FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2021

2020002978 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2021)

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.
14/855,820 09/16/2015 Shunsuke OKUBO 83571661; 67186-204PUS1 8092
46442 7590 01/29/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
PICON-FELICIANO, RUBEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2021 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 SHUNSUKE OKUBO and FLOYD CADWELL
____________________

Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 and 21–25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
According to Appellant, the invention “relates to an oil maintenance
strategy for an electrified vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 22 are the

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820

2
independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as
illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A method, comprising:
periodically adjusting powertrain operation of an
electrified vehicle equipped with an internal combustion engine
to progressively influence an oil quality of an oil of the internal
combustion engine,
wherein progressively influencing the oil quality includes
reducing an amount of contaminants in the oil.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–10, 12–15, and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jeong,3 Ozaki,4 and Treharne;5 and
II. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jeong,
Ozaki, Treharne, and Sangameswaran.6
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1–10, 12–15, and 21–25
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–6, 10, 13–15,
and 21
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
“periodically adjusting powertrain operation of an electrified vehicle
equipped with an internal combustion engine to progressively influence an
oil quality of an oil of the internal combustion engine.” Appeal Br., Claims

2 We combine rejections relative to the Final Office Action.
3 US 2012/0141297 A1, published June 7, 2012.
4 US 2013/0342150 A1, published Dec. 26, 2013.
5 US 2013/0268182 A1, published Oct. 10, 2013.
6 US 2014/0114511 A1, published Apr. 24, 2014.
Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820

3
App. (emphases added). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in
error because no reference discloses progressively influencing an oil quality,
as claimed. More specifically, according to Appellant,
[a]s defined in the [S]pecification, progressively influencing the
oil quality means that the oil quality is gradually improved over
time as opposed to waiting until after the oil quality has fallen
below a threshold value. See, e.g., paragraph [00045]. Ozaki
and Treharne both address oil degradation only after the oil has
degraded below a predefined threshold rather than gradually
improving the oil quality over time.
Id. at 4. We note, however, that elsewhere in its Specification, Appellant
describes that its “control strategy 100 may determine an oil quality target
value Qtarget. The oil quality target value Qtarget represents the threshold
against which a measured oil quality number Qmeas is compared to determine
whether the oil quality of the oil of the engine 14 has deteriorated to such a
level that a corrective action is required.” Spec. ¶ 46. Thus, in accordance
with Appellant’s Specification, we understand that the claim term “to
progressively influence an oil quality of an oil of the internal combustion
engine” encompasses comparing oil quality with a threshold value and
taking action to influence the oil quality when the measured quality is below
that threshold. Consequently, Appellant’s admission that “Ozaki and
Treharne both address oil degradation only after the oil has degraded below
a predefined threshold” is an admission that both references disclose the
argued claim recitation.
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection claims 2–6,
Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820

4
10, 13–15, and 21 that the Examiner rejects with, and Appellant does not
argue separately from, claim 1.
Dependent claims 7–9
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because
[c]laim 7 requires the features of “determining a normalized oil
quality number if the measured oil quality number is below the
oil quality target value.” Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7
and therefore also require these features.
Neither Jeong, Ozaki, nor Treharne teaches or suggests
determining a normalized oil quality number. The
[Examiner] . . . appears to rely on the low pass filter of Ozaki as
allegedly providing a normalized oil quality number.
Respectfully, this position is misplaced. While the filter would
certainly provide a filtered value, there is no evidence that
filtering in a low pass filter is the same thing as normalizing an
oil quality number.
Appeal Br. 5. Based on our review, we agree with Appellant. The
Examiner’s explanation on pages 17 and 18 of the Answer is inadequate to
support the rejection. For example, the Examiner does not support
adequately statements such as that the “Examiner respectfully submits that
the general broadest mathematical and statistics definition of a normalized
value is a value measured on different scales adjusted to a notionally
common scale,” and
low pass filters algorithms regardless of the specific
application, always include weighted or scaled values in order
to do the filtering process. The fact that the low pass filter
eliminates high frequency values and keep low frequency
values constitutes a type of normalization process in the values.
[The] Examiner agreed with Appellant that not all filters
include normalized values as there are the so called
“Normalization-Free Filters,” but all low pass filters regardless
[of the] specific application include a normalizing term and/or
Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820

5
coefficient in their numerical algorithm in order to filter the
high frequency values and keep the low frequency values.
Answer 17−18 (emphases omitted). Instead, these statements of fact appear
to have no evidentiary basis. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 7–9.
Dependent claim 12
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
Treharne is relied on [by the Examiner] as allegedly disclosing
the features of claim 12 (i.e., adjusting the powertrain operation
by applying a battery charge modifier). Respectfully, Treharne
does not disclose these features. Treharne only generally
discusses that an oil clean out procedure may be executed based
on factors that include the battery state of charge. See, e.g.,
paragraph [0013]. Applying a battery charge modifier to adjust
powertrain operation is neither taught nor suggested by
Treharne.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant persuades us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds that Treharne’s paragraphs 13, 14, and 54 disclose the claimed
powertrain adjustment. Although we have reviewed the Examiner’s
explanation (Answer 21), it is not clear to us that in Treharne there is any
application of a battery charge modifier to adjust powertrain operation as
claimed.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 12.
Independent claim 22 and dependent claims 23–25
Similar to dependent claim 7,
[independent c]laim 22 further requires “normalizing” an
oil quality number. These features are also missing from any of
Jeong, Ozaki, or Treharne. The [Examiner] . . . relies on the
low pass filter of Ozaki as allegedly providing a normalized oil
Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820

6
quality number. The filter would certainly provide a filtered
value, but there is no evidence that filtering in a low pass filter
is the same thing as normalizing an oil quality number.
Appeal Br. 7. Based on our review, we agree with Appellant. As discussed
above, the Examiner’s explanation on pages 17 and 18 of the Answer are not
adequate to support the rejection. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 22. Further, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 23–25 that depend from
claim 22.
Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 11
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because
Sangameswaran is relied on [by the Examiner] as allegedly
disclosing the features of claim 11 (i.e., adjusting the
powertrain operation by applying an engine pull-up threshold
modifier). Respectfully, Sangameswaran does not disclose
applying an engine pull-up threshold modifier as part of a
method for progressively influencing an oil quality of an oil of
the internal combustion engine. Sangameswaran only generally
discusses that engine pull ups may be performed even when a
user has selected EV mode for hybrid vehicle operation. See,
e.g., paragraph [0033].
Appeal Br. 10. In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates “that . . . exactly what
Sangameswaran discloses” is “the claim language . . . that part of the
adjusting of the powertrain operation includes applying an engine pull-up
threshold modifier.” Answer 20. More specifically, the Examiner
determines that “Sangameswaran discloses that the engine may be pulled up
by the VSC [vehicle system controller] beyond predetermined vehicle power
or speed thresholds.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphases omitted). Although
we agree that the noted portion of “Sangameswaran discloses that the engine
Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820

7
may be pulled up by the VSC . . . beyond predetermined vehicle power or
speed thresholds,” it is not clear to us that this is an application of an engine
pull-up threshold modifier. For example, this paragraph does not disclose
that there is any threshold for the pull-up, and that this threshold itself is
modified based on anything. Instead, this paragraph of Sangameswaran
appears to disclose, at most, that the engine is pulled-up. See Spec. ¶ 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–6,
10, 14, 15, and 21.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 7–9,
11–13, and 22–25.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–15,
21–25
103 Jeong, Ozaki,
Treharne
1–6, 10, 14,
15, 21
7–9, 12,
13, 22–25
11 103 Jeong, Ozaki,
Treharne,
Sangameswaran
11
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 10, 14,
15, 21
7–9, 11–
13, 22–25
Appeal 2020-002978
Application 14/855,820

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART