FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

2019004721 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)

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.
15/176,272 06/08/2016 Xiaoguang CHANG 83651577 9143
28395 7590 09/23/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
ROBBINS, JERRY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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 XIAOGUANG CHANG, XU WANG, and CHUAN HE
____________
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before DEBRA L. DENNETT, LILAN REN, and JANE E. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 of Application 15/176,272, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No.
15/176,272 filed June 8, 2016 (the “’272 App.”); the Final Office Action
dated June 29, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 30, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 26, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed May 23, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, L.L.C. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ’272 Application relates to a system for estimating battery
capacity for a vehicle traction battery. Spec. ¶ 1. According to the
Specification, high-voltage traction batteries in hybrid and electric vehicles
provide stored electric energy, but are subject to aging, i.e., their capacity
and charge/discharge capability may decrease with time and vehicle usage.
Id. ¶¶ 2, 25. Battery decay can affect performance and fuel economy of
hybrid vehicles if control strategies are not updated to account for battery
aging. Id. ¶ 25.
The energy supplied to a traction battery is expected to be greater than
the energy stored in the traction battery due to heat dissipation during
charging. Id. ¶ 36. If the battery charge estimate is in error (e.g., indicating
that the traction battery stored more energy than was supplied), operation of
control strategies that utilize the battery capacity estimate may be altered.
Id. ¶ 37.
State of charge (SOC) gives an indication of how much charge
remains in the traction battery. Id. ¶ 22. The traction battery may be
charged or discharged according to a target state of charge compared to a
present state of charge. Id. ¶ 24. A SOC value may be output to inform the
driver of how much charge remains in the traction battery, similar to a fuel
gauge. Id. ¶ 22. The SOC estimate relies on the battery capacity value. Id.
¶ 38. A battery energy control module may operate the traction battery
within a range of SOC value between a maximum SOC limit and a minimum
SOC limit. Id. ¶ 39.
For a lithium-ion battery cell, an initial SOC value for a drive cycle
may be estimated based on an open-circuit voltage (OCV) measurement
before the battery cell is coupled to a load. Id. ¶ 23. After a rest period, a
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
3
terminal voltage of the battery cell and the open-circuit voltage will be
equivalent under no-load conditions. Id. The state of charge values, SOCi
and SOC1, may be based on measured voltages sampled over two key-
on/key-off cycles. Id. ¶ 27. After the battery has been resting a sufficient
time, the terminal voltage is approximately equal to the open circuit voltage
of the battery. Id. The throughput value may be accumulated during each
ignition cycle and stored in a non-volatile memory for use in the next
ignition cycle. Id. Upon power-up in an immediately subsequent ignition
cycle, the terminal voltage may be sampled and the battery capacity
computed. Id.
According to the Applicant, for best results, the voltage measurements
should be made when the battery is fully relaxed, but the relaxed condition
may occur less frequently in a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) or battery electric
vehicle (BEV). Id. ¶ 28. With plug-in vehicles, an operator is likely to park
the vehicle and immediately plug in a charger to initiate charging, and
unplug the charger and begin driving immediately. Id. Under these
conditions, the traction battery may not achieve a fully relaxed condition for
optimal voltage measurement. Id. Using the voltages at the start of an
ignition cycle may cause estimates of battery capacity to be inaccurate, and
over time, the estimated battery capacity may deviate from the true value.
Id.
If estimated battery capacity is not accurate, the SOC value will not be
accurate, and any inaccuracy may affect electric-range determination,
charge-time estimation, and power limit determination. Id. ¶ 30. The
learned battery capacity may diverge from the true capacity value due to
factors such as sensor measurement noise and vehicle operating conditions.
Id. ¶ 31. When the battery capacity value is periodically learned, a method
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
4
of determining the quality of the estimated capacity value is desirable. Id.
A battery capacity estimate that is evaluated to be of high quality may then
be used for computing related dependent parameters. Id. A battery capacity
estimate that is evaluated to be of low quality may trigger computation of an
updated battery capacity. Id.
The SOC may be estimated during a drive cycle based on the initial
SOC based on the terminal voltage, the current throughput during the drive
cycle, and the estimated battery capacity. Id. ¶ 32. During the drive cycle,
the battery current may be measured and integrated to obtain the current
throughput. Id. The present estimate of the battery capacity may be used to
determine the change in SOC over the drive cycle. Id. The drive cycle may
include the period of time from the initiation of an ignition cycle to
termination of the ignition cycle. Id. At the termination of the ignition
cycle, the SOC value may be stored in non-volatile memory for use in a
subsequent ignition cycle. Id.
At the initiation of the next ignition cycle, the initial SOC may be
derived and the ending SOC from the previous ignition cycle may be
retrieved from non-volatile memory. Id. ¶ 33. A comparison may be made
between the initial SOC and the ending SOC from the immediately previous
ignition cycle. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle power system comprising:
a controller programmed to operate a traction battery
within a first state of charge range and, in response to an
amount of energy supplied to the traction battery during a
charge cycle being less than an estimated amount of energy
stored in the traction battery during the charge cycle, operate
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
5
the traction battery within a second state of charge range that is
narrower than the first state of charge range.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Name Reference Date
Seo et al. (“Seo”) US 7,649,338 B2 Jan. 19, 2010
Paryani et al.
(“Paryani”)
US 8,004,243 B2 Aug. 23, 2011
Kusumi US 8,820,446 B2 Sept. 2, 2014
Chung et al. (“Chung”) US 2015/0115715 A1 Apr. 30, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: (1)
claims 1, 4, 5, 7–9, 14, and 17–19 over Kusumi in view of Chung; (2) claims
2 and 3 over Kusumi in view of Chung, and further in view of Seo; (3) claim
6 over Kusumi in view of Chung, and further in view of Paryani; (4) claims
10 and11 over Kusumi in view of Chung, and further in view of Seo; (5)
claims 12 and 13 over Kusumi in view of Chung, and further in view of
Paryani; (6) claims 15 and 16 over Kusumi in view of Chung, and further in
view of Seo; and (7) claim 20 over Kusumi in view of Chung, and further in
view of Paryani. Final Act. 2–17.
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
6
the alleged error in the [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kusumi teaches a
vehicle power system comprising a controller programmed to operate a
traction battery within a first state of charge range and operate the traction
battery within a second state of charge range that is narrower than the first
state of charge range. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Kusumi also
teaches “the charge ECU [electronic control unit] automatically switches the
mode from the mode where the SOC operates in the first SOC range to the
mode where the SOC operates in the second SOC range, but does not
explicitly teach the conditions, or trigger, for the charge ECU to switch to
the different SOC range.” Id. at 3. The trigger in claim 1 is “in response to
an amount of energy supplied to the traction battery during a charge cycle
being less than an estimated amount of energy stored in the traction battery
during the charge cycle.” See Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner
finds that Kusumi switches from one SOC control range to another based on
a user activation of a switch, but also allows for automatic switching by the
charge ECU.
The Examiner initially finds that Chung teaches the limitation “in
response to an amount of energy supplied to the battery during a charge
cycle . . . being less than an estimated amount of energy stored in the battery
during the charge cycle.” Final Act. 3 (citing Chung ¶ 64).
In the Answer the Examiner appears to reconsider his finding
regarding paragraph 64 of Chung, but finds that Chung’s disclosure of a
“compensation charge control signal” reads on the trigger in claim 1. Ans.
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
7
4–5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Chung discloses that a power
control unit outputs a compensation charge control signal when the amount
of power compensation is determined, and the compensation charge control
signal is the trigger used to change the SOC range. Ans. 5 (citing Chung
¶ 73). The Examiner acknowledges that Chung uses the signal for a task
that differs from the claimed task, but finds that the signal “nonetheless
triggers [Chung’s] system to make a change to the SOC range, thus the
reason why it reads on this portion of the independent claims.” Id.
The Examiner determines:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to use the monitoring and comparing of the amount
of energy supplied to the amount of energy estimated to trigger
an operation as explicitly taught in Chung in the automatic
version of the state of charge changing system of Kusumi since
it is known in the art that the state of charge of a battery is
affected by degradation factors such as number of
charge/discharge cycles and would be an appropriate method of
triggering the state of charge range changing of Kusumi from
SOC range 1 to SOC range 2, although implied but not explicitly
detailed in the disclosure of Kusumi.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Chung does not teach or suggestion
the claimed trigger condition. Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 5. We agree that
the record before us does not support the Examiner’s finding.
Claim 1 requires a controller programmed to “operate the traction
battery within a second state of charge range that is narrower than the first
state of charge range” “in response to an amount of energy supplied to the
traction battery during a charge cycle being less than an estimated amount of
energy stored in the traction battery during the charge cycle.” Appeal Br. 9
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appellant accurately points out that
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
8
Chung discloses that “an actual amount of energy stored in the secondary
battery 121 is smaller than an amount of supplied energy,” or, in other
words, an amount of energy supplied is greater than an amount of energy
stored, the opposite of claim 1’s requirement. Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Chung
¶ 64); Reply Br. 2. Thus, Chung does not disclose the trigger limitation
recited in claim 1.
Appellant persuades us that the Examiner also errs in finding that
Chung’s disclosure of a compensation charge control signal teaches or
suggests the claimed trigger condition. Reply Br. 2–3; see Ans. 5. The
record before us does not support the Examiner’s finding that Chung’s
compensation charge control signal reads on the trigger element of claim 1.
During prosecution, an application’s claims are given their broadest
reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim
must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id.
The Specification relates that the battery energy control module may
implement a control strategy for adjusting SOC window limits between a
maximum SOC limit and a minimum SOC limit. Spec. ¶ 39. The SOC
range may be configured to balance battery life with an operating range that
is as large as possible. Id. According to the Specification, during operation
the battery capacity may be expected to decrease, and the battery capacity
estimate may become larger than the actual value over time, resulting in the
estimated computed change in SOC being lower than the actual change in
SOC, and the estimated SOC changes being less than the actual SOC
changes. Id. ¶ 40. The decrease in the actual battery capacity relative to the
Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
9
estimated battery capacity may cause operation outside of the first SOC
window. Id.
To compensate for the decrease, the SOC operating window may be
changed to a second SOC window defined by a second maximum SOC and a
second minimum SOC, such that the traction battery is operated at a reduced
(narrower) range of SOC values when compared to the first SOC window in
response to determining that the battery capacity is no longer accurate. Id.
¶ 41. The operating SOC window may be narrowed until the battery
capacity is estimated again. Id.
In light of the Specification, the Examiner’s reading of the trigger
limitation of claim 1 is overly broad. The trigger requires that the battery
operate within a narrower state of charge range “in response to an amount of
energy supplied to the traction battery during a charge cycle being less than
an estimated amount of energy stored in the traction battery during the
charge cycle.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Chung’s disclosure of a signal
that can change the SOC range—reasonably interpreted—is insufficient to
teach the claimed limitation.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Kusumi in view of
Chung. Because the other pending claims also rely on identical findings by
the Examiner in relation to Chung, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2–20.

Appeal 2019-004721
Application 15/176,272
10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 7–
9, 14, 17–
19
103
Kusumi, Chung
1, 4, 5, 7–9, 14, 17–19
2, 3 103 Kusumi, Chung, Seo 2, 3
6 103 Kusumi, Chung, Paryani 6
10, 11 103 Kusumi, Chung, Seo 10, 11
12, 13 103 Kusumi, Chung, Paryani 12, 13
15, 16 103 Kusumi, Chung, Seo 15, 16
20 103 Kusumi, Chung, Paryani 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20
REVERSED