Ex Parte Jade et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13621433 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/621,433 09/17/2012
34044 7590 06/29/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ShyamJade
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.
081276-9542-USOl 4191
EXAMINER
VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHY AM JADE, ERIK HELLSTROM,
ANNA STEFANOPOULOU, and LI JIANG 1,2
Appeal2017-004318
Application 13/621,433
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
6 and 9-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Application Data Sheet submitted on September 17, 2012,
Robert Bosch GmbH is the Applicant.
2 The Appeal Brief indicates the Robert Bosch LLC and Regents of the
University of Michigan are the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-004318
Application 13/621,433
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "real-time engine control during
recompression homogeneous charge compression ignition ("HCCI")
combustion." Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1, reproduced below with added paragraph
numbering, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling combustion performance of an
engine during recompression homogeneous charge compression
ignition ("HCCI"), the method comprising:
[i] regulating a valve actuation timing and a fuel injection
timing to cause a combustion phasing of at least one cylinder of
the engine to approach a target combustion phasing;
[ii] estimating current combustion state information
based, at least in part, on the combustion phasing of the at least
one cylinder, the current combustion state information
including at least one of a temperature associated with the at
least one cylinder, a pressure associated with the at least one
cylinder, and a pre-combustion charge composition associated
with the at least one cylinder;
[iii] determining a target fuel injection amount;
[iv] determining, based on the estimated current
combustion state information, whether the actuator settings
required to cause the combustion phasing of the at least one
cylinder of the engine to approach the target combustion
phasing would violate predetermined constraints if the target
fuel injection amount is injected,
[ v] wherein the actuator settings required to cause
the combustion phasing of the at least one cylinder of
the engine to approach the target combustion phasing
includes an adjustment to the valve actuation timing and
an adjustment of the fuel injection timing; and
[ vi] determining an adjusted fuel injection amount when
the target fuel injection amount would require actuator settings
that violate the predetermined constraints.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-004318
Application 13/621,433
PRIORART
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Eng US 2007/0119417 Al May 31, 2007
REJECTION
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Eng.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Eng discloses all of the method steps recited
in claim 1, including the step recited in paragraph iv, "determining, based on
the estimated current combustion state information, whether the actuator
settings required to cause the combustion phasing of the at least one cylinder
of the engine to approach the target combustion phasing would violate
predetermined constraints if the target fuel injection amount is injected."
Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Eng ,r,r 73-85). 3
Appellant contends that Eng does not disclose "a predictive
determination of whether the valve & injection timing would violate
predetermined constraints if a target fuel injection amount is injected as
required by claim 1." Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Rather, according
to Appellant, "Eng simply teaches a reactive determination and adjusts fuel
injection timing/quantity if the valve timing required to correct the
3 The Examiner's citation to paragraphs 73-85 appears at the end of the
finding that Eng discloses all of the requirements of claim 1.
3
Appeal2017-004318
Application 13/621,433
combustion error would violate the limits imposed by the limiter 113." Id.
( emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner provides an annotated copy of Figure 14 of
Eng and finds that Eng's Figure 14
shows a closed loop system with a valve control signal (from
element 101) that is sent to the limiter 113 prior to being sent to
the engine, and a fuel injection control signal (from element 115)
which is adjusted based on information from said limiter (see
injector control loop indicated on Fig. 14 below). Thus Eng
seems to disclose a predictive model, as the closed loop system
will constantly be adjusting injection timing/quantity based on
information from the limiter.
Ans. 8-9 ( emphasis omitted).
In reply, Appellant asserts:
The limiter 113 [ of Eng] does not consider what "would" happen
to the required adjusted valve setting "if' a target fuel injection
amount were injected- it only considers whether a current valve
adjustment setting that is calculated based on actual current
combustion phasing violates an authority limit ( e.g., a threshold).
Reply Br. 5.
Figure 14 of Eng depicts limiter 113 as receiving input from Valve
Control Set-point Optimizer 111, in addition to the signal received from
Map 102. Paragraph 81 of Eng states, "Limiter 113 limits the authority over
valve adjustments in accordance with the particular hardware limitations of
the engine including the valve actuation apparatus 25." Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Eng teaches a valve control signal, sent from Valve
Control Baseline Setpoint Map ("Map") 101, which is constrained by limiter
113. However, paragraph 81 of Eng contains only a brief discussion of the
function of limiter 113. Paragraph 84 of Eng explains that "in accordance
with limits in the valve actuation authority of the valve position control ... a
4
Appeal2017-004318
Application 13/621,433
closed-loop control portion adjusts the timings or the mass of reforming fuel
based on combustion information 105 derived from cylinder pressure
sensors 103." Given the briefness of the description of limiter 113 in Eng, a
preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's finding that
Eng discloses the step recited in paragraph iv of claim 1. Specifically, it is
not evident that Eng teaches a determination based, in part, on a targeted
(not current) fuel injection amount as recited in claim 1. Rather, it appears
Eng teaches that certain limits of valve settings must be observed (Eng
,r,r 81, 84) regardless of a targeted fuel injection amount. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-6 and 9-13 depending
therefrom as anticipated by Eng.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 and 9-13 is reversed.
REVERSED
5