Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

14133726 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 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.
14/133,726 12/19/2013 Y anan Zhao 83362168 1925
28395 7590 10/25/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER SHUDY, ANGELINA M
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANAN ZHAO, MATHEW ALAN BOESCH, and
SANGEETHA SANGAMESWARAN
(Applicant: Ford Global Technologies, LLC)
Appeal 2017-003980
Application 14/133,7261
Technology Center 3600
Before THU ANN DANG, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003980
Application 14/133,726
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to controlling engine idle stop
in a hybrid vehicle. Spec., Abstract. Appellants’ Specification provides:
Predictive information is used to determine potential vehicle
stops and corresponding stop durations during a time window.
To achieve net fuel savings, the engine stop duration time must
be long enough for the electrical energy savings to cover
electrical load added to the system. If the predicted stop duration
time is long enough to yield net fuel savings, engine stop may be
initiated. If not, engine stop may be inhibited.
Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
an engine;
a starter motor configured to start the engine; and
a controller configured to inhibit engine stop during a
vehicle stop event in response to a predicted vehicle stop duration
time being below a minimum engine stop time, wherein the
minimum engine stop time is based on electrical load of
components started in response to the engine stop and electrical
load of the starter motor to restart the engine.
Rejections
Claims 1—6 and 9-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Kuroda et al. (US 6,564,765 B2; issued May 20, 2003) (“Kuroda”) and
Herbolzheimer (US 2012/0089317 Al; published Apr. 12, 2012). Final
Act. 8-21.
Claims 7 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuroda, Herbolzheimer, and Yee et al. (US 2011/0246013
Al; published Oct. 6, 2011) (“Yee”). Final Act. 21-23.
2
Appeal 2017-003980
Application 14/133,726
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuroda, Herbolzheimer, and Nitz et al. (US
2012/0191330 Al; published July 26, 2012) (“Nitz”). Final Act. 23-25.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend the combination of Kuroda and Herbolzheimer
fails to teach or suggest “wherein the minimum engine stop time is based on
electrical load of components started in response to the engine stop and
electrical load of the starter motor to restart the engine,” as recited in claim
1. App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, Kuroda teaches
restarting an engine upon reaching a target time and that the target time is an
arbitrarily set value of “idling-stoppage duration beforehand determined.”
App. Br. 5 (citing Kuroda 6:5—6). Appellants argue:
There is no disclosure of a “minimum engine stop time” being
based on “electrical load of components started in response to the
engine stop and electrical load of the starter motor to restart the
engine.” This is important because the main purpose of
Appellant’s invention is to determine “[i]f the predicted stop
duration time is long enough to yield net fuel savings” and “[t]o
achieve net fuel savings, the engine stop duration time must be
long enough to cover the change in electrical load.” (See, e.g.,
Appellant’s specification at || 4, 23.) In view of this, Kuroda’s
general statement that “it is possible to avoid a situation in which
the battery is discharged during stoppage of the engine, thereby
causing the starting of the engine to be impossible” is insufficient
to teach or suggest Appellant’s claimed invention, as recited in
claim 1 and in light of the specification.
App. Br. 5. Appellants argue Herbolzheimer fails to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation because Herbolzheimer does not provide any teaching
regarding how the predetermined stop duration limit value GW is
3
Appeal 2017-003980
Application 14/133,726
determined or the parameters upon which it is based. App. Br. 5—6 (citing
Herbolzheimer 133).
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Herbolzheimer teaches a controller configured to inhibit
engine stop during a vehicle stop event in response to a predicted vehicle
stop duration time being below a minimum engine stop time. Ans. 3 (citing
Herbolzheimer, Abstract; 112). Kuroda teaches that when a duration of
stoppage of an engine is equal to or larger than a target time, the engine is
started to avoid a situation in which the battery is discharged during
stoppage of the engine, thereby causing the starting of the engine to be
impossible. Kuroda 2:43—51. As found by the Examiner, Kuroda teaches
determining the target time based on a quantity of power provided by the
battery to various auxiliaries and based on a quantity of power required to
start the engine. Ans. 2 (citing Kuroda 2:46—51); see also Kuroda 3:30-47.
Because Herbolzheimer teaches predicting the vehicle stop duration time
based on the present operating variables of the vehicle, the state variables,
and other parameters (Herbolzheimer H 10—12), the combination of Kuroda
and Herbolzheimer teaches or suggests a controller configured to inhibit
engine stop during a vehicle stop event in response to a predicted vehicle
stop duration time being below a minimum engine stop time, as taught by
Herbolzheimer, wherein the minimum engine stop time is based on electrical
load of components started in response to the engine stop and electrical load
of the starter motor to restart the engine, as taught by Kuroda.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claims 2—9, which depend from claim 1 and are not separately
argued. See App. Br. 6.
4
Appeal 2017-003980
Application 14/133,726
Claims 10 and 11
Appellants’ arguments regarding the patentability of independent
claims 10 and 14 are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect
to claim 1. See App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 3. We find these arguments
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 10 and 14;
and claims 11—13 and 15—18, which depend therefrom and are not separately
argued. See App. Br. 7.
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20
Regarding the patentability of claims 7, 8, 19, and 20, Appellants
contend the additional references cited in the rejection of these claims do not
cure the alleged deficiencies in the teachings of Kuroda and Herbolzheimer
discussed supra with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 7—8. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
5