Ex Parte MARTIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14059482 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/059,482 10/22/2013
46442 7590 08/01/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Douglas Raymond MARTIN
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.
83389382; 67186-046PUS1 3743
EXAMINER
MELTON, TODD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS RAYMOND MARTIN and
KENNETH JAMES MILLER1
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Douglas Raymond Martin and Kenneth James Miller ("Appellants")
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants' Appeal Brief indicates that the real party in interest is Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle system and method that provides
user control over battery mode operation during each stage of a pre-planned
route. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
pre-planning a route of a vehicle on a computing device
separate from the vehicle including selecting a battery mode for
operating the vehicle during each stage of the route and
displaying a battery state of charge for each stage of the route;
and
controlling the vehicle automatically with a vehicle system
based on route information associated with the pre-planned
route.
Segawa
Ferguson
Hancock
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
US 8,838,318 B2 Sept. 16, 2014
US 8,880,270 Bl Nov. 4, 2014
US 2011/0313652 Al Dec. 22, 2011
THE REJECTIONS
(I) Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hancock and Segawa.
(II) Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hancock, Segawa, and Ferguson.
2
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
ANALYSIS
Rejection (I); Hancock and Segawa
Claims 1-9, 16-19, and 21
The Examiner relies on Hancock to teach, among other things, (i) pre-
planning a route of a vehicle on a computing device separate from the
vehicle and (ii) selecting a battery mode for operating the vehicle during
each stage of the route. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Segawa to
teach "displaying a battery state of charge for each stage of the route." Id. at
5 ( citing Segawa, Fig. 16). The Examiner also relies on Segawa to teach the
"controlling" step recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Segawa, 5:36-39).
Appellants argue that the combination of Hancock and Segawa fails to
teach or suggest at least "selecting a battery mode for operating a vehicle
during each stage of a route and displaying a battery state of charge for each
stage." Appeal Br. 4. Appellants assert that Hancock does not select a
battery mode or display a battery state for each stage of the route, and
"Segawa provides only a single display of battery [ state of charge] (SOC)
over the entire route rather than providing the battery SOC for each stage of
the route." Id.
The Examiner responds that the combination of Segawa and Hancock
meets the claims because Segawa discloses a battery SOC for a route and
Hancock discloses that a route may include intermediate waypoints. See
Ans. 2-3. According to the Examiner, "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that a route having waypoints is equivalent to a sequence of
linked routes, and ... it would have been obvious to display selectable
operation plans for travel between waypoints." Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
In Reply, Appellants assert that Segawa, like Hancock, includes
various waypoints, or transitions where the route changes from one stage to
another, but that "Segawa only teaches a single mode of operation ( e.g.,
sport, normal, or eco) across the entire route .... " Reply Br. 2. Appellants
argue that Segawa does not suggest "selecting a different battery mode of
operation at each of the individual stages of the route as that stage is
divided-up by the various waypoints." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Hancock includes
"waypoints," which include stops and duration of the stops. Hancock ,r 42.
Before continuing to the next stop (on the travel plan), Hancock's "energy
plan component 128 may determine that the previous plan is no longer
valid," and will add charging stops to the travel plan. Hancock ,r,r 42 and 46.
Thus, at each waypoint, Hancock determines whether the SOC is sufficient
to continue. Hence, we agree with the Examiner that "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that a route having waypoints is equivalent to a
sequence of routes, each with a destination point, and therefore it would
have been obvious to display a battery SOC at each waypoint." Final Act.
2-3; see also Ans. 3. That is, displaying battery SOC at each stop on a route
would only be a duplication of the process that is already performed by
Segawa. Although we appreciate that Segawa teaches a single (battery)
mode for a route, based on the teachings of Hancock as proposed by the
Examiner, this mode would be evaluated at each waypoint to determine "if
there is [] enough energy and/or fuel to complete the travel plan," and would
be changed as needed in order to complete the travel plan. Hancock ,r 33;
see also Segawa, 20:29-46; Fig. 16. Thus, for each waypoint of the route a
4
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
determination could be made to use energy or fuel to complete the next
portion of the travel plan.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness
is based on "conclusory statements." Appeal Br. 5. According to
Appellants, Hancock does not discuss a "drive mode" and Segawa uses a
"single drive mode that considers the trade-offs between operability, comfort
and driving distance." Appeal Br. 6. Appellants assert that the Examiner
"never explains why a person of skill in the art would be motivated to
implement the proposed changes to Hancock." Id.
Appellants' argument on this point is not persuasive. The Examiner
proposes to modify Hancock to "yield predictable results according to the
teachings of Segawa by allowing a user to balance trade-offs between
driving range and vehicle performance." Final Act. 5 (citing Segawa 2:63-
67). That is, Segawa recognizes that speed, distance, and air conditioning
use affect battery usage. Segawa, Fig. 16. In the Examiner's proposed
combination of the teachings of Segawa and Hancock, the calculations used
by Segawa to decide whether to drive in eco mode, normal mode, or fast
mode would be equally applicable to the travel plan of Hancock. We find no
reason to believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any
difficulty in using the calculations of Segawa to choose a drive mode, or that
doing so would yield anything other than a predictable result. Furthermore,
Appellants do not assert that the result of combining the drive mode
selection and determining a travel plan would have been unpredictable or
that doing so would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments, but are not apprised of
Examiner error.
5
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 16-
19, and 21 as unpatentable over Hancock and Segawa.
Claims 11-15 and 22
In addition to presenting similar arguments as discussed above for
claims 1 and 16 (see Appeal Br. 16), which we did not find persuasive,
Appellants further argue that Hancock does not automatically generate a
return route because Hancock audibly asks a user whether they plan to
"return home." Appeal Br. 8. Appellants assert that "this is not the same as
'automatically' generating a return route," because the term "automatic"
means that "there would be no need to request information from the user."
Id.
The Examiner responds that "the term 'automatically' is interpreted to
mean 'performed by a computer' in accordance with the appellants'
specification." Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner notes that "a return trip
can be automatically generated or can be user-specified." Id.
The Examiner has the better position here. Appellants' Specification
discloses that a user inputs information to plan route 96 and that "a return
trip map 106 can be automatically generated and displayed," or "the user
may specify different starting and destination points to plan the return route
108." Spec. ,r,r 50 and 59. Although we appreciate that Hancock's system
works on a dialogue between the computer and the driver, once this dialogue
is complete (input is complete), the computer automatically generates the
travel plan including a return trip. Hancock ,r 41; Table 1. That is, once the
computer has all the relevant information, the route including a return trip is
automatically generated by the computer.
6
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11, and of
claims 12-15 and 22 depending from claim 11 as unpatentable over
Hancock and Segawa.
Rejection (II); Hancock, Segawa, and Ferguson
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and requires that the vehicle be an
autonomously driven electrified vehicle. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Claim 20 depends from claim 16 and recites the same requirement as claim
IO. Id. at 12. The Examiner relies on Ferguson to teach this limitation.
Final Act. 13.
Appellants rely on the arguments discussed above in connection with
Rejection (I) for the patentability of claims 10 and 20 (see Appeal Br. 8-9),
which we did not find persuasive, and also provide further arguments that
the Examiner's "rationale for combining the asserted prior art is, at best,
speculative," and is based on "conclusory reasoning." Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner proposes to
modify Hancock to "yield predictable results according to the teachings of
Ferguson, by improving the navigation ability of the autonomous electric
vehicle." Final Act. 13-14 (citing Ferguson, 2:35--43). Specifically,
Ferguson recognizes that using an autonomous vehicle "can free the
passengers from the tasks of driving and navigation." Ferguson, 2:41--43.
When Ferguson is combined with Hancock, one of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate that the vehicle of Hancock could be driven autonomously
to free the passengers from the tasks of driving and navigation. We find no
reason to believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any
difficulty in making the vehicle of Hancock autonomous, or that doing so
7
Appeal2017-010855
Application 14/059,482
would yield anything other than a predictable result. Furthermore,
Appellants do not assert that making the vehicle of Hancock autonomous
would have been unpredictable or that doing so would have been beyond the
level of ordinary skill in the art. We have considered all of Appellants'
arguments, but are not apprised of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 20
as unpatentable over Hancock, Segawa, and Ferguson.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8