2020001078 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 27, 2020

2020001078 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

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. 15/601,132 05/22/2017 Hanyang B. Chen 83786063 5033 28395 7590 07/27/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2020 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 HANYANG B. CHEN, KAREN PRICE, and MICHAEL J. IRBY Appeal 2020-001078 Application 15/601,132 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001078 Application 15/601,132 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a powertrain control based on auxiliary battery characteristics. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A powertrain control system comprising: an engine; and a controller configured to, responsive to a maximum difference in battery voltage values remaining less than a threshold value during a period in which a number of engine stop-start cycles exceeds a limit, enable an automatic stop-start system of the engine. REJECTION Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final Act. 3. OPINION In rejecting the claims before us for encompassing an abstract idea, a judicially created exception to the statutorily defined subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined the claims were directed to mental steps or methods of organizing human activity. Final Act. 2–3, 4. Appellant argues “enabl[ing] an automatic stop-start system of the engine,” among other things, “requires action by the controller that cannot be practically applied in the mind.” Appeal Br. 3. The Examiner appears to admit that this act must occur outside the human mind. Ans. 4 (“Both of these [enabling and disabling] steps can be performed by a user (e.g. a driver) by manually pressing on a button that toggles the automatic stop-start from on to off and vice versa.”). It is not apparent, and the Examiner does not explain how pressing a button is a method of “organizing human activity” as that phase is Appeal 2020-001078 Application 15/601,132 3 used in the context of a § 101 analysis. The Examiner does not otherwise address these steps, for example, by asserting they are well-understood, routine, conventional, or post-solution activity. All words in a claim must be considered in determining patent eligibility. MPEP § 2106.05 (the claim should be evaluated “as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.”) (quoting McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s § 101 analysis is incomplete and does not demonstrate that the claims before us do not meet the requirements for patent subject matter eligibility. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–15 101 Eligibility 1–15 REVERSED