K&N Engineering, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 15, 20212021001887 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/172,769 10/27/2018 Jonathan Fiello 101525.0195P 1099 34284 7590 10/15/2021 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 18575 Jamboree Road 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 EXAMINER WANG, YI-KAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2021 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): patents@rutan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN FIELLO, STEVE WILLIAMS, GEORGE HSIEH, and MATTHEW STEVENS Appeal 2021-001887 Application 16/172,769 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as K&N Engineering, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001887 Application 16/172,769 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an engine control unit cooling air box, and a method for an air box to cool an engine control unit (“ECU”). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An air box configured to cool an engine control unit (ECU) by way of an airstream being communicated to an air intake system of an internal combustion engine of a vehicle, comprising: a housing configured to support an air filter within an interior of the housing; an opening in the housing configured to fixedly receive at least one surface of the ECU such that the ECU is external relative to the housing; a mount portion disposed within the housing and configured to receive an air filter; a conduit comprised of an opening to a clean side of the air filter and configured to be coupled with the air intake system; and an inlet to the housing that is configured to couple with an air inlet duct of the vehicle so as to direct the airstream into the interior of the housing. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kinoshita US 2003/0142481 A1 July 31, 2003 Li US 2014/0049102 A1 Feb. 20, 2014 Kwak US 2019/0078539 A1 Mar. 14, 2019 Appeal 2021-001887 Application 16/172,769 3 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–10 and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and Kinoshita. Non-Final Act. 2.2 2. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak, Kinoshita, and Li. Non-Final Act. 10. OPINION Patentability of Claims 1–10 and 12–14 Based on Kwak and Kinoshita In the Non-Final Action mailed May 12, 2020, the Examiner found that Kwak disclosed all the claim elements and limitations except for an explicit disclosure of an air box configured to cool an engine control unit (ECU) by way of an airstream. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner also found that Kinoshita disclosed the missing air box. Id. As found by the Examiner, Kinoshita discloses an air intake module having an integrally housed ECU and a cooling device for the ECU to reduce heat damage to electronic components. Id. (citing Figs. 1A, 2; ¶ 25). As disclosed in paragraph 25 of Kinoshita, casing 2 has two distinct portions: (1) “an electronic control unit (ECU) housing portion 6”; and (2) “[a]n air cleaner housing portion 8.” See Kinoshita ¶ 25. The ECU housing portion 6 of casing 2 has a slot 7, into which circuit board 11 of ECU 10 is inserted. The ECU housing portion 6 is provided in a manner that a lateral direction of the ECU housing portion 6 is approximately 2 We cite to the Non-Final Act. mailed May 12, 2020 (“Non-Final Act.”), following a request for continuing examination (“RCE”) filed April 20, 2020 (see Non-Final Act., Office Action Summary (Responsive to “RCE 04/20/2020”)). Appeal 2021-001887 Application 16/172,769 4 coincident with a direction of an intake air passage that is located upstream from the ECU housing portion 6. See Kinoshita Figs. 4A, 4B, ¶ 26. As explained in Kinoshita, using the disclosed structure, intake air is blown to an air blown area 6a of ECU housing portion 6. Air blown area 6a has a number of heat-radiating fins 21 at regular intervals along the intake air stream. Id. ¶ 26. The Examiner also found Kinoshita discloses that “the ECU housing can be manufactured separately from other parts and fixed together when assembling.” Ans. 14 (citing Kinoshita ¶ 41). In paragraph 41, Kinoshita discloses that “air cleaner housing portion 8 and an ECU housing portion 6 of the intake module may be provided separately. In this case, the air cleaner housing portion 8 and the ECU housing portion 6 may be manufactured separately, and fixed together with screws.” Kinoshita ¶ 41. Appellant argues that “the combination of Kwak and Kinoshita fails to teach ‘an opening in the housing configured to fixedly receive at least one surface of the ECU such that the ECU is external relative to the housing.’” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply 4 (“[I]t is clear that the combination of Kwak and Kinoshita fails to teach “an opening in the housing configured to fixedly receive at least one surface of the ECU such that the ECU is external relative to the housing.’”). Independent claim 1 requires “a housing configured to support an air filter within an interior of the housing.” Appeal Br., App. A. Claim 1 also requires “an opening in the housing configured to fixedly receive at least one surface of the ECU such that the ECU is external relative to the housing.” Id. Thus, the ECU must be external to the air filter housing. In Kinoshita, ECU 10 clearly is external to air filter housing portion 8, as recited in claim Appeal 2021-001887 Application 16/172,769 5 1. Kinoshita also discloses specifically that the ECU fits within slot 7, which is part of casing 2 that includes air filter portion 8. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to combine the heat dissipating structure of Kinoshita, with the ECU external to the air filter housing, and with an opening in the air cleaner housing portion 8 configured to fixedly receive at least one surface of the ECU, in the general air box structure of Kwak to realize the benefits of reducing heat to the ECU. This uses the known, improved heat dissipating structure of Kinoshita in the known general air box configuration of Kwak. Appellant specifically addresses independent claim 1, but admits that independent method claim 12 “recites similar limitations as Claim l; thus, the arguments presented [for claim 1] apply equally to Claim 12.” Id. at 8. Appellant also concedes that patentability of dependent claims 2–11 and 13– 15 rise or fall with claims 1 and 12. Id. Patentability of Claims 11 and 15 Based on Kwak, Kinoshita, and Li Dependent claim 11 states that the air box structure includes a gasket “to provide an airtight coupling between [the air filter] housing and the ECU.” Dependent claim 15 states that the claimed method includes a similar “gasket” limitation. Li discloses an electronic control unit (ECU) assembly for a vehicle that has a “favorable heat dissipation capacity” using a lid for the ECU and a gasket 10 “combined into the existing sealing pad of the ECU assembly.” Li ¶¶ 9, 40. The Examiner found that Li discloses an air box/ECU assembly wherein a gasket provides “an airtight coupling between [the air box] Appeal 2021-001887 Application 16/172,769 6 housing . . . to hold and secure the ECU.” Non-Final Act. 11 (citing Li, Fig. 6, Part 10, ¶¶ 40, 9). Appellant repeats the argument that neither Kwak nor Kinoshita, alone or in combination with Li, discloses or suggests an ECU that is external relative to the air filter housing. Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply 8. Based on our analysis above, we have found this argument unpersuasive of any error by the Examiner. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10, 12–14 103 Kwak, Kinoshita 1–10, 12–14 11, 15 103 Kwak, Kinoshita, Li 11, 15 Overall Outcome 1–15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation