United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2022

2021000511 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2022)

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. 15/743,140 01/09/2018 Kaiyu Wang 63141US01; 67007-049PUS1 7389 26096 7590 02/28/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER AZAD, MD ABUL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2022 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 KAIYU WANG, VLADIMIR BLASKO, WILLIAM A. VERONESI, MOON C. KIM, and ROBERT K. THORNTON ________________ Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21.1 Claim 10 is canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies Raytheon Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates an energy storage assembly that provides stored electric energy to a load. Spec. ¶ 2. The energy storage assembly comprises a supervisor operable to determine a power reference set point based upon a cost function. Id. ¶ 4. A storage unit controller is configured to control the energy storage unit to provide energy to at least one load based on a power reference input that is based on the power reference set point and at least one dynamically changing power profile from at least one load. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. An energy supply assembly comprising: an energy storage unit; a supervisor operable to determine a power reference set point; a storage unit controller configured to control said energy storage unit to provide electric energy to at least one load based upon a power reference input that is based upon said power reference set point and at least one dynamically changing power profile from said at least one load. The Examiner’s Rejections Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Final Act. 3-4. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sharma (US 2012/0215368 A1; Aug. 23, 2012) and Prosser (US 2013/0030590 A1; Jan. 31, 2013). Final Act. 4-12. Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 3 Claims 5, 6, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sharma, Prosser, and Oggianu (US 2011/0208360; Aug. 15, 2011). Final Act. 13-14. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness Claim 21 recites: The assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the storage unit controller is configured to control said energy storage unit in a feed forward manner to provide electric energy to said at least one dynamic load based upon said power reference input that is based upon said power reference set point and said at least one dynamically changing power profile from said at least one load. The Examiner concludes the term “feed forward manner” and, in particular, the term “manner,” renders the claim indefinite because “manner” is not clearly defined in the Specification, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner concludes “manner” is a broad, relative term whose scope cannot be ascertained. Ans. 15. Appellant argues the Examiner errs by applying the incorrect standard for indefiniteness. See Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues the standard is not whether the term is specifically used or described in the Specification, but rather whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the claim when read in light of the Specification. Id. Appellant argues “feed forward manner” refers to utilizing feed forward information to rapidly address conditions for using the energy storage unit to augment power to service the dynamic load. Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 33). Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Section 112 requires that a patent specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 4 pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” The Supreme Court has read this provision to require that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Claim 21 recites “the storage unit controller is configured to controls aid energy storage unit in a feed forward manner.” The Specification discloses that a power supply assembly utilizes “feed forward information” from the load to rapidly address conditions for using the energy storage unit. Spec. ¶ 33. Although “feed forward manner” is not defined in the claim or Specification, we agree with Appellant that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand claim 21. In particular, when read in light of the Specification, claim 21 requires the storage unit controller to control the energy storage unit utilizing feed forward information to provide electrical energy as set forth in the remainder of the claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claim 21. Obviousness Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-19 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Sharma and Prosser do not teach or suggest “a storage unit controller configured to control said energy storage unit to provide electric energy to at least one load based upon a power reference input that is based upon said power reference set point and at least one dynamically changing power profile from said at least one load.” See Appeal Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-3. Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 5 In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner admits Sharma does not teach “at least one dynamically changing power profile from said at least one load.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Final Act. 5). Appellant argues the feature missing from Sharma is actually the entire “storage unit controller” limitation because it is not sufficient for the Examiner to allege that Prosser teaches a dynamically changing power profile from at least one load and propose combining it with Sharma’s system. Id. at 5. Appellant argues Prosser does not cure the deficiency of Sharma because Prosser teaches load shedding, which is the process of dimming or deactivating loads to reduce consumption. Id. Appellant argues Prosser is silent as to controlling a storage unit to provide electrical energy to a load based on a power reference input that is based on a dynamically changing power profile from the load. Id. Appellant argues Sharma does not have a controller that functions based on the claimed combination of factors and the Examiner cannot divide the claim and find separate teachings in each reference. Reply Br. 2. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sharma teaches an energy storage and management system, which the Examiner finds teaches the claimed “storage unit controller.” Ans. 16 (citing Sharma ¶¶ 5, 6, 32, 37). The Examiner finds Sharma teaches this system mitigates energy provided to loads according to dynamically changing power profiles from the loads. Ans. 17 (“mitigating loads provides dynamically changing power profile from load.”). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds Sharma teaches dynamically changing power profiles from loads. The Examiner cites Prosser as further evidence of dynamically changing power profiles, and in Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 6 particular dynamically changing power profiles based on user settings. Ans. 17 (citing Prosser ¶ 41). Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they focus on the individual teachings of Prosser without considering the joint teachings of the references or the specific findings made by the Examiner with respect to Sharma. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 13, which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 6. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19, which Appellant does not separately argue, for the same reasons. See id. at 4-8. Claim 20 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 20 for the same reasons as claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4-8. We are not persuaded of Examiner error for the reasons set forth above. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 20 because Sharma and Prosser do not teach or suggest “increasing electrical energy provided from said energy storage unit to said at least one load based upon said input.” See id. at 6-7. In particular, Appellant argues Prosser teaches load shedding by Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 7 dimming and deactivating the loads, but does not teach increasing electrical energy provided from the energy storage unit. Id. at 7. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Sharma, not Prosser, teaches the “increasing” limitation. See Ans. 18. Sharma teaches energy storage charging and discharging must be scheduled to store low-price energy during light-load periods and then to deliver it during peak-load periods. Sharma ¶ 37. In other words, Sharma teaches increasing electrical energy provided from the energy storage unit during peak-load periods. Appellant’s argument that Prosser does not teach the “increasing” limitation is unpersuasive because it focuses on the teachings of Prosser without considering the teachings of Sharma and the combined teachings of the reference. We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 20. Claims 4 and 16 Claim 4 recites “[t]he energy storage assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein said power profile indicates variations in power draw by said at least one load, the variations occurring within seconds.” Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 4 because the Examiner finds Sharma teaches the limitations of claim 4, but admits Sharma does not teach at least one dynamically changing power profile from said at least one load in the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-8 (citing Final Act. 5, 7). Appellant argues these positions are inconsistent and the rejection of claim 4 should, therefore, be reversed. Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. As discussed above, the Examiner finds Sharma teaches at least one dynamically changing power profile from said at least one load. See Ans. 16-17. Accordingly, the Appeal 2021-000511 Application 15/743,140 8 Examiner’s findings are not inconsistent. With regard to the limitations of claim 4, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Sharma teaches variations in power draw by at least one load, where the variations occur within seconds. See 19 (citing Sharma ¶¶ 32, 37). Indeed, Sharma teaches dynamic variations in power draw that occur “during short periods of time, 1 to 2 seconds.” Sharma ¶ 37. For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 4. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 16 which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 7-8. DECSION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21 112(b) Indefiniteness 21 1-4, 7-9, 11-17, 19-21 103 Sharma, Prosser 1-4, 7-9, 11-17, 19- 21 5, 6, 18 103 Sharma, Prosser, Oggianu 5, 6, 18 Overall Outcome 1-9, 11-21 Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). 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) (2013). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f) (2019). AFFIRMED