Ex Parte PORRAS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2019

14721139 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/721,139 05/26/2015
28395 7590 01/14/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Angel Fernando PORRAS
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.
83497264 8212
EXAMINER
AKRAM, IMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2019 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 ANGEL FERNANDO PORRAS,
MARK G. SMITH, NEIL ROBERT BURROWS, and BO WU
Appeal2018-004707
Application 14/721,139
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 6, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed May 26, 2015; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated June 8, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") filed November 8, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated February
2, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated March 31, 2018.
2 Appellant is Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which the Appeal Brief
identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004707
Application 14/721, 139
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to thermal management for
batteries in electrified vehicles. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 6--the sole independent
claim on appeal-reads as follows:
6. A thermal management method comprising:
in response to a battery temperature exceeding a threshold
while coolant moves through a coolant circuit that bypasses a
chiller, altering valving to incorporate the chiller, and activating
the chiller while a compressor moves refrigerant through a
refrigerant circuit that incorporates the chiller; and
in response to the temperature falling below the threshold,
deactivating the compressor, and activating a fan to blow air
across a radiator within the coolant circuit.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dogariu3 and Carpenter. 4
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Dogariu discloses a process for managing
battery temperature by selectively operating a valve to deliver coolant
through a coolant circuit that includes a chiller, a circuit that bypasses the
chiller, and a circuit that includes a radiator. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
finds that Carpenter teaches that use of a controlled fan associated with a
radiator increases cooling effectiveness of the radiator, and determines that it
3 US 2009/0317697 Al, published December 24, 2009 ("Dogariu").
4 US 2013/0269911 Al, published October 17, 2013 ("Carpenter").
2
Appeal2018-004707
Application 14/721, 139
would have been obvious to associate a fan with Dogariu's radiator for that
purpose. Id. at 3--4.
Dogariu' s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
, .......... ·- ................••... -...... -.•• -.• -•• -•• -.-.-.-.-.• -.-.• -•• -•• -•• -.• -..• -.. -.-.. -.- .-.-.. -.-.-.. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.. -.. -.-.. -.- . ...-.-.•.. y,-.-................ ...- ................ ,, ................................................. ,
' 1 I ! ' <;( .. .. ;;,~;',~t~;~;;,;, .............. ········04 ;'~l.
I . •
: 1
11~"-~~FL,,
(~~, L .... -.-.-.-.-.-.-...... -.-.-.-.. \ .... -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.·.·-·-·--{~~J~~:~--~~,t-
1 ••• -· ::·--. :.:.-:.--;., 'A..r:- :
f'"{"""""""" . .:~?'::: 1 .. .:. ":: ..... 1
:,"""''"''."'"''""}
{-.:(f) ··· .... {,\_ C(fi~ !·i{l.~f}~ ··
~)(:
/()
I ,urJ;~}i~I1;rnstRl
............
i t -. - - . . ·- . ' -. ~: - ',
i f--1·IRr~~EA n:r~ ttssa~i::.J ;~(} \
/ C(:l,'VlESS{P ]/·-'A· :>h )_'.:,
~ h(~- ..... ;:..,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,..,,...... <~<} ~)()
: ,.,'. ·.--',, ____ (·... ················1_- ____ .) __________________ •
· 0\~GX\Y . ····· -
Figure 1 is a schematic representation of a controlled coolant circuit.
Dogariu ,r 9. Dogariu's depicted circuit includes a "chiller bypass valve" 64
which, in response to sensed parameters, including battery temperature and
ambient temperature, selectively directs coolant to a battery cooler via a
chiller 48, a chiller bypass line 44, and/or a radiator 92. Id. ,r,r 23, 24. "In
determining the appropriate chiller bypass valve adjustments, controller 68
may consider a wide variety of operational parameters, which may be
monitored by one or more sensors." Id. ,r 24.
3
Appeal2018-004707
Application 14/721, 139
Appellant argues that because Dogariu's Figure 2 depicts delivering
coolant through the radiator only when a battery temperature exceeds a
threshold value, one of ordinary skill would not have had a reason to activate
a radiator-associated fan in response to battery temperature falling below
that threshold. App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 2. Dogariu's Figure 2 depicts a
control scheme in which coolant is delivered via the chiller if battery
temperature exceeds a threshold, and is apportioned between the chiller and
a radiator depending upon the differential between battery and ambient
temperatures. Dogariu ,r 25. Thus, Appellant is correct that the scheme
shown in Dogariu's Figure 2 would not direct coolant to the radiator when
the battery temperature falls below a threshold value requiring cooling of the
battery.
However, Dogariu's operational scheme in Figure 2 is exemplary.
Dogariu ,r 25 ("Fig. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary process 100
that may be carried out by controller 68 in determining the appropriate
manner in which to modulate chiller bypass valve 80.") ( emphasis added).
Appellant does not explain why that exemplary embodiment negates
Dogariu's broader teaching that the controller 68 may selectively control the
valve 64 to deliver coolant as needed to each of the three valve outlets-
namely, outlet 82 leading to the chiller, outlet 84 bypassing the chiller,
and/or outlet 86 leading to the radiator. Notably, Dogariu refers to the
radiator circuit as a "secondary cooling source" that advantageously may be
operated without using auxiliary electrical components associated with the
chiller. Id. ,r 23. Thus, Dogariu contemplates using the radiator circuit both
with and without delivering coolant also to the chiller. Where a detected
battery temperature decreases from that which would require use of the
4
Appeal2018-004707
Application 14/721, 139
chiller, to below a threshold value at which adequate cooling may be
obtained via the radiator alone, it would have been obvious in light of
Dogariu's disclosure to instruct the valve to deliver coolant to the radiator.
At that time, one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to activate a
radiator-associated fan, to obtain the efficiency benefits taught by Carpenter.
Appellant also argues that Dogariu's radiator provides a passive
cooling operation, whereas activating a radiator-associated fan would
involve active cooling requiring energy to operate the fan. Reply Br. 2.
However, Appellant does not explain why an unspecified energy
requirement to operate a fan would have dissuaded one of ordinary skill
from providing a fan to enhance efficiency of the radiator, in accordance
with the teachings of Carpenter.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner's Rejection as applied to claim 6. Appellant
does not separately argue either claim 8 or claim 9. Accordingly, the
Examiner's Rejection is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6, 8, and 9 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5