Ex Parte Lovett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2018

14686034 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/686,034 04/14/2015
28395 7590 09/11/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karin Lovett
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.
83519778 1038
EXAMINER
FE!, JORDAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2018 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 KARIN LOVETT and RYAN J. SKAFF
Appeal2018-001526 1
Application 14/686,0342
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed July 7,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 29, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 29, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Feb. 9, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001526
Application 14/686,034
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[the] application is generally related to a
low voltage warning of an auxiliary battery for hybrid-electric and electric
vehicles." Spec. ,r 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A vehicle comprising:
an auxiliary battery;
a traction battery; and
a controller programmed to command an energy transfer
from a traction battery to an auxiliary battery in response to a
voltage of the auxiliary battery being less than a threshold
during an ignition-off period and, in response to detecting
conditions inhibiting the energy transfer while the voltage is
less than the threshold, output a low-voltage alert.
Appeal Br. 8.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Masuda. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Masuda in view of Bolduc. 4
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Masuda in view of North. 5
3 Masuda et al., US 2012/0299377 Al, pub. Nov. 29, 2012.
4 Bolduc, US 2006/0125443 Al, pub. June 15, 2006.
5 North et al., US 2014/0188367 Al, pub. July 3, 2014.
2
Appeal2018-001526
Application 14/686,034
4. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Masuda in view ofNorth and Ono. 6
DISCUSSION
Obviousness over Masuda
With respect to this rejection, Appellants group the claims together in
a single group. See Appeal Br. 4--5. We select claim 1 as representative of
this group of claims, and claims 2---6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 fall with
claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Masuda discloses a
vehicle with an auxiliary battery, a traction battery, and a controller. Final
Act. 2 (citing Masuda Figs. 1, 3, 4; ,r,r 1, 12, 37, 38, 55, 95-111). The
Examiner finds that Masuda discloses that the controller is programmed to
command energy transfer to the auxiliary battery as claimed; that Masuda
teaches detecting conditions that inhibit the energy transfer as claimed; and
that Masuda generates a low-voltage alert in the form of a stop flag. Id. at
2-3 ( citing Masuda Fig. 4; ,r 108). The Examiner concludes that the claimed
"low-voltage alert" would have been obvious in view of Masuda either
because the stop flag is equivalent to such an alert or because it "is common
and well known in the art of electronics since it informs a user that [ ] there
might be a problem with operating the system." Id. at 3. Further, the
Examiner clarifies in the Answer that the rejection relies on Official Notice
with respect to the finding that "providing an alert (for example to a user) to
show the status of a system is old and well known- especially in the art of
6 Ono et al., US 2009/0265048 Al, pub. Oct. 22, 2009.
3
Appeal2018-001526
Application 14/686,034
batteries where it is common to provide low voltage alerts to notify users
when a battery will die/needs recharging." Ans. 7.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings with respect to
claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 6-8. As discussed below, we are
not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants first argue that "[t]he purpose of [Masuda's] stop flag is to
cause the system to be maintained in the sleep mode" and that "there is no
outputting of an alert in any manner" such that "the controller of Masuda
does not output any signal when the flag is set." Appeal Br. 4. Appellants
also argue that the Examiner's finding regarding what is common and well-
known in the art of electronics is erroneous. Id. at 5. Appellants
acknowledge that "[p ]rior art systems provide a low-voltage alert in
response to a battery voltage being low," but Appellants assert that the claim
requires distinguishing "that energy transfer to the battery from another
battery or power source is inhibited." Id. ( emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded of error. First, we note that the Examiner finds,
and Appellants do not dispute, that Masuda discloses a controller that
commands energy transfer to an auxiliary battery as claimed; detects
conditions inhibiting energy transfer as claimed; and outputs a stop flag in
response. These findings are supported on the record. See, e.g., Masuda ,r,r
99, 104, 109. Further, the Examiner takes Official Notice only with respect
to the finding that using alerts for low voltage situations is common and
well-known, a point with which Appellants agree. See Appeal Br. 5.
Appellants provide no further rebuttal of the rejection or the Examiner's
Official Notice. See Reply Br. 2-3. As such, we find that the Examiner's
conclusion is adequately supported on the record before us. Accordingly,
4
Appeal2018-001526
Application 14/686,034
we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims
2---6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 20, which fall with claim 1.
Obviousness over Masuda and Bolduc
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites:
The vehicle of claim 1 further comprising an engine and an
electric machine mechanically coupled to the engine and
electrically coupled to the traction battery, and wherein the
controller is further programmed to, in response to the low-
voltage alert, command the engine to start and operate the
electric machine to generate electricity to recharge the traction
battery and the auxiliary battery.
Appeal Br. 9.
As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 9, the Examiner finds:
[Bolduc] teaches a vehicle comprising an engine and an electric
machine mechanically coupled to the engine and electrically
coupled to the traction battery, and wherein the controller is
further programmed to, in response to a low-voltage alert,
command the engine to start and operate the electric machine to
generate electricity to recharge the traction battery and the
auxiliary battery ([Bolduc] i-f[lO, 17, 20, 25]).
Final Act. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate this functionality into Masuda "because it allows the system to
charge the batteries using the engine and thus allows the systems requiring
electricity to run longer." Id. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner clarifies
that Bolduc paragraph 25 is relied upon as teaching "starting the engine to
charge the batteries when necessary." Ans. 9.
5
Appeal2018-001526
Application 14/686,034
Appellants argue that Bolduc requires that the operator starts the
engine in order to recharge the batteries and there is no disclosure in Bolduc
that the engine is started by the controller in response to a low-voltage alert,
as found by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 6. Further, Appellants assert that
paragraph 25 of Bolduc "requires the operator to initiate the engine start and
enables the starting by selecting the auxiliary battery to provide power to the
starter." Reply Br. 2. We agree. Contrary to the Examiner's findings, we
see no indication in Bolduc that a controller responds to a low-voltage alert
by commanding the engine to start to recharge the batteries. Rather, Bolduc
discloses that, if the vehicle operator discovers that the starter battery "has
run down to the point where it cannot start the vehicle" the operator can
intervene to override the controller (Bolduc's mediator) to start the engine
using the auxiliary battery. Bolduc ,r 25. Bolduc discloses that the auxiliary
battery and the starter battery are then recharged. Id. Further, even if we
were to agree with the Examiner's position that Bolduc teaches "starting the
engine to charge the batteries when necessary," the Examiner has not
established that it would have been obvious to charge the batteries in this
manner without operator intervention, i.e., by a command from the
controller in response to a low-voltage alert as required by the claim.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9. We also
do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 18, which include similar
limitations and for which the Examiner's relies on the same findings.
Remaining Obviousness Rejections
Appellants do not present separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of claims 7, 8, 11, 13, and 17 other than to assert that North and
6
Appeal2018-001526
Application 14/686,034
Ono do not cure the deficiency in the rejection of the independent claims.
See Appeal Br. 6-7. Having found no deficiency in the rejection of the
independent claims, we sustain the rejections of claims 7, 8, 11, 13, and 17
for the reasons discussed above.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 9, 15, and 18.
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
7