Ex Parte Wijaya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 6, 2016

12695429 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/695,429 01/28/2010 28395 7590 04/08/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Halim Wijaya 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. 81200407 7901 EXAMINER ROJAS, HAJIME S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/08/2016 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 HALIM WIJA YA, CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN VAN A UKEN, and KENNETH GERARD BROWN Appeal2013-009592 1 Application 12/695,4292 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed February 26, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 25, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed August 24, 2012). 2 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 CLAIMED fNVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to a "[s]ystem and method for controlling temperature in an automotive vehicle" (Spec. 1, 11. 7-8). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A system for controlling temperature in an automotive vehicle having a driver-side area, a front passenger- side area, and a climate control system with at least one interface to allow a user to select a driver-side temperature setting and a passenger-side temperature setting, the system comprising: a seat occupancy sensor at the front passenger-side area of the vehicle for generating a sensor signal indicative of passenger seat occupancy in the passenger-side area; and at least one computer-based controller configured to respond to the sensor signal by executing software instructions stored in computer memory to control the climate control system of the vehicle; wherein the climate control system distributes conditioned air according to the driver-side temperature setting to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas \~1hen the passenger-side area is unoccupied and when the automotive vehicle has operated above a predetermined speed for at least a predetermined amount of time. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fusco (US 6,454,178 Bl, iss. Sept. 24, 2002) and Kadi (US 6,718,260 Bl, iss. Apr. 6, 2004). Claims 2, 8, 9, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fusco, Kadi, and Official Notice. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fusco, Kadi, and Pham (US 2005/0077037 Al, pub. Apr. 14, 2005). 2 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 15, and 18 Appellants argue independent claims 1, 15, and 18 as a group (Br. 5). We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 15 and 18 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because neither Fusco nor Kadi discloses or suggests that "the climate control system distributes conditioned air according to the driver-side temperature setting to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas when the passenger-side area is unoccupied," as recited in claim 1 (Br. 5---6). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Fusco discloses the argued limitation (Final Act. 3 (citing Fusco, col. 4, 1. 66- col. 5, 1. 15); see also Ans. 3--4). Fusco is directed to a multi-zone climate control system and method for a vehicle, and discloses that the system comprises a passenger seat occupancy detector at each of a plurality of passenger seats for generating a signal indicative of the occupancy condition of the seat; a control unit also is associated with each passenger seat location and is used to select a desired climate setting for the passenger location (Fusco, Abstract). Fusco discloses a method (at column 4, line 66 through column 5, line 15, cited by the Examiner) for controlling the climate control system of Figure 1. In accordance with this method (as shown in the logic flow diagram of Figure 2), upon HVAC controller 60 receiving an ignition signal, the occupancy status of each of seats (i.e., zones) 12, 14, 16, and 18 is determined by monitoring the status of seatbelt sensors 20, 22, 24, and 26 (id., col. 4, 11. 49---65). Fusco discloses that HV AC controller 60 3 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 automatically controls the zone settings (as selected by one or more zone climate controllers 44, 46, 48, and 50) for the occupied zones and also controls the unoccupied zones to optimize the comfort level of occupants in the occupied zones (id., col. 4, 1. 66- col. 5, 1. 4). Fusco, thus, discloses that if, for example, passenger seat 16 (which the Examiner compares to the claimed passenger-side area) is unoccupied and passenger seat 18 (which the Examiner compares to the claimed driver-side area) is occupied, zone controller 48 for passenger seat 16 is controlled by HV AC controller 60 as determined by the climate settings of controller 50 for seat 18 (id., col. 5, 11. 4--10). In other words, Fusco discloses that the climate control system distributes conditioned air, according to the driver-side temperature setting (as determined by controller 50 for seat 18), to both the driver-side area (seat 18) and the passenger-side area (seat 16) when the passenger-side area (seat 16) is unoccupied, as called for in claim 1. We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the combination of Fusco and Kadi fails to disclose or suggest that "the climate control system distributes conditioned air according to the driver-side temperature setting to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas when the automotive vehicle has operated above a predetermined speed for at least a predetermined amount of time," as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6-7). The Examiner cites Fusco as disclosing that the climate control system distributes conditioned air according to the driver-side temperature setting after the vehicle has been operated for at least a predetermined amount of time, i.e., the time for establishing occupancy in the passenger-side area when the HV AC controller detects an ignition start of the vehicle (Final Act. 3 (citing Fusco, col. 3, 11. 22-29; col. 4, 11. 60-65)). However, the 4 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 Examiner acknowledges that Fusco does not explicitly disclose "above a predetermined speed," and cites Kadi to cure the deficiency of Fusco. Kadi is directed to a vehicle navigation system, and discloses that when the navigation system is in use, a wheel speed sensor informs the system whether the vehicle is stationary or moving (which the Examiner interprets as "above a predetermined speed") (Kadi, col. 3, 11. 6-9). When the vehicle is stationary, the navigation system menu is in a first configuration; however, when the vehicle is in motion, the navigation system switches the menu to a second configuration disabling all or a portion of the menu items unless a passenger is present in the vehicle, as determined by a passenger occupancy sensor in communication with the navigation system (id., col. 3, 11. 9--20; col. 4, 11. 5-10). Appellants argue that "Kadi detects passenger presence in a motor vehicle without using vehicle speed information" (Br. 7). But that argument is not persuasive of Examiner error at least because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. There is nothing in claim 1 that requires vehicle speed information to be used in detecting passenger presence. We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claims 15 and 18, which fall with claim 1. Dependent claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and recites that "the controller determines the passenger seat occupancy after the automotive vehicle has 5 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 operated above a predetermined speed for at least a predetermined amount of time." Appellants argue that claim 6 is separately patentable because [a] person skilled in the art would have not considered modifying the teachings as disclosed by Fusco to include the teachings of Kadi for at least the reason that the passenger occupancy sensor of Kadi detects passenger presence in the motor vehicle without using vehicle speed information. In other words, the passenger occupancy sensor of Kadi detects passenger presence regardless of the vehicle being in motion. Br. 8. That argument is not persuasive because, again, it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 6 recites that the controller determines the passenger seat occupancy after the automotive vehicle has operated above a predetermined speed for at least a predetermined amount of time. Claim 6 does not require determining passenger seat occupancy using vehicle speed information. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Dependent claim 11 Claim 11 depends from claim 1, and recites that "the climate control system has a single-zone mode and a dual-zone mode, the controller changing the climate control system from the single-zone mode to the dual- zone mode when the controller determines that the passenger-side area is occupied." We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Fusco, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose a system that changes from a single- zone mode to a dual-zone mode when the controller determines that the passenger-side area is occupied, as required by claim 11 (Br. 8-9). Instead, 6 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 we agree with, and adopt the Examiner's response to Appellants' argument as set forth at pages 9--10 of the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Dependent claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recites that the driver-side temperature setting is stored in the memory, the controller being configured to change the passenger-side temperature setting to the driver-side temperature setting to control the climate control system to distribute air at a single temperature to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas in an effort to achieve the driver-side temperature setting at both the driver-side and passenger-side areas. Addressing claim 2 in the Final Office Action, the Examiner cites column 6, lines 10-21 of Fusco as disclosing that the driver-side temperature setting is stored in memory (Final Act. 7). The Examiner acknowledges that Fusco does not explicitly disclose the remaining features set forth in claim 2; however, the Examiner asserts that "Fusco discloses turning off any unoccupied zone and the system and method of Fusco reduces the influence of unoccupied zone control settings on the occupied zone climate control operation ([5:10-21])" (id.). The Examiner, thus, concludes that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the system and method as disclosed by Fusco would allow for the controller being configured to change the passenger-side temperature setting to the driver-side temperature setting to control the climate control system to distribute air at a single temperature to both the driver- side and passenger-side areas in an effort to achieve the driver- side temperature setting at both the driver-side and passenger- side areas. Id. at 7-8. 7 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 Responding to Appellants' argument that "[t]uming off an unoccupied zone is not setting an unoccupied zone (passenger-side) to the selected temperature of the occupied zone (driver-side)" (Br. 9), the Examiner notes that Fusco additionally discloses that when passenger seat 16 (i.e., the claimed passenger-side area) is unoccupied and passenger seat 18 (i.e., the claimed driver-side area) is occupied, zone controller 48 for passenger seat 16 is controlled by HV AC controller 60 as determined by the climate settings of controller 50 for seat 18 (see Ans. 11-12). In other words, the HV AC controller controls the system so that air is distributed at a single temperature to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas, as called for in dependent claim 2. Appellants did not present any response to this argument in the Appeal Brief. And Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection. Dependent claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and recites that the controller determines whether the automotive vehicle has operated above the predetermined speed for at least the predetermined amount of time when the controller determines that the passenger-side temperature setting has not been adjusted since an ignition start of the automotive vehicle. In rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner acknowledges that Fusco does not explicitly disclose that the passenger-side temperature has not been adjusted since the ignition start (Final Act. 10). However, the Examiner finds that "Kadi teaches a controller determining a 8 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 passenger seat occupancy when the vehicle has operated above a predetermined speed ([3:6-20])" and that "Pham teaches starting a timer once the ignition is on and determining whether the passenger has not adjusted the manual temperature knob for a predetermined amount of time ([paragraph][0029][0031])" (id.). And the Examiner concludes, Id. it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention as disclosed by Fusco and include the teachings of Kadi and Pham in order to accurately determine the presence of a passenger in the passenger side of the car. Appellants argue that both Pham and Kadi fail to describe the controller recited in claim 7, and additionally, that a person skilled in the art would not have considered modifying Fusco to include the teaching of Kadi "for at least the reason that the passenger occupancy sensor of Kadi detects passenger presence in the motor vehicle without using vehicle speed information. In other words, the passenger occupancy sensor of Kadi detects passenger presence regardless of the vehicle being in motion" (Br. 10). Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error at least because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 7. As described above, there is nothing in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, and also nothing in the language of claim 7 itself, that requires vehicle speed information to be used in detecting passenger presence. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection. 9 Appeal2013-009592 Application 12/695,429 Dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19-23 Each of claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19-23 ultimately depends from one of independent claims 1, 15, and 18. Appellants do not present any argument in support of the patentability of these dependent claims. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10