Ex Parte LEE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 9, 2019

14341959 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/341,959 07/28/2014
28395 7590 01/11/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tae-Kyung LEE
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.
83420248 1026
EXAMINER
BOOMER, JEFFREY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2019 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 TAB-KYUNG LEE
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 9-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated November 3, 2016.
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 9, the sole independent claim on appeal, reproduced below with
disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A battery management system comprising:
a controller programmed to operate a traction battery at a
power level less than a battery power limit that is based on
predicted future values of state variables of a model defining a
response of a plurality of effective metal-ion concentrations
associated with locations within at least one electrode of a batter
cell to a constant current input over a predetermined time period.
THE REJECTIONS 3
I. Claims 9-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaiya (US 2015/0338468 Al; published Nov. 26, 2015).
III. Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaiya and Fiengo (Domenico Di Domenico, Anna
Stefanopoulou, and Giovanni Fiengo, Lithium-Ion Battery State of Charge
and Critical Surface Charge Estimation Using an Electrochemical Model-
Based Extended Kalman Filter, JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS,
MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL, VOL. 132 November 2010 (hereinafter
"Fiengo")).
3 The rejection of claims 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite is
withdrawn. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
Rejection I
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 9 ( and therefore, dependent claims 10-
15), the Examiner finds that the Specification is "silent as to 'predicted
future values of state variables.'" Final Act. 3. In addition, the Examiner
finds that dependent claim 15, which further defines the predicted future
values of claim 1 as "represent[ing] expected values of the state variables
upon expiration of the predetermined time period," lacks written description
support. Id. See Br. 7 (Claims App.).
Regarding independent claim 9, Appellant argues that at least
equation ( 40) of the Specification, as originally filed,
I - \
n. ....... ~ i '1 ....... ,, . B. ~
\\ = l'oc - I: C\ ,x, ()e -o.,t,, - I Ro - L cl , l1- e -,{,i,; )~ ii
. ' ,, ., i '' ' ... . il i
~ \.. l i /
(40)
provides written description support for the disputed limitation of claim 1,
the solution for the state variables Xi, defined in equations (38) and (39) at
time, td, in the future." Br. 2. Equations (38) and (39) are reproduced
below.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Appellant states that "the claim describes in
more detail that the terms described above represent the expected value of
the state variable upon expiration of the predetermined time period td." Id.
3
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
The Examiner responds that "Appellant points to state variable, Xi, in
equation ( 40) as being a state variable representative of a future value,"
however, "equation (40) does not recite Xi but Xi,o, which is defined as 'an
initial value of the transformed state variable at the present time.'" Ans. 3
(citing Spec. ,r 82). The Examiner also responds that equations (38) and (39)
are "entirely silent as to td and, therefore, do not establish that the state
variable Xi is drawn to time, td, in the future." Id. (citing Spec. ,r 79). The
Examiner further determines that although Paragraph 84 of the Specification
recites "that td is related to a time horizon, the written disclosure is silent as
to td being required in determining to the state variables Xi and Xi,o," and that
"state variable Xi,o- which ... is related to the present time, not the future
time - is used to calculate the power limits ... ; therefore, ... the state
variables used to determine the power limits are not predicted future values
but present values." Id. (citing Spec. ,r,r 82-87, Fig. 13 (elements 1306-
1316)).
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must
describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The issue of whether the written
description requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Wang Labs,
Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Specification discloses a simplified system matrix:
The eigendecomposition of the state-space model
transforms the system such that the transformed state variables
are independent of one another. The dynamics of each state
variable of the transformed model may be expressed
4
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
independently of the other state variables. The prediction of the
system dynamics may be expressed by a linear combination of
the predicted state variable dynamics. Explicit expressions for
battery power capability during a predetermined time period may
be derived from the transformed system matrix.
Id. at ,r 76. The Specification discloses that equations (38) and (39) are
simplified expressions of "[t]he transformed battery model," and include Xi
as the ";th state variable in x" (id. at ,r 79), wherein "[t]he transformed states
are based on the effective Li-ion concentrations that make up the original
state vector" (id. at ,r 80). 4
Paragraph 81 of the Specification characterizes equation ( 40), as
follows:
The battery current limit for the predetermined time period
may be calculated as the magnitude of the battery current that
causes the battery terminal voltage to reach the battery voltage
limits. The battery voltage limits may have an upper limit value
for charging and a lower limit value for discharging. The battery
terminal voltage with a constant battery current input over a
predetermined time period may be computed by letting the
battery current input be a constant value during a predetermined
time period, td. By solving equations (38) and (39) with the
constant current, i, and the predetermined time period, td, the
battery terminal voltage, vt, [is expressed as equation (40)].
4 The Specification discloses that the original state vector effective Metal-
ion concentration includes both the anode and cathode state vector effective
Metal-ion concentrations. Spec. ,r 53.
5
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
It is undisputed that the Specification provides written description
support for basing a battery power limit on predicted values of state
variables. 5 However, Appellant's argument does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's determination that the Specification fails to describe the
claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can
reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of basing the battery
power limit on predicted future values of the state variables (i.e., "expected
values of the state variable upon expiration of the predetermined time
period," as recited in dependent claim 15), rather than present or initial
values, as determined by the Examiner. In other words, Appellant's
argument does not address how Xi,o in equation ( 40), which Appellant does
not dispute represents the value of a state variable at the present time ( or
time 0), is representative of a future value of Xi, notwithstanding inclusion of
td, in equation (40). Appellant's reliance on equations (38) and (39) does not
cure the deficiency in Appellant's argument because Appellant fails to
explain how equations (38) and (39), which do not include the variable td,
require xi to be a future ( or expected) value upon the expiration of a time
period when implemented as Xi,o in equation (40).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 9, and claims 10-15 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a),
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
5 An ordinary definition of the claim term "predicted," consistent with the
Specification, means "to declare in advance," WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L
DICTIONARY 1786 (1993), and we understand that a model inherently
predicts the behavior of a system based on inputs; however, claim 9 further
requires that the input (i.e., the state variable) to be afuture value, rather
than a present value of the system.
6
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
Rejection II
Regarding independent claim 9, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Kaiya discloses a controller programmed to operate a traction battery at a
power level less than a battery power limit that is based on predicted future
values of state variables of a model, as claimed. Final Act. 5 ( citing Kai ya
,r,r 150-153). The Examiner determines that "G(t) is a predetermined
function which predicts deterioration values over the lifetime of the battery,"
and G(t) incorporates predicted future state variables (i.e., dCe, ~Ce, Ce).
Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues that "Kai ya teaches computing state variables of the
model at a present time based on past values," and therefore, that Kaiya fails
to disclose "predicting future values of the ion concentration in the manner
claimed." Br. 4 (citing Kaiya ,r,r 88, 91, 129, 154). In support, Appellant
submits that Kaiya teaches that "'the ion concentration imbalance dCe(t+~t)
after the elapse of the cycle time ~t is calculated on the basis of the ion
concentration imbalance ~Ce(t) at the time t (the previous time)." Id. (citing
Kaiya ,r 91).
We determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that t represents one point in time (i.e., the present), and
thus, t+~t represents a point of time in the future relative tot. See, e.g.,
Kai ya ,r 104 ("t represents time, and ~t represents a cycle ( cycle time)").
Thus, because Kaiya discloses predicting a value of Ce at a time t+~t (i.e., at
a point of time in the future relative tot), Kai ya discloses basing the battery
power limit on "predicted future values of state variables," as claimed,
notwithstanding the fact that estimation of Ce at t+~t involves incorporating
7
Appeal2017-010341
Application 14/341,959
the ion concentration imbalance ~Ce(t) at the time t into the predicted future
value.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 9. Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 14 and 15, which depend from independent claim 9,
and therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 15
for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra. Br. 3--4.
Rejection III
Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims
10-13 apart from the arguments presented supra with respect to Rejection I,
and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-13. Br. 3--4.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 9-15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8