Ex Parte Hall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

13480118 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/480,118 05/24/2012
139779 7590
Rankin Hill & Clark LLP
23755 Lorain Road
Suite 200
North Olmsted, OH 44070
08/31/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chris Hall
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.
HRA-35245.01 2859
EXAMINER
ZALESKAS, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 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):
overberger@rankinhill.com
dragony@rankinhill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS HALL and JUNICHI KANEMARU 1
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chris Hall and Junichi Kanemaru ("Appellants") appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-26, and
28-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The real party in interest is Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to an idle stop control method and
system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. An idle stop control method for a vehicle, comprising:
determining whether an idle stop condition for the vehicle is
satisfied;
determining whether the vehicle is in a stopped condition;
idle stopping an engine of the vehicle when determined that the
idle stop condition is satisfied and the vehicle is in the stopped
condition;
after idle stopping the engine, determining whether an engine
restart condition is satisfied; and
restarting the engine when determined that the engine restart
condition is satisfied,
wherein idle stopping the engine includes operating an HVAC
blower of an HV AC system to maintain a comfort level within a
vehicle cabin and wherein operating the HV AC blower to
maintain the comfort level includes supplying a low voltage to
the HV AC blower,
wherein supplying the low voltage to the HV AC blower occurs
until a sensed temperature falls below a predetermined threshold
whereby the HV AC blower is switched to an off condition,
wherein the idle stop condition is satisfied when a coolant
temperature of engine coolant of the vehicle is above a
predetermined coolant temperature.
2
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1, 2, 10, 18, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Akahoshi (US 2009/0145141 Al, published June 11,
2009) in view of Ito (US 5,803,166; issued Sept. 8, 1998) and Jinno (US
2009/0198438 Al, published Aug. 6, 2009); 2
(ii) claims 9, 28, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Akahoshi in view of Ito, Jinno, and Helms (DE 10 2009
040 877 Al, published May 27, 2009); 3
(iii) claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Akahoshi in view of Ito, Jinno, and Kato (EP 2 098 392 Al, published
Sept. 9, 2009), and, alternatively, also in view of Helms;
(iv) claims 7 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Akahoshi in view of Ito, Jinno, and Helms;
(v) claims 8 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Akahoshi in view of Ito, Jinno, Helms, and Kato;
2 The Final Action dated August 17, 2015, did not include Jinno as a
reference applied in this rejection. In an Advisory Action dated November
17, 2015, a proposed amendment to claims 1 and 24, to incorporate a
limitation previously presented in dependent claim 12, was entered. Claim
12 was, accordingly, canceled. The Advisory Action discusses that, because
the amendment to claim 1 was entered, Jinno, which was previously
employed in rejecting claim 12, is now cited in rejecting claims 1 and 24.
Adv. Act. 2. Jinno is, thus, now regarded as also being relied on in the
rejection of claims depending from claims 1 and 24, in instances in which it
may not have previously been relied on.
3 Reference herein to Helms is to a machine-generated English-language
translation of the German published application, appearing in the Image File
Wrapper of the underlying application.
3
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
(vi) claims 11, 16, 17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Akahoshi in view of Ito, Jinno, and Metzger
(US 7,027,912 Bl, issued Apr. 11, 2006);
(vii) claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Akahoshi in view of Ito and Jinno; 4
(viii) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over
Akahoshi in view of Ito, Jinno, and Itoh (US 2004/0149246 Al, published
Aug. 5, 2004); and
(ix) claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over
Akahoshi in view of Ito and Jinno.
A rejection of claims 9, 24, 28, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and a rejection of claims 9 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph, are withdrawn. Adv. Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 10, 18, and 22-25--§ 103(a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno
Claims 1, 2, 10, 18, 22, and 23
The Examiner finds that Akahoshi discloses the subject matter of
claim 1, with the exception of a clear teaching of supplying a low voltage to
an HVAC blower until a sensed temperature falls below a predetermined
threshold, at which point the HV AC blower is switched off. Final Act. 10-
11. The Examiner finds that Ito discloses switching off an HV AC blower
during a heating operation when the temperature in the passenger
compartment becomes lower than a target temperature. Id. at 11, citing Ito
4 Per footnote 1, this ground of rejection is essentially the same as the
ground currently applied against claim 1, from which these claims depend.
4
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
1: 18--42. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify the idle stop control system of Akahoshi to switch off its HV AC
blower once a sensed temperature falls below a target or threshold
temperature, in order to prevent the blowing of cooler air into the passenger
compartment during heating operation. Id. at 12.
Additionally, with the amendment to claim 1 presented in the
Amendment after Final Action dated October 19, 2015, and entered by the
Advisory Action dated November 17, 2015, claim 1 additionally recites that
the previously claimed "idle stop condition" is "satisfied when a coolant
temperature of engine coolant of the vehicle is above a predetermined
coolant temperature," a limitation previously set forth in dependent claim
12. 5 The Examiner relies on Jinno as disclosing this limitation, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate this control aspect
in Akahoshi, in that Jinno teaches that employing a threshold engine coolant
temperature as an idle stop condition beneficially decreases the frequency of
engine stops and restarts. Adv. Act. 2.
Appellants argue, citing to an isolated portion of a flow chart
appearing in Figure 7, that Akahoshi does not disclose that the engine is to
be stopped not only based upon an idle stop condition, but also based on the
vehicle being stopped. Appeal Br. 12-13. However, as Appellants proceed
through a discussion of the various paragraphs in Akahoshi identified by the
Examiner as being pertinent to the vehicle being in a stopped condition,
Appellants themselves recognize that the vehicle is also stopped when
5 As disclosed in the Specification, the engine coolant temperature is
indicative of whether a predetermined desired cabin temperature is saturated
(i.e., attained) or not. Spec. ,r,r 27, 28.
5
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
Akahoshi is determining whether an idle stop condition is met, such that the
engine is or is not to be stopped. Id. at 12-13.
Appellants continue the analysis of Akahoshi, noting that Akahoshi
does not disclose using an engine coolant temperature threshold as an idle
stop condition. Id. at 13-14. The Examiner, however, does not rely on
Akahoshi as teaching this specific limitation. Instead, as noted above, the
Examiner relies on Jinno, and concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify Akahoshi in view of Jinno, such that the resulting system includes
the idle stop condition recited in claim 1. See Ans. 29-30.
Appellants next argue that Ito teaches away from the subject matter of
claim 1, stating that:
Ito disables the fan in a scenario which is opposite of the scenario
of claim 1 in that Ito requires a temperature of the engine cooling
water to be lower than a specified temperature rather than greater
than a predetermined temperature, as provided by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted); see also, Reply Br. 4--5. This argument
confuses the claimed requirement for satisfying the idle stop condition
( engine coolant temperature above a threshold) with the claimed requirement
for switching off the HV AC blower ( some sensed temperature falling below
a predetermined threshold). See Ans. 31-34. The portions of Ito relied on
relate to switching off the blower upon a sensed temperature being below a
predetermined threshold, and have nothing to do with meeting an idle stop
condition. Accordingly, the argument does not apprise us of error in the
rejection.
Appellants additionally argue that the disclosure in Ito of requiring
both a temperature in a passenger compartment and a temperature of the
engine cooling water to be below predetermined thresholds prior to
6
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
switching off the HV AC blower "would result in scenarios where the fan of
claim 1 would be off while the fan of Ito would be on," because claim 1
bases the decision as to whether to tum off the fan only on a threshold
cooling water temperature. Reply Br. 5. The argument does not point to
error, in that the rejection does not rely on incorporating all aspects of the Ito
system in the Akahoshi system
Appellants additionally argue that the disclosure in Ito of gradually
increasing heater fan speed as the engine cooling water temperature rises
somehow undermines the viability of the rejection. Reply Br. 6. Although
the Examiner does reference that discussion, it does not appear to pertain to
any limitation in claim 1, which recites only supplying a low voltage to the
HVAC blower, but not changing the voltage to control the fan speed, until
the condition for switching the blower to "off' is met. Accordingly, the
argument does not apprise us of error.
Appellants maintain that Jinno may not properly be combined with
Akahoshi because Jinno does not require the vehicle to be in a stopped
condition prior to idle stopping the engine. Appeal Br. 15-16.
Notwithstanding that the Jinno system allows for, under certain
circumstances, the idle stopping of an engine when a vehicle is slowed to a
substantially stopped condition, Jinno also discloses conditions in which the
vehicle is stopped when assessing whether an idle stop condition is met.
Jinno ,r 97. Appellants fail to present any cogent technical argument as to
why the idle stop condition disclosed in Jinno would not work equally as
well in the Akahoshi system, which does require the vehicle to be stopped as
a condition for stopping the engine. The argument does not apprise us of
7
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
error, particularly in view of the disclosure in Jinno that a "vehicle stopped"
condition is appropriately used.
The rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Akahoshi, Ito, and
Jinno is sustained. Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of
claims 2, 10, 18, 22 and 23, which depend from claim 1 and are subject to
this ground of rejection. The rejection is therefore sustained as to those
claims as well.
Claims 24 and 25
Appellants rely on the arguments addressed above relative to claim 1,
but further present an argument directed to a limitation in claim 24 not
present in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-7. The additional
limitation involves:
the at least one electronic control unit operating the HVAC fan
during the idle stop by supplying a low voltage to the HV AC fan,
wherein the low voltage supplied to the HV AC fan is controlled
by the at least one electronic control unit to correspond directly
and be reduced in corresponding relation as a sensed
temperature of a vehicle cabin decreases during the idle stop of
the engine.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added).
Appellants argue that this limitation is not met by the combination of
Akahoshi, Ito, and Jinno. The Examiner takes the position that, in addition
to an interpretation that has the electronic control unit (ECU) reduce the low
voltage to a non-zero voltage, another reasonable interpretation is that the
ECU could reduce the low voltage to zero voltage. Ans. 37. The Examiner
further maintains that claim 24 is broader in scope than both of these
interpretations, requiring only that the ECU "reduce the low voltage." Id.
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Ito discloses the reduction of a
8
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
low voltage to zero voltage (fan stoppage) upon a sensed temperature
dropping below a predetermined threshold. Id. at 38. As an apparent hedge
against the possibility that the proposed claim construction is found to be
unreasonably broad, the Examiner takes the position that Ito discloses the
concept of controlling the speed of an HV AC blower in proportion to the
heating potential of the heater unit. Id., citing Ito 1: 18--42.
The Examiner's proposed construction is indeed seen as being
unreasonable, in that it does not fully take into account the meaning of "low
voltage ... [is] reduced ... as a sensed temperature of a vehicle cabin
decreases." Because claim 24 calls for the ECU to operate the HV AC fan
during the idle stop, the inevitable incremental decreases in sensed
temperature would, according to the claim language, require some decrease
in the voltage supplied to the HV AC fan. If, as in the Examiner's
construction, voltage is decreased to zero, thereby shutting off the fan, upon
detecting a first decrease in temperature, further decreases in temperature
could not possibly be accompanied by any further reduction in voltage
supplied to the HVAC fan. See Reply Br. 8. As such, the interpretation is
unreasonably broad.
As for the Examiner's hedge position regarding Ito, Ito discusses
increasing fan speed gradually in a heating mode, according to a rise in
engine coolant temperature. Ito 1:35--41. However, this disclosure in Ito is
related to a rise above a specified temperature, in order to blow warm air
gradually, and not specifically or necessarily to a continued or ongoing rise
in engine coolant temperature. Id. The Examiner does not adequately
explain how this is seen as being applicable and rendering obvious the
9
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
decreasing of voltage and attendant HV AC fan speed as a result of
decreasing engine coolant temperatures in an idle stopped engine mode.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 as being unpatentable over
Akahoshi, Ito, and Jinno, is not sustained. For the same reasons, the
rejection of claim 25, which depends from claim 24, is not sustained.
Claims 9, 28, and 31--§ 103(a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno/Helms
Appellants present no arguments for the separate patentability of these
claims. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained as to claim 9, which depends
from claim 1, and is not sustained as to claims 28 and 31, which depend
from claim 24. Helms is not relied on by the Examiner in any manner that
cures the deficiency in the rejection of claim 24 noted above.
Claims 5 and 6--§ 103(a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno/Kato/Helms
Appellants present no arguments for the separate patentability of these
claims. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained as to both claims 5 and 6,
which depend from claim 1.
Claims 7 and 29--§ 103(a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno/Helms
Appellants present no arguments for the separate patentability of these
claims. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained as to claim 7, which depends
from claim 1, and is not sustained as to claim 29, which depends from claim
24. Helms is not relied on by the Examiner in any manner that cures the
deficiency in the rejection of claim 24 noted above.
10
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
Claims 8 and 30--§ 103(a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno/Helms/Kato
Appellants present no arguments for the separate patentability of these
claims. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained as to claim 8, which depends
from claim 1, and is not sustained as to claim 30, which depends from claim
24. Helms and Kato are not relied on by the Examiner in any manner that
cures the deficiency in the rejection of claim 24 noted above.
Claims 11, 16, 17, 19, and 21--§ 103(a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno/Metzger
Appellants present no arguments for the separate patentability of these
claims. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained as to all of claims 11, 16, 17,
19, and 21, which depend from claim 1.
Claims 13-15--§ 103(a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno
Appellants present no arguments for the separate patentability of these
claims. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained as to all of claims 13-15,
which depend from claim 1.
Claim 20--§ 103 (a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno/Itoh
Appellants present no arguments for the separate patentability of this
claim. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained as to claim 20, which depends
from claim 1.
Claim 26--§ 103 (a)--Akahoshi/Ito/Jinno.
Claim 26 depends from claim 24, and the stated grounds for rejection
do not cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 24 noted above. The
rejection of claim 26 is not sustained.
11
Appeal2017-001547
Application 13/480,118
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 13-23.
We reverse the rejection of claims 24--26 and 28-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12