that
Figures 12 and 13 of Kumar teach consist level optimization and Figure 16
teaches that the measured tractive effort is input into locomotive level
optimization system, as claimed. Ans. 4--5.
3
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
Appellants argue that neither Pudney nor Kumar teaches a sensor on
board the vehicle configured to collect operational data like "tractive effort
or emissions actually generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along
the route," as recited in claims 32, 39, 41, and 42. Appeal Br. 12-17, 19-31;
Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue that Kumar teaches a multi-level system
for managing a railway system, and Figures 12 and 13 relate to consist level
optimization that includes the infrastructure and track network optimization
levels rather than a sensor on board a vehicle or a mission optimizer on the
same vehicle using that data. Appeal Br. 14--17. Appellants further argue
because Kumar's system monitors several trains at once, Kumar does not
teach a sensor or a mission optimizer on board the vehicle, and the draw bar
instrumentation used to calculate tractive effort does not teach a sensor on a
train. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 4, 6-7; see Appeal Br. 20-23, 24--27, 28-31.
A preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's findings that
Kumar teaches an on-board sensor configured to collect data comprising
tractive effort actually generated by a vehicle along the route and on-board
mission optimizer that outputs signals based on that data, as recited in claims
32, 39, 41, and 42. Kumar teaches locomotive level optimization with
locomotive processor 1502 receiving locomotive data 1514, which includes
a measured tractive effort ("measured TE"), and using that data to optimize
locomotive level operations by issuing locomotive optimization commands
1534 to the locomotive subsystems that include engine speed to the engine.
Kumar i-f 135, Fig. 16. See Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 4.
Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's findings as to
the locomotive level optimization of Figure 16 and thus do not persuade us
that Kumar's disclosure is limited to consist and train level optimization.
4
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
In this regard, Kumar teaches that a single locomotive without any
cars may constitute a train, in which case, "the train level 300, consist level
400, and locomotive level 500 are the same" and the train level, consist
level, and locomotive level processor may comprise one, two, or three
processors. Kumar ,-r 60. Kumar teaches that tractive effort is calculated
based on current/voltage, motor characteristics, gear ratio, wheel diameter,
and even draw bar instrumentation. Id. ,-r 70. This disclosure teaches that
such calculations are based on actual sensed or detected operational data that
is generated by a locomotive as it travels along a route, as claimed. Claims
32, 39, 41, and 42 do not require any particular type of sensor or sensing of
operational data. Kumar teaches that operational data is collected on board a
locomotive and used to calculate tractive effort. Id. This collected data is
"data of at least one of tractive effort" as claimed and Appellants' arguments
have not persuaded us otherwise. See Reply Br. 2-3. Kumar teaches that
this data relates to actual tractive effort generated by a locomotive and is
collected to calculate that tractive effort. The claims require no more.
Appellants have not identified a lexicographic definition or disclaimer
that requires tractive effort to be sensed in a manner different than being
calculated from sensed operational values as disclosed in Kumar, paragraph
70. See Spec. i-fi-147 (tractive effort produced by consist), 65, 94, 106, 119,
121, 125, Fig. 10. Kumar also teaches that the sources of information at
locomotive level 500 include sensor/model inputs and onboard optimization
for locomotive level optimization. Kumar i-fi-1 140-141. Locomotive level
optimizes fuel consumption by controlling engine speed. Id. i-fi-1144--146.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 32, 33, 36, 37, 39--43, 46, 47,
49, 50, 52, 53, 55, and 56.
5
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
Claim 38
Claim 38 depends from claim 32 and recites that at least one of the
speed, power, or throttle settings are determined based on emissions output.
The Examiner found that Pudney determines settings to minimize fuel use,
so it would have been desirable to minimize emissions to reduce the impact
on air quality because fuel use and emissions are closely related. Final Act.
6; Ans. 10. The Examiner also reasoned that internal combustion engine
emissions are related to the amount of consumed fuel and the air/fuel ratio so
it would have been desirable to minimize emissions to improve air quality.
Ans. 9-10. The Examiner found that expected emissions may be calculated
by known formulas without the need for any special sensors. Id. at 10.
Appellants argue that the amount of emissions generated by a vehicle
is not related directly to the amount of fuel consumed by the vehicle and the
Examiner's attempt to conflate fuel use with emissions for determining the
various claimed settings is not supported by any evidence of record. Appeal
Br. 18; Reply Br. 5---6. We agree.
The Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to use
the mission optimizer of Pudney to control speed, power, or throttle settings
based on emissions output is not supported by a rational underpinning. The
Examiner has not explained how Pudney teaches or renders obvious a sensor
that collects emissions data of a vehicle, or a mission optimizer that controls
speed, power, or throttle settings based on such data, as claimed. Even if
emissions are related to fuel consumption by formulas or other means, the
Examiner has not explained why the claimed emission sensor would have
been an obvious modification of Pudney.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 38.
6
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
Claims 47, 50, 53, and 56
Claims 47, 50, 53, and 56 depend from independent claims 32, 39, 41,
and 42, respectively, and recite that the operational data represents emissions
actually generated by the vehicle. The Examiner found that Kumar teaches
optimizing performance for measured fuel usage by controlling speed and
power and by using fuel level and fuel flow sensors. Final Act. 11; Ans. 28.
The Examiner also found that Kumar teaches optimizing performance based
on emissions. Final Act. 11; Ans. 28. The Examiner reasoned that a skilled
artisan would understand from Kumar's disclosure of optimizing fuel use
based on measured fuel flow levels that emissions would be optimized by
using measured emissions in similar manner and sensing operational data for
emissions actually generated by the vehicle as it travels along a route would
have been an obvious as a way to optimize train performance and reduce
emissions. Final Act. 11-12; Ans. 28-29.
Appellants argue that Kumar's mention of optimizing emissions does
not mention a sensor to collect emissions data generated by the vehicle as it
travels along a route, as claimed. Appeal Br. 31-32. Appellants also argue
that the Examiner again has conflated fuel consumption with emissions that
actually are generated by a vehicle. Reply Br. 7.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they do not address
the Examiner's findings that Kumar teaches fuel sensors to sense fuel use for
optimizing performance for fuel consumption and a skilled artisan would
have found it obvious in view of this teaching and the teaching of optimizing
emissions to have included a sensor to collect emissions data for optimizing
performance in a similar way.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 47, 50, 53, and 56.
7
Appeal2014-008866
Application 11/750,716
Claims 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 as unpatentable over Pudney, Kuman, and
Matheson
Appellants argue that 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 are patentable at least
for the reasons set forth for the independent claims from which they depend.
See Appeal Br. 32. Because we sustain the rejection of independent claims
32, 39, 41, and 42, from which claims 34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54 depend, we
do not find this argument persuasive. We thus sustain the rejection of claims
34, 35, 45, 48, 51, and 54.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 32-37, 39--43 and 45-56, and
we REVERSE the rejection of claim 38.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8