Ex Parte Patti et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201813307349 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/307,349 11130/2011 28866 7590 05/23/2018 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR 720 WATER STREET TOLEDO, OH 43604 Angelo Patti 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. 83209550 6878 EXAMINER HAMILTON, FRANCES F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2018 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): docketing@mstfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte ANGELO PATTI, PAUL B. HOKE, and JAMES R. HURD Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 Technology Center 3700 Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 7-18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 "The real party in interest in the present appeal is Ford Global Technologies." (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention relates to "measuring interior temperature, humidity, or air quality for the purpose of controlling the operation of the climate control system." (Spec. 1, 11. 16-19.) Illustrative Claim 1. An HV AC unit for treating air in a passenger cabin of a vehicle, comprising: an HV AC housing with a recirculation entry section, a fresh entry section, a blower section, and an output section; a blower mounted to the blower section for driving an airflow from the HV AC housing out through the output section into the passenger cabin; a recirculation opening proximate the recirculation entry section for providing at least a base recirculation flow from the passenger cabin into the HV AC housing whenever the blower drives the airflow; a climate sensor mounted at the recirculation entry section and fluidically and continuously coupled within the base recirculation flow for sensing a climate characteristic representative of the air in the passenger cabin; and a recirculation door, adjacent to the climate sensor, having a selectable position for providing a variable flow capacity through the recirculation entry section between a minimum flow capacity and a maximum flow capacity. Dauvergne Dage Azar Inoue Yenneti References2 us 5,377,528 US 2010/0190429 Al US 2010/0224253 Al US 7,803,039 B2 US 2012/0015594 Al Jan.3, 1995 July 29, 2010 Sept. 9, 2010 Sept. 28, 2010 Jan. 19,2012 2 Our quotations from these references will omit, where applicable, bolding and/ or italicization of reference numerals. 2 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 Rejections I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7-10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as non-enabled. (Final Action 2.) 3 II. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7-10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. (Final Action 3.)4 III. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yenneti and Dauvergne. (Final Action 4.) IV. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 13-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yenneti, Dauvergne, and Dage. (Final Action 7.) V. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Y enneti, Dauvergne, and Inoue. (Final Action 11.) VI. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Y enneti, Dauvergne, and Azar. (Final Action 11.) ANALYSIS Claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2, 3, 7-9, 12, and 14--18) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 1, 11, and 13 recite an "HV AC unit" having a "blower" for "driving an airflow" into a "passenger cabin," and a "climate 3 We consider the Examiner's non-mention of claim 10 in the heading of Rejection I to be an inadvertent omission, as the Examiner discusses claim 10 in the body of the rejection. (See Final Action 2-3.) 4 We consider the Examiner's non-mention of claim 10 in the heading of Rejection II to be an inadvertent omission, as the Examiner discusses claim 10 in the body of the rejection. (See Final Action 3.) 3 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 sensor" for "sensing a climate characteristic" of the vehicle's passenger cabin. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 10 recites a "method" involving an "HV AC unit" that likewise has an airflow-driving "blower" and a climate-sensing "sensor." (Id.) Independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 recite limitations specifying the climate sensor's fluidic association with a "base recirculation flow," and also specifying the climate sensor's physical location relative to a "recirculation door." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Particularly, independent claim 1 requires the climate sensor to be "fluidically and continuously coupled within the base recirculation flow," and also requires the climate sensor to be "adjacent" the recirculation door. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 10 requires the climate sensor to be "continuously immersed in the base recirculation flow," and also requires the climate sensor to be "mounted proximate" the recirculation door. (Id.) Independent claim 11 requires the climate sensor to be "immersed in the base recirculation flow," and also requires the climate sensor to be "on" the recirculation door. (Id.) And independent claim 13 requires the climate sensor to be "fluidically coupled within the base recirculation flow," and also requires the climate sensor to be "mounted to" the recirculation door. (Id.) Rejections I and II As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites that the climate sensor is "fluidically and continuously coupled within the base recirculation flow," and independent claim 10 recites that the climate sensor is "continuously immersed in the base recirculation flow." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner's § 112 rejections appear to be premised mostly on these fluidic-association recitals not being supported sufficiently 4 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 by the originally-filed Specification. (See Final Action 2-3.) According to the Examiner, such allegedly insufficient support renders the claims unclear and non-enabled. (See id.) We are persuaded by the Appellants' position that the Examiner does not establish adequately that the claims on appeal do not satisfy requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. (See Appeal Br. 4--7.) The originally-filed Specification set forth that, in order for a sensor "to provide an accurate characterization of a climate characteristic," there must be "significant flow of cabin air over the sensor." (Spec. 1, 11. 25-27.) And the originally-filed Specification used the exact words "fluidically coupled within" and "immersed in" to describe this fluidic association of the climate sensor with recirculation airflow, which is airflow coming from the passenger cabin. 5 (See Spec. 2, 1. 24; 5, 11. 18-19; 6, 1. 9; 8, 1. 3; 11, 1. 9.) Thus, the originally-filed Specification conveys that a sensor is "fluidically coupled within," and/or is "immersed in," recirculation airflow when the sensor affords an accurate sensor reading of the desired climate characteristic of cabin air. 6 5 As for the term "coupled" being used to define a fluidic relationship, (see Answer 15), we note that the Examiner provides a dictionary citation defining "coupled" as "associated together" in pairs (see Final Action 3). Thus, the claims require the climate sensor to be fluidically associated with the base recirculation flow. As pointed out by the Appellants (see Reply Br. 3--4), the Examiner incorrectly posits that one of ordinary skill would understand that Appellants are "locating a climate sensor that maintains constant fluid communication with the recirculation door." (Answer 15.) 6 As for Examiner's apparent concern as to whether or not the terms "fluidically coupled" and "immersed" are "synonymous" (see Answer 14), as pointed out by the Appellants (see Appeal Br. 6), these limitations are not both recited in any of the claims on appeal; and, therefore, we need not address whether they constitute redundant limitations. 5 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 The originally-filed Specification additionally sets forth that the Appellants' invention ensures a "substantially continuous" flow of passenger-cabin air over the climate sensor, even when "the system is drawing primarily fresh air." (Spec. 5, 11. 10, 13, emphasis added.) The originally-filed Specification clarifies that this is accomplished by "a partial recirculation condition" being "in effect at all times to pull a minimum amount of cabin air over the sensor." (Id. at 3, 1. 28 -4, 1. 1, emphasis added.) And the originally-filed Specification conveys that this "minimum amount" of air flow can be called a "base recirculation flow." (Id. at 5, 11. 15-21.) Furthermore, the originally-filed Specification describes and depicts embodiments in which the special structure of the recirculation door, in conjunction with the strategic location of the climate sensor relative to this special door structure, allow the climate sensor to remain in fluidic association with the base recirculation flow, even when the system is drawing a maximum amount of fresh air. (See Spec. 6, 1. 2 to 8, 1. 8.)7 7 For example, in one embodiment, the recirculation door has "ribs" to prevent it from moving to a completely closed position. (Spec. 6, 11. 5-6, Fig. 3.) This ensures that "at least a base recirculation flow exists" even when the recirculation door is at its most-closed position corresponding to a maximum amount of fresh air. (Id. at 6, 11. 7-8.) The climate sensor is mounted at a location, on or near the recirculation door, that is "fluidically coupled" with the base recirculation flow even when the door is in its most- closed position. (Id. at 6, 11. 8-14, Fig. 3.) As such, the climate sensor is able to afford an accurate sensor reading of the desired climate characteristic of cabin air, even when the system is drawing primarily fresh air. In another embodiment, the recirculation door has a "dedicated recirculation opening." (Spec. 6, 11. 17-20, Fig. 4.) This allows a base recirculation flow to pass through the dedicated opening, even when the recirculation door is in 6 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 The Examiner does not explain adequately why, even in light of the above-discussed disclosure in the originally-filed Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the fluidic-association limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 10 to be unsupported, unclear, and/or indefinite. The Examiner also does not explain adequately why, despite the embodiments described and depicted in the originally-filed Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make and use an HV AC unit having the fluidic-association limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 10. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claim 1 (and the claims depending therefrom) and independent claim 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. Rejections III-VI As indicated above, independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 recite limitations regarding both the climate sensor's fluidic association with a "base recirculation flow," and the climate sensor's physical location relative to a "recirculation door." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner's§ 103 rejections are premised upon the primary reference, Yenneti, disclosing a climate sensor that is fluidically associated with a base recirculation flow; and a secondary reference, Dauvergne, teaching that a climate sensor can be a closed position corresponding to maximum fresh air flow. (See Spec. 6, 11. 17-20, Fig. 4.) The climate sensor "is suspended within the profile" of the dedicated recirculation opening so as to be in fluidic association with the base recirculation flow when the door is closed. (Id. at 6, 11. 23-25.) As such, the climate sensor is able to afford an accurate sensor reading of the desired climate characteristic of cabin air, even when the system is drawing primarily fresh air. 7 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 mounted on a door. (See Final Action 4---6.) We are persuaded by the Appellants' position that the Examiner does not establish adequately that the proposed combination of the prior art would yield the climate sensor required by the independent claims on appeal. (See Appeal Br. 8-12.) Y enneti discloses an HV AC unit having a fresh air duct 20, a damper 22, a return air duct 28, a fan 30, and a sensor 34. (See Yenneti i-f 11.) As shown Yenneti's Figure 2, reproduced below, the sensor 34 is located near the entry end of the return air duct 28. Y enneti' s Figure 2 shows that, whenever there is recirculation airflow being drawn through the return air duct 28 by the fan 30, this airflow will be pass over the sensor 34. As the role of Y enneti' s sensor 34 is to monitor a climate characteristic (i.e., carbon dioxide) in the passenger cabin (see Y enneti i-f 11 ), it follows that Y enneti' s sensor 34 would be fluidically associated with recirculation flow passing thereover so as to afford an accurate sensor reading of this desired climate characteristic of cabin air. As also shown in the drawing above, and as expressly disclosed by Yenneti, the damper 22 "is disposed in the fresh air duct 20 and is operable to vary the amount of fresh air that passes through the fresh air duct 20." (Yenneti, i-f 11.) And, as pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Action 6), 8 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 Dauvergne discloses that it has "been proposed to mount [a] temperature sensor on [a] flap valve which controls admission of fresh air, so as to make its position variable and to improve its ventilation." (Dauvergne, col. 1, 11. 52-56.) In the Examiner's proposed combination of the prior art, Y enneti' s sensor 34 is relocated to Y enneti' s damper 22 in view of this teaching by Dauvergne. (See Final Action 6.) The Examiner provides us with an annotated drawing, reproduced below, showing Yenneti's damper 22 in a position corresponding to a minimum amount of recirculation air. (Answer 16.) In other words, this annotated drawing shows Yenneti's system when it is drawing primarily fresh air through the system. Door (22) fully open The Examiner's annotated drawing shows that, when Yenneti's system is drawing primary fresh air, a non-zero amount of recirculation air (i.e., a base recirculation flow) flows through the return air duct 28. However, significantly, the Examiner's annotated drawing also shows that a sensor located on the damper 22 would not be fluidically associated with this base recirculation flow. Rather, "[i]n the proposed placement" ofYenneti's sensor 34 on Y enneti' s damper 22, the sensor 34 "would not measure the 9 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 characteristics of the recirculated air, but of mixed air or fresh air." (Reply Br. 3.) Insofar as there may be a place on Y enneti' s damper 22 where the relocated sensor 34 would be in fluidic association with recirculation air, the Examiner gives us no details regarding this placement. The Examiner does imply that the relocated sensor 34 is placed on the downstream side, not the upstream side, of the damper 22. (See Answer 20.) Yet, in the Examiner's annotated drawing reproduced above, neither the upstream side nor the downstream side of the Y enneti' s damper 22 is shown fluidically associated with recirculation flow. The Examiner also explains that "[ n ]owhere" was "it proposed that the recirculation air sensor be relocated out of the recirculation stream." (Answer 20.) But again, the Examiner offers us no insight as to how this can be accomplished when Y enneti' s sensor 34 is relocated on Y enneti' s damper 22. As discussed above, the Appellants' disclosed embodiments do not entail simply placing a climate sensor on a recirculation door; they entail special structuring on or in the door, in conjunction with a strategic locating of the climate sensor relative to this door structure. The Examiner does point out that Y enneti "alone" discloses that the sensor 34 is fluidically associated with a base recirculation flow as required by the independent claims on appeal. (Answer 20.) Nevertheless, Yenneti's purported teachings on this subject only pertain to the sensor 34 in its damper-remote location, at the entry end of the air return duct 28. The Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to the additional prior art references likewise provide no explanation as to how or why Yenneti's relocated sensor 34 would be in fluidic association with 10 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 the recirculation flow. For example, the Examiner spells out that Dauvergne is relied upon "solely" to teach that "it is known" to mount a sensor on flap "in order to 'ventilate the sensor.'" (Answer 18; see also Final Action 5, 9.) As for the rest of the prior art references applied by the Examiner in the § 103 rejections, Dage is relied upon for its teachings on "minimum recirculation" and "humidity" (Final Action 7, 8); Inoue is relied upon for its teaching on "nitrous oxide" sensing (id. at 11 ); and Azar is relied upon for its teachings on door "gap[s]" (id. at 12). The Examiner appears to propose an alternate modification in which Y enneti' s sensor 34 is relocated near the downstream end of the air return duct 28. (See Answer 23.) However, the Examiner does not address adequately why this modification would result in the sensor 34 being physically located and fluidically associated as required by the independent claims on appeal. Specifically, for example, the Examiner does not explain how or why this so-relocated sensor 34 would be "mounted at the recirculation entry section" as required by independent claim 1, 8 "disposed to receive the base recirculation flow prior to blending" as required by independent claim 10, "on" a recirculation door as required by independent claim 11, and/or "mounted to" a recirculation door as required by independent claim 13. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 13, and the claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 8 We note that the Examiner expressly identifies the upstream end of Yenneti's air return duct 28 as the "recirculation entry section." (See Final Action 5, especially the Examiner's annotated drawing.) 11 Appeal2017-007575 Application 13/307,349 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 7-18. REVERSED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation