Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201612908669 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/908,669 10/20/2010 Jian Lin P013182-BAT-CHE 4328 65798 7590 07/29/2016 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JIAN LIN, XIDONG TANG, and BRIAN J. KOCH ____________ Appeal 2014-003589 Application 12/908,669 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4–7, 10, and 13–15. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and system for determining whether a recursive least squares regression process can effectively be used to calculate a battery state of charge. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for determining whether a recursive least squares process can effectively be used to calculate state-of-charge (SOC) of a battery, said method comprising: defining a current sample time and a previous sample time; measuring a current of the battery; calculating a current variation moving average of the measured current over subsequent sample times; Appeal 2014-003589 Application 12/908,669 2 calculating a current change index by averaging a norm of the moving average of the current variation over the subsequent sample times; determining if the current change index is greater than a predetermined threshold; and using the recursive least squares process to estimate the battery state- of charge if the current change index is greater than the threshold. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: Verbrugge et al. US 2007/0159137 A1 July 12, 2007 (“Verbrugge”) The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: Claims 1, 4–7, 10, and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Verbrugge. After a review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner and the evidence adduced by the Examiner, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated anticipation rejection for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and in the Final Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis. Appellants argue the rejected claims 1, 5–7, 10, 14, and 15 together as a group and present an additional argument for dependent claims 4 and 13 together as a subgroup. For reasons set forth below, we do not consider the additional argument presented for dependent claims 4 and 13 to be a substantive argument for the separate patentability of the latter dependent Appeal 2014-003589 Application 12/908,669 3 claims. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we shall primarily focus in deciding this appeal. The Examiner has determined that Verbrugge describes a method for determining the state of charge of a battery that corresponds to the method required by Appellants’ claim 1 (Final Act. 2–3, 7; Ans. 3–6; Verbrugge ¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 25, 33, 45, 65–68, 85). Appellants focus their argument on the current change index calculation step of representative claim 1 and argue that Verbrugge fails to disclose this step by Verbrugge’s skewness calculation as is urged by the Examiner (App. Br. 8–9). According to Appellants, this is so because “Verbrugge fails to disclose the claimed norm function” which “norm function ‘is a function that assigns a strictly positive length or size’” whereas the skewness calculation of Verbrugge can produce positive or negative values given that the skewness equation employed by Verbrugge includes the cubing of a term; hence, allowing the sign to survive the function that skewness is calculated by (App. Br. 9; Verbrugge ¶ 65). However, and as found by the Examiner, Verbrugge discloses that the skewness function includes absolute value brackets encompassing the cubed term thereby establishing that the calculation will always provide a positive value contrary to Appellants’ argument (Final Office Act. 7; Ans. 4). For similar reasons, Appellants’ corollary contention that the skewness calculation of Verbrugge does not determine a magnitude or size of current variation (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2) lacks merit in showing harmful error in the Examiner’s rejection based on the fact findings and reasoning set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 4–5). Appeal 2014-003589 Application 12/908,669 4 In addition, we observe that representative claim 1 is not limited to a particular way of assessing/calculating a current variation moving average and averaging a norm of a moving average over subsequent sample times in calculating a current change index; consequently, Appellants’ arguments respecting an asserted difference based on a norm function distinction are without merit (Reply Br. 2; see Spec. ¶ 23). As determined by the Examiner, representative claim 1 is not limited to a particular norm function (Ans. 4; see Spec. ¶ 18). Furthermore, the conditional (“if”) recursive least squares process step of claim 1 is not a required step of the representative claim 1 method. Nor is the Coulumb integration process alternative step of dependent claim 4 a required method step of the separately argued claim 4 process. This is so because the pre-conditions for effecting these latter steps are not required to occur (the current change index could be equal to the threshold). Consequently, Appellants’ argument lacks persuasive merit in showing substantive error in the Examiner’s rejection. It follows that we sustain the stated anticipation rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation