FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2021

2020006641 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2021)

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.
15/299,900 10/21/2016 Raj Sohmshetty 83712333 8620
28395 7590 06/16/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
TOLAN, EDWARD THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2021 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 RAJ SOHMSHETTY, CONSTANTIN CHIRIAC,
TORSTEN HALLFELDT, ELIZABETH BULLARD, and
JAMES ENGLE

Appeal 2020-006641
Application 15/299,900
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, Ford Motor Company,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–8, 11–16, and
18–20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies itself as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006641
Application 15/299,900

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
Appellant’s “disclosure relates to a hot stamping system, and a
method for monitoring the quality of components formed in the hot stamping
system as well as optimization of the hot stamping system cycle time.”
Spec. ¶1. “[H]ot stamping is a nonisothermal forming process for sheet
metal, where forming and quenching take place in the same forming step.”
Id. ¶2. Appellant explains that hot stamping can yield better high strength
steels than cold stamping, but that hot stamping is a more complex process.
Id. (“In comparison to components manufactured by the cold stamping
process, hot stamping is capable of providing components having minimum
springback, reduced sheet thickness, and superior mechanical properties
such as high strength. Yet, hot stamping is a rather complicated process
with a variety of process variables.”).
Appellant discloses “a controller programmed to alter a coolant flow
rate, without altering cycle time, in an active cooling system of a die
arrangement, configured to hot stamp metal into components.” Id. ¶3.
The Claims
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 11–16, and 18–20 are rejected. Final Act. 1. Claims
4, 9, 10, and 17 are cancelled. Claims App. 1–3. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are
independent. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter and reproduced
below.
1. A hot stamping system comprising:
a controller programmed to alter a coolant flow rate,
without altering cycle time, in an active cooling system of a die
arrangement, configured to hot stamp metal into components,
based on an amount of heat transferred from the components to
the active cooling system such that a grain structure of the
Appeal 2020-006641
Application 15/299,900

3
components transitions from an austenitic state to a martensitic
state while the die arrangement is closed, wherein altering the
flow rate includes adjusting the flow rate in a main inlet, side
channels, or both of the active cooling system.
Id. at 1 (emphasis added).
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over CN 102172719 (A), published Sept. 7, 2011 (“Shan”)2
and US 2016/0326608 A1, published Nov. 10, 2016 (“Hayashi”). Final Act.
2.3
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Shan discloses substantially all of the
subject matter of the rejected claims except that it “does not disclose altering
a cooling water flow rate.” Final Act. 2 (citing Shan at 2–4). The Examiner
found that Hayashi teaches a hot pressing die that has cooling grooves for
receiving a coolant of water or gas in which quenching is achieved, in one
embodiment, by changing the flow rate of the coolant fluid during a pressing
operation when a threshold temperature is reached. Id. at 2–3 (citing
Hayashi ¶¶103, 105, 106). The Examiner concluded: “It would have been
obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present
invention to alter flow rate during the cooling water supply cycle of Shan as

2 Our citations to Shan are to its translation in the file history.
3 In the Answer, the Examiner offers his “opinion” that the pending claims
would have been obvious over prior art identified in an Information
Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant on May 27, 2020, after the Appeal
Brief. Ans. 5–6. However, no rejection has been entered based on that prior
art, and so we do not here consider the Examiner’s opinion in that regard nor
Appellant’s arguments to contrary.
Appeal 2020-006641
Application 15/299,900

4
taught by Hayashi in order to quickly enact cooling control at a desired
temperature of the stamping system during the cooling cycle.” Id. at 3.
Independent claim 1 recites “alter a coolant flow rate . . . based on an
amount of heat transferred from the components to the active cooling
system.” Claims App. 1. Independent claim 8 similarly recites “alter a
coolant inlet temperature . . . based on an amount of heat transferred from
the components to the active cooling system.” Id. at 1–2. Independent
claim 14 similarly recites “altering . . . a coolant flow rate or coolant inlet
temperature . . . in response to an amount of heat transferred from the hot
stamped components to the active cooling system.” Id. at 2. Appellant
argues that the Examiner’s rejection does not satisfy these limitations.
Appeal Br. 6. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant.
Appellant points out that “Shan provides thermocouples in the die
capable of measuring and monitoring the die temperature and the workpiece
temperature” but does not teach “to take the measured datapoints of Shan
and derive the claimed amount of heat transferred from the components to
the cooling system from the measured datapoints.” Id. Appellant’s
interpretation of Shan is consistent with the Examiner’s own findings that
“Shan discloses a die temperature sensor (5) and a workpiece temperature
sensor (2)” and “Shan sensing is based on temperature of components of the
workpiece and die sensed by thermocouples.” Final Act. 2 (emphasis
added); see also Shan 4 (referring to “the workpiece temperature measuring
thermocouple 2 and the mold temperature measuring thermocouple 5”).
Appellant also points out that Hayashi discloses “changing a cooling
rate immediately after reaching 600ºC” but does not teach doing so “based
on an amount of heat transferred from the components to the active
Appeal 2020-006641
Application 15/299,900

5
cooling system.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant adds: “Neither reference, or
their combination, discloses or provides any motivation to determine an
amount of heat transferred from the components to the active cooling
system, let alone to utilize the heat transferred information in the
cooling system.” Id.
The Examiner responds, in part, by pointing out that the claims do not
recite “determination of an amount of heat” or any “determining means or
determining step.” Ans. 5. The Examiner is correct in this regard, but it
does not rebut Appellant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach or render
obvious “alter[ing] a coolant flow rate . . . based on an amount of heat
transferred from the components to the active cooling system,” as recited in
claim 1, for example. In other words, the claims do require that the altering
of the coolant flow rate (or coolant inlet temperature) is based on (or in
response to) an amount of heat transferred from the components to the active
cooling system, but the claims do not specify any particular amount of heat
transferred.
The Examiner also responds to Appellant’s arguments by stringing
together certain aspects of the prior art, but the Examiner ultimately fails to
show or explain how they might render obvious the limitations at issue.
Ans. 4–5. In that regard, the Examiner points out that “temperature . . . is a
parameter based on heat”; “the die of Shan has a mold built in cooling
system connected to the temperature sensing and recording device”; Shan’s
“mold built in cooling system transfers heat from a sheet component being
hot pressed to the active cooling system . . . which absorbs (transfers) heat of
the die in a cooling cycle”; and “Hayashi teaches . . . that when cooling to
martensitic from austenitic in a hot pressing die a heat capacity of the die is
Appeal 2020-006641
Application 15/299,900

6
changed by using a fluid cooling die or a die with grooves therein and a flow
rate of the coolant is changed.” Ans. 4–5 (citing Shan 2–3; Hayashi ¶¶101,
103, 105). However, these facts without more do not support the
Examiner’s implicit determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Shan in view of Hayashi “to alter a coolant flow rate
. . . based on an amount of heat transferred from the components to the
active cooling system,” as recited in claim 1, for example. We refer to this
as an implicit determination because neither the Final Action nor the Answer
explicitly addresses how this limitation or the similar limitations recited in
claims 8 and 14 are taught or rendered obvious. See Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 4–
5.
In our judgment, the Examiner has adequately supported the
determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Shan in view of Hayashi to alter the coolant flow rate in Shan’s hot stamping
process. However, the Examiner has not adequately supported the
additional and implicit determination that the person of ordinary skill would
have further modified Shan, including its “workpiece temperature measuring
thermocouple 2 and . . . mold temperature measuring thermocouple 5” (Shan
4), to measure or calculate an amount of heat transferred from those
components to the coolant fluid and then alter the flow rate of the coolant
fluid based on that information.
Appellant has demonstrated error in the rejection of all claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–3, 5–8, 11–16, and 18–20.

Appeal 2020-006641
Application 15/299,900

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–8,
11–16, 18–
20
103 Shan, Hayashi 1–3, 5–8,
11–16, 18–
20

REVERSED