Ex Parte Santillo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13967911 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/967,911 08/15/2013
36865 7590 08/28/2018
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mario Santillo
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.
83379099 6180
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA,GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIO SANTILLO, MRDJAN J. JANKOVIC,
STEVE WILLIAM MAGNER, and
MICHAEL JAMES UHRICH 1
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant (Ford Global Technologies, LLC) is the Applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for controlling an engine, comprising:
cutting off fuel to the engine during a deceleration event;
open loop operating an engine air/fuel ratio rich of
stoichiometry for a predetermined time after said deceleration
event ends;
feedback controlling said air/fuel ratio on average around
a value rich of stoichiometry for a preselected time after said
predetermined time; and
feedback controlling said air/fuel ratio to gradually return
to stoichiometry after said preselected time.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated
by Nakagawa (US 2007/0169465 Al, pub. July 26, 2007).
II. Claims 4, 7, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Nakagawa.
III. Claims 6 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Nakagawa and Sumilla (US 2005/0119822 Al, pub.
June 2, 2005).
IV. Claims 8-11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Nakagawa and Makki (US 2004/0249556 Al, pub.
Dec. 9, 2004).
2
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Nakagawa discloses a method comprising, in
pertinent part, "open loop operating an engine air/fuel ratio rich of
stoichiometry for a predetermined time after [a] deceleration event ends"
(Final Act. 3, citing Nakagawa ,r,r 8, 9), "feedback controlling said air/fuel
ratio on average around a value rich of stoichiometry for a preselected time
after said predetermined time" (id., citing Nakagawa ,r 27), and "feedback
controlling said air/fuel ratio to gradually ... return to stoichiometry after
said preselected time" (id., citing Nakagawa ,r 10), as called for in claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Nakagawa "describes that after a period of non-
feedback (the reference says it in terms of correcting integral terms) the
fueling will be corrected during the enrichment and the stoichiometric
controls." Id. at 8 (citing Nakagawa ,r 27).
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because "Nakagawa only
teaches open loop controlling the [air/fuel ratio (AFR)] to a value rich of
stoichiometry after a [deceleration fuel shutoff (DFSO)] event." Appeal
Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues that "the system [of Nakagawa] is
unable to correct the AFR using the proportional or integral terms of the
feedback controller." Id. at 11 (citing Nakagawa ,r,r 26, 27). Appellant adds
that "Nakagawa's system is not applying feedback to the AFR control, but is
rather using a stored integral value to approximate an AFR correction during
enriching control." Id. at 14. Appellant submits that
Nakagawa only teaches one type of enriching control. If
Nakagawa's enriching control is open loop (as Appellant
believes, and as explained above), then Nakagawa does not
teach the feedback control. Conversely, if Nakagawa teaches
3
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
rich feedback control ( as the Office alleges, and which
Appellant disputes), then Nakagawa does not teach the rich
open loop control. Either Nakagawa's enriching control is open
loop or feedback controlled.
Id. at 14--15.
Appellant submits Declarations under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by Steve
William Magner and Michael James Uhrich (hereinafter "Magner
Declaration" ("Magner Deel.") and "Uhrich Declaration" ("Uhrich Deel."),
respectively, or "Declarations" ("Deel.") collectively)2 in support of the
interpretation ofNakagawa asserted in the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 10,
12-19; Appendix A. Declarants Magner and Uhrich state that there is no
disclosure in paragraphs 8 and 9, or anywhere in Nakagawa, of feedback
controlling the air/fuel ratio around a value rich of stoichiometry for a
preselected time after open loop operating the air/fuel ratio rich of
stoichiometry after a deceleration event. Deel. ,r 15. Declarants Magner and
Uhrich state that Nakagawa discloses only open loop operating the air/fuel
ratio to richer than stoichiometric after a deceleration event because
updating the integral term is prohibited during fuel cutoff, during enrichment
control immediately following the fuel cutoff, and immediately after
completion of the enriching control, because the air/fuel ratio is far from
2 Magner is one of the named inventors of the present application and avers
that he has "27 years of experience in the field of automotive powertrain
controls." Magner Deel. ,r,r 1, 2. Uhrich is one of the named inventors of
the present application and avers that he has "21 years of experience in the
field of Powertrain Controls & Diagnostics." Uhrich Deel. ,r,r 1, 2. All
subsequent numbered paragraphs of the Declarations, following these first
two paragraphs identifying Declarants and indicating their credentials,
appear to be identical. Compare Magner Deel. ,r,r 3-28, and Uhrich Deel.
,r,r 3-28.
4
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
stoichiometry. Id. ,r 16 ( citing Nakagawa ,r,r 8, 9, 31 ). According to
Declarants Magner and Uhrich, Nakagawa teaches using outputs from the
exhaust gas sensor to control the air/fuel ratio closer to stoichiometry, and,
"[t]hus, Nakagawa only discloses closed loop operating the air/fuel ratio at
stoichiometry." Id. Declarants Magner and Uhrich aver that, even if the
enriching control disclosed by Nakagawa were considered to be feedback
controlled, which they dispute, the enriching control disclosed in Nakagawa
is either open loop control, which Declarants submit is the accurate
characterization, or feedback control (i.e., closed loop control), but not both.
Deel. ,r 19.
The Examiner responds that
paragraph[ s] 9 and 27 disclose how the oxygen sensor data is
unreliable and further cannot be corrected due to a lack of
updating of correction factors during a fuel cut off period and
so there is a period of time once fuel is resumed where the
oxygen sensor is not a part of controlling the air/fuel ratio.
Ans. 3. The Examiner adds, "[p]aragraph 27 [ofNakagawa] ends by
discussing how the data from the sensor is ultimately corrected to provide
control during a portion of the enriching control and stoichiometric control."
Id.
In Nakagawa, the air/fuel ratio control apparatus employs air/fuel ratio
sensor 2, three-way catalyst device 1, and oxygen sensor 3 downstream of
catalyst device 1 to regulate the air/fuel ratio of exhaust gasses passing
through catalyst device 1. Nakagawa, Fig. 1; ,r,r 20-21. To maintain a
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, output "V" of the upstream sensor (used to
correct the amount of fuel to be injected with respect to the amount of intake
air detected by the airflow meter) is corrected in view of a proportional term
5
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
"P," which is calculated by multiplying deviation "d" ( deviation of actual
output of the oxygen sensor relative to a reference output that would be
obtained when the air/fuel ratio is stoichiometric) by a predetermined gain,
and an integral term "I" integrating the values of such deviations over an
extended duration. Id. ,r,r 7, 22-23.
To address the problem of the catalyst device becoming saturated with
oxygen during a deceleration event in which fuel supply to the engine is cut
off, an enriching control may be implemented to reduce the amount of
oxygen stored in the catalyst device before stoichiometric control is
resumed. Id. at Fig. 2; ,r,r 24, 25. This approach is hindered when, during
the enriching control, the value of the proportional term ( and, therefore, the
value of the integral term) cannot be calculated. Id. at ,r,r 7, 26. Nakagawa
explains that the value of deviation "d" cannot be calculated during
enriching control because "d" is the value of the deviation of the actual
output from oxygen sensor 3 with respect to a reference output at
stoichiometry, not a reference output for a rich air/fuel ratio. Id. ,r 26.
Consequently, integral term "I" cannot be updated during enriching control.
Id.
To address this problem, upon restarting an engine, Nakagawa
implements a fuel supply cutoff prohibition procedure in which fuel supply
cutoff is prohibited until sufficient data has been gathered to obtain an
appropriate integral term. Id. at Fig. 3, ,r,r 27-30 (flag Fis reset to O when
the engine stops). During this time period, there will not be any deceleration
fuel cutoff events. Until Nakagawa's system determines that "d" has been
calculated enough times and sufficient time has passed for the integral term
to be updated, Nakagawa uses the proportional term calculated based on the
6
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
current value of "d" and the integral term used when the engine was
previously stopped. Id. ,r 28. Once the integral term has been updated, the
output from air/fuel ratio sensor 2 is corrected using the newly calculated
proportional term and the updated integral term, and, thus, stoichiometric
control is executed while fuel supply cutoff is prohibited. Id. ,r 29. Once it
is determined, after updating the integral term a number of times, that the
integral term has sufficiently converged to an appropriate value, the fuel
supply cutoff prohibition is cancelled ( flag F is set to 1) and fuel supply
cutoff during deceleration is permitted. Id. ,r 30-31.
After fuel cutoff prohibition has been cancelled, "when the engine
decelerates, the fuel supply is cut off." Id. ,r 31. Immediately after the fuel
supply resumes, enriching control is executed, and, with fuel supply cutoff
not being prohibited (i.e., flag F is set to 1 ), the condition for calculating "d"
is not satisfied when the fuel supply is cut off, during the enriching control,
or immediately after completion of the enriching control, because the air/fuel
ratio of exhaust gas flowing out of catalyst device 1 is not close to the
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. Id. Thus, the proportional term and the integral
term cannot be updated, and the output from air/fuel ratio sensor 2 is
corrected using the integral term from before the fuel supply cutoff. Id., Fig.
3 ( a NO determination at step 104 resulting in no update to the integral
term). Once the air/fuel ratio of exhaust gas flowing out of catalyst device 1
becomes close to the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, thereby satisfying the
condition for calculating "d," at some time after completion of the enriching
control, the integral term can be updated, and control to a stoichiometric
air/fuel ratio begins. Id. ,r,r 32-34. Nakagawa discloses that "after the
integral term I is updated at least once, the updated integral term I can be
7
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
used during the stoichiometric control and the enriching control." Id. ,r 38;
see also id. ,r 27 (stating that the air/fuel ratio control apparatus
appropriately corrects the output from air/fuel ratio sensor 2 so that the
combustion air/fuel ratio can be controlled during enriching control and
during stoichiometric control). This does not mean that the integral term can
be updated during enriching control; rather, this means that, once updated,
this updated integral term can be used subsequently during stoichiometric
control and enriching control in instances when the integral term cannot be
further updated using current oxygen sensor data. This control is, according
to Nakagawa, an improvement over prior art systems in which there is no
data with which to correct the air/fuel ratio sensor output governing
enriching control. See id. ,r,r 22-23, 26-27.
Based on our findings with respect to the disclosure of Nakagawa, we
agree with Appellant's argument that Nakagawa only teaches one type of
enriching control. During Nakagawa's enriching control, the output of
air/fuel ratio sensor 2 is corrected using an integral term that is derived from
stored oxygen sensor data describing conditions during stoichiometric
control prior to the deceleration fuel cutoff, not from data from the oxygen
sensor describing exhaust conditions during the enriching control. See id.
,r,r 27, 28, 31-34. Whether one characterizes this type of enriching control
as open loop, as Appellant asserts, or as feedback/closed loop, it is one or the
other, and not both. The Magner Declaration and the Uhrich Declaration, as
discussed above, support our findings in this regard. Thus, Nakagawa does
not disclose both "open loop operating an engine air/fuel ratio rich of
stoichiometry for a predetermined time after a deceleration event ends" and
"feedback controlling said air/fuel ratio on average around a value rich of
8
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
stoichiometry for a preselected time after said predetermined time," as
required in Appellant's independent claim 1.
Similarly, the Examiner's position that "there is an inherent open loop
control of the engine until the exhaust gasses that have been combusted
reach the oxygen sensor to provide feedback" (Ans. 5) is untenable. This
observation by the Examiner relates only to the efficacy of the output of a
sensor at any particular time, or what that output might reflect, based on
transient conditions, and does not address whether such output from the
sensor is used to provide feedback in the control process. Whether
characterized as open loop or feedback ( closed loop), as discussed above,
during Nakagawa's enriching control, the output of air/fuel ratio sensor 2 is
corrected using an integral term that is derived from stored oxygen sensor
data describing conditions during stoichiometric control prior to the
deceleration fuel cutoff, and not from current oxygen sensor output.
For the above reasons, the Examiner does not establish a sustainable
case that Nakagawa discloses both open loop operating an engine air/fuel
ratio rich of stoichiometry for a predetermined time after a deceleration
event ends and feedback controlling said air/fuel ratio on average around a
value rich of stoichiometry for a preselected time after said predetermined
time, as required in Appellant's independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 3, and 5, which depend from
claim 1, as anticipated by Nakagawa.
Rejections II, III, and IV
The aforementioned deficiency in the rejection of claim 1 also
pervades the rejections of independent claims 7 and 17, which similarly
require both "operating an engine air/fuel ratio open loop at a constant
9
Appeal2017-009292
Application 13/967,911
air/fuel ratio rich of stoichiometry for a predetermined time" and "feedback
controlling said air/fuel ratio ... to average around a value rich of
stoichiometry for a preselected time after said predetermined time" (Appeal
Br. 31, 33 (Claims App.)), as well as dependent claims 4, 6, 8-16, and 18-
20. See Final Act. 3-7. The Examiner does not rely on Sumilla or Makki
for any teaching, or articulate any additional findings or reasoning, that
would make up for this deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejections of claims 4 and 6-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
10