Ex Parte Wu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201814132913 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/132,913 12/18/2013 24938 7590 06/04/2018 FCA US LLC CIMS 483-02-19 800 CHRYSLER DR EAST AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zhijian James Wu 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. 709418US1 3679 EXAMINER SCHARPF, SUSAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): chris.davenport@fcagroup.com michelle.madak@fcagroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHIJIAN JAMES WU and BRIAN P. GEBBY Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Zhijian James Wu and Brian P. Gebby ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. According to Appellants, the real party in interest is FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' disclosed invention "relates generally to vehicle diagnostic systems." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method, comprising: receiving, at a controller for an internal combustion engine, the controller having one or more processors, an intake manifold absolute pressure (MAP) signal indicative of an air pressure in an intake manifold of the engine; processing, at the controller, the MAP signal in a crank angle domain to obtain distinct portions of the MAP signal (i) corresponding to cylinders of the engine, respectively, and (ii) collectively representing a full engine cycle; calculating, at the controller, a single valve stuck index value for the full engine cycle by calculating a norm of the distinct portions of the MAP signal; based on the single valve stuck index value and three or more distinct thresholds, distinguishing, by the controller, between detection of a plurality of scenarios comprising (i) no stuck valves for any of the cylinders and (ii) each of three stuck valve scenarios comprising: (a) a single stuck valve for a single one of the cylinders, (b) a single stuck valve for two or more of the cylinders, and ( c) two stuck valves for each of one or more of the cylinders, wherein the three or more distinct thresholds correspond to at least the three stuck valve scenarios; and in response to detecting one of the three stuck valve scenanos: 2 Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 commanding, by the controller, a limp-home mode of the engine by commanding a throttle of the engine to predefined position; and outputting, by the controller via a network, a fault indicative of the detected one of the three stuck valve scenanos. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Kamio us 5,950,597 Sept. 14, 1999 Fuwa US 6,779,508 B2 Aug.24,2004 Wakahara US 7,146,851 B2 Dec. 12, 2006 Doering US 7,921,709 B2 Apr. 12, 2011 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 2 I. Claims 1---6 and 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, and Kamio. Ans. 2---6. II. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, Kamio, and Wakahara. Id. at 6-7. 2 We note that the rejections of claims 1---6, 10-16, and 20 presented on pages 2-7 of the Final Action did not include Kamio. In the Advisory Action, the Examiner entered Appellants' After-Final Amendment (filed June 3, 2016) and explained that Kamio would be relied upon to address the limitations added to the claims by the Amendment. See Advisory Act. 2. We understand pages 2-7 of the Answer to clarify the rejections of claims 1---6, 10-16, and 20 in light of the added limitations. 3 Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 ANALYSIS Rejection I - Claims 1-6 and 11-16 as unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, and Kamio Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 together (see Appeal Br. 6-10), and rely on the same arguments for dependent claims 2---6 and 12-16 (see id. at 10). We select claim 1 as representative of the issues that Appellants present in the appeal of this rejection, and claims 2-6 and 11-16 stand or fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Doering discloses a method including, inter alia, receiving an intake manifold absolute pressure (MAP) signal, processing the MAP signal, and calculating a single valve stuck index value. See Ans. 2 (citing Doering, Fig. 2, col. 5, 11. 14--33; col. 6, 11. 10-19; col. 6, 1. 47-col. 7, 1. 12; col. 8, 1. 63-col. 9, 1. 5). The Examiner also finds that Doering discloses, based on the single valve stuck index value and three or more distinct thresholds ( column 7, lines 13-46), distinguishing, by the controller, between detection of a plurality of scenarios comprising (i) no stuck valves for any cylinders, and (ii) each of three stuck valve scenarios comprising (a) a single stuck valve for a single one of the cylinders, (b) a single stuck valve for two or more of the cylinders, and ( c) two stuck valves for each of one or more of the cylinders, wherein the three or more distinct threshold correspond to at least the three stuck valve scenarios (column 7, lines 47-58). Id. at 2-3. Appellants argue that Doering does not disclose scenarios of "a single stuck valve for two or more of the cylinders," and "two stuck valves for each of one or more of the cylinders," as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7. In 4 Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 particular, Appellants assert that Doering uses "multiple independent values ... for separate diagnoses," whereas "the claimed techniques utilize a single valve stuck index value for distinguishing between all three of the different stuck valve scenarios, irrespective of a cylinder deactivation configuration of the engine." Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Doering, col. 7, 11. 50-52). Appellants also assert that "Doering only mentions a 'group of valves' with respect to 'a plurality of cylinders,"' and "fails to mention groups of valves for the same cylinder." Id. ( emphasis omitted) ( quoting Doering, col. 7, 1. 53). We are not persuaded by these arguments. Doering discloses a method for identifying valve degradation in a single cylinder, [ and that] the same may be extended to a group of cylinders. In one example, each cylinder and/or each valve in each cylinder, may have independent deactivation mechanisms and thus may be diagnosed independently. In another example, a group of cylinders or a group of valves ( on a plurality of cylinders) may share a common deactivation mechanism and thus may be diagnosed as a group. As such, based on the deactivation configuration, the VDE [ ( variable displacement engine)] diagnostics routine may accordingly diagnose and identify a single cylinder and/or valve or a group of cylinders and/or valves during abnormal MAP responses. Doering, col. 7, 11. 48-58. The Examiner takes the position that Doering "broadly states that any number of valves on any number of cylinders may be diagnosed, encompassing all three of [Appellants'] claimed stuck valve scenarios." Ans. 10 (citing Doering, col. 7, 11. 47-58); see also id. at 11 ( explaining that "Doering has stated three stuck valve scenarios: a valve on a single cylinder, valves on a group of cylinders, and groups of valves on a plurality of cylinders"). In this regard, Appellants do not specifically address or identify error in the Examiner's finding. 5 Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 Appellants argue that Doering fails to disclose "three or more distinct thresholds correspond[ing] to at least the three stuck valve scenarios," as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants assert that Doering "merely suggests that its diagnostics could be performed 'independently' or, for the case of a shared 'common deactivation mechanism,' the diagnostic could be performed 'as a group."' Id. at 8 (citing Doering, col. 7, 11. 52, 54--55). According to Appellants, "[t]here is no explicit discussion, however, of threshold(s) for these general extensions of Doering's method." Id. This argument is not convincing. In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner takes the position that "extension of Doering' s method to more stuck valve scenarios would necessitate an equal number of thresholds to be used." Ans. 11; see also id. (explaining that "Doering states [that,] '[i]n this way, degradation of cylinder valve deactivation may be identified and indicated, and further, valve degradation among a plurality of cylinders valves of the engine may be differentiated based on the MAP signal content at or around a characteristic frequency and based on a crank angle at which the signal content is greater than a predetermined amount"' ( quoting Doering, col. 8, 11. 57-62)). According to the Examiner, "[t]he combination of the clearly stated extension of the method and the ability to differentiate among a degradation of a plurality of cylinders based on MAP signal and crank angle, would necessarily mean that there were a plurality of thresholds being used when Doering performs his method." Id. In this regard, Appellants do not present factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to explain why the Examiner's findings regarding the use of thresholds in Doering's method would be deficient. Thus, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error 6 Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 in the Examiner's findings regarding the disclosure of Doering, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants further argue that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness lacks adequate reasoning supported by rational underpinnings, but, instead, is based upon improper hindsight reconstruction. See Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellants, "the Examiner merely concludes that one skilled in the art would have modified Doering to arrive at the claimed diagnostic method," but, "[ w ]ithout using claim 1 as a blueprint, ... there is no support in Doering for this conclusion." Id. These arguments are not persuasive of error because they do not address the Examiner's reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness presented in the rejection. 3 Here, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings for modifying the method of Doering, based on the teachings of Fuwa and Kamio, to include a "limp-home" mode in which a throttle valve is commanded to a predefined position. The Examiner determines that the proposed modification of Doering "would be use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way since Doering and Fuwa teach methods and responses of detecting intake valve failures including stuck valves, and Kamio teaches an appropriate response to such a failure." 3 To the extent that Appellants are arguing that the Examiner is improperly modifying Doering to arrive at a method utilizing a single valve stuck index value and/or three or more distinct thresholds corresponding to three stuck valve scenarios, this argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the rejection presented by the Examiner. In particular, the rejection does not rely on modification of Doering to arrive at these features and, as discussed supra, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner's findings regarding the disclosure of Doering are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 7 Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 Ans. 3. Appellants do not provide factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to explain why the proposed combination of prior art teachings would yield anything other than a result that would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In other words, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's proposed modification of Doering's method based on the teachings of Fuwa and Kamio would amount to "more than the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Moreover, Appellants do not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (so long as a conclusion of obviousness is based on a reconstruction that "takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from [Appellants'] disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper"). Thus, Appellants' assertion of improper hindsight is unsupported. After careful consideration of all the evidence of record, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6 and 11-16 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, and Kamio. 8 Appeal2017-008215 Application 14/132,913 Rejection II- Claims 10 and 20 as unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, Kamio, and Wakahara With respect to the rejection of claims 10 and 20, Appellants do not set forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the arguments discussed supra; instead, relying on the dependency of these claims from one of independent claims 1 and 11. See Appeal Br. 10. Thus, for the same reasons that Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection I, Appellants also do not apprise us of error in Rejection II. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, Kamio, and Wakahara. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, and Kamio. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doering, Fuwa, Kamio, and Wakahara. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation