Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2020

15001618 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 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.
15/001,618 01/20/2016 Chuan HE 83586797 8278
28395 7590 04/29/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
HENZE-GONGOLA, DAVID V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2020 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 CHUAN HE, FENG LI, and RUIQI MAO
Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–20.3
We REVERSE.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Jan. 20, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated July 24, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Jan. 28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s
Answer dated Mar. 8, 2019 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
“Electrified vehicles . . . use an electric machine powered by a traction
battery to drive the vehicle powertrain.” Spec. ¶ 2. Battery charging and
discharging results in electrochemical processes that affect the charge
available to power the vehicle. Id. In lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, some
operating conditions cause metallic lithium deposition on the battery cell
anodes, which may degrade battery performance. Id. This process, referred
to as lithium plating, occurs most often at low operating temperatures and
high charging currents. Id. The invention is directed “to charging strategies
to mitigate lithium plating in an electrified vehicle battery.” Id. ¶ 1. Claims 1
and 18, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle comprising:
a traction battery having cells; and
a controller in electrical communication with the traction
battery and programmed to
responsive to lithium plating being detected, prompt a
user to select one of multiple charging strategies each having
different charging rates, and
responsive to the user selecting one of the strategies,
control traction battery charging according to the selected one
of the strategies.
18. A method implemented by a vehicle controller in a
vehicle having a traction battery, comprising:
controlling, by the controller, traction battery charging
according to a user-selected charging strategy that is selected
from one of a plurality of available charging strategies, each
having a different charging rate and displayed on a user
interface in response to detection of lithium plating in the

Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618

3
traction battery, at least one of the charging strategies being
associated with additional lithium plating if selected.
Claims Appendix 1, 4.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Moore US 2006/0022646 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
Suganuma US 2012/0306446 Al Dec. 6, 2012
Liu US 2016/0144737 A1 May 26, 2016
Patil US 2017/0163046 A1 June 8, 2017
Lee US 2017/0234930 A1 Aug. 17, 2017
Eto JP 2001218378 A Aug. 10, 2001
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. claims 1, 5–12, 15, and 18 over Lee in view of Patil;
2. claims 2, 13, 14, and 20 over Lee in view of Patil and Eto
(machine translation);
3. claims 4 and 16 over Lee in view of Patil and Liu;
4. claim 17 over Lee in view of Patil and Moore; and
5. claim 19 over Lee in view of Patil and Suganuma.
OPINION
Lee relates to charging electrical vehicle (EV) batteries. Lee ¶ 58. Lee
discloses that “[l]ithium ion secondary batteries are the most realistic
technology for . . . secondary batteries for vehicle[s].” Id. ¶ 3. Lee discloses
a “secondary battery system” that includes secondary battery 130 and
controller 140. Id. ¶ 84. Lee discloses that “[w]hen the controller 140
determines that lithium plating [has] occurred, the controller 140 may stop
Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618

4
charging or change the charge condition . . . by reducing at least one of
charge current and charge voltage to the secondary battery 130 while being
charged.” Id. ¶ 90.
Patil relates “to controlling battery charging to optimize a battery
cycle life.” Patil ¶ 2. Patil discloses that “a higher charge current causes a
faster chemical reaction in the battery that causes more lithium plating than a
lower charge current, resulting [in] faster loss of the battery capacity.” Id.
¶ 26. Patil discloses that when a battery charger is plugged into a device
powered by a rechargeable battery (see id. ¶ 24), the device may provide
(e.g., as a pop-up menu) a battery life optimizer menu. Id. ¶ 34. The menu
allows the device user to select between optimizer-on and optimizer-off
options. Id. If optimizer-on is selected, the device uses a slow charging mode
by supplying a low charge current to the battery. Id. If optimizer-off is
selected, the device uses a fast charging mode by supplying a high charge
current to the battery. Id.
The Examiner found that Lee discloses the claim 1 invention except
that Lee does not disclose that the controller is “programmed to . . . prompt a
user to select one of multiple charging strategies . . . and responsive to the
user selecting one of the strategies, control traction battery charging” (claim
1 (emphasis added)). Final 3–4. The Examiner found that Patil discloses a
battery management system that includes a controller programmed to prompt
a user to select a charging strategy and to control battery charging
responsive to the user’s selection. Id. at 4. The Examiner determined that the
ordinary artisan would have modified Lee’s secondary battery system by
programming the controller to prompt a user to select a charging strategy
Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618

5
that would either optimize battery life or provide a fast charge, thereby
allowing the user to exercise his or her preference. Id. at 4–5.
The Appellant argues that “Lee’s invention is a step-wise fast charge
that does not cause lithium plating and does not extend charging time.”
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added); see also id. at 4 (citing Lee ¶ 76, Fig. 7). In
other words, the Appellant contends that Lee’s battery charging protocol, in
which current is reduced stepwise during charging, provides a fully charged
battery in the same amount of time as a conventional, fast-charging method
that supplies a constant, high-charge current. However, unlike the
conventional, fast-charging method, Lee’s protocol does not cause lithium
plating. The Appellant thus contends that the conventional, fast-charging
method provides no advantage over Lee’s protocol, so “there [would have
been] no reason[] to add user choice to the invention of Lee” (Appeal Br. 5).
In response, the Examiner argues that Lee’s invention does extend
charging time and directs us to Lee paragraphs 61 and 63. Ans. 10–11. Lee
paragraph 61 provides a table showing an exemplary charging protocol in
which charge rate is lowered stepwise. The table includes charge time at
each rate. Lee ¶ 61, Table 1. In paragraph 63, Lee states that the Table 1
charging protocol avoids lithium plating. Referring to Lee’s Table 1
charging protocol, the Examiner argues that “a great portion of the charging
(‘Delta SOC’, 27%) is accomplished at the high C-rate (2.5) charging in
about 6 minutes, while only 5% of the charging is accomplished in about the
same time at the low C-rate (0.5) charging.” Ans. 11. The Examiner
contends that “[t]his confirms what is well known in the battery charging
arts—charging at a higher C-rate reduces the time necessary for charging
Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618

6
even though it can cause other problems such as plating or overheating the
battery.” Id. at 11–12.
We determine that on this appeal record, the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As indicated
above, the Appellant cites Lee paragraph 76 and Lee Figure 7 in support of
its contention that Lee’s charging protocol does not require a longer
charging time than the conventional, fast-charging approach. See Appeal Br.
4. Lee Figure 7 is an SOC-battery voltage graph comparing the inventive
protocol—using a stepwise reduction in charge current—with a
conventional, fast-charging approach. Lee ¶ 75. Lee discloses that the same
amount of time (21 minutes) was required to fully charge a battery using the
inventive protocol and using the conventional, fast-charging approach. Id.
¶ 76. Lee discloses that after 100 charge cycles, capacity retention of the
battery charged using the conventional, fast-charging approach was reduced
to about 95%. Id. ¶ 78. By contrast, after 400 charge cycles, capacity
retention of the battery charged using the inventive protocol was 100%. Id.
Lee explains that through repeated experimentation, the inventors found that
“when lithium plating starts, the negative electrode reduces in the speed at
which the potential drops.” Id. ¶ 38. “On the other hand, in the case of the
positive electrode, the potential continues its rise during charging
irrespective of lithium plating at the negative electrode.” Id. ¶ 39. “The
battery voltage (full cell potential) is determined by a potential difference
between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.” Id. ¶ 40. Thus,
when lithium plating begins, the rate of change in potential difference
between the positive and negative electrodes (charge rate) begins to slow,
increasing the time required to reach full cell potential. See Lee Fig. 1. The
Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618

7
disclosure in Lee paragraphs 38–40 explains why the conventional, fast-
charging method that supplies a constant, high-charge current but causes
lithium plating, and Lee’s battery charging protocol, in which a current is
reduced stepwise during charging but does not cause lithium plating, provide
a fully charged battery in the same amount of time.
There is no indication that the Examiner considered the disclosure in
Lee cited by the Appellant, or the disclosure in Lee paragraphs 38–40. For
the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, we find that Lee’s
disclosure does not support the Examiner’s finding that the conventional,
fast-charging method would provide a faster charge than Lee’s charging
protocol and, therefore, that the ordinary artisan would have had a reason to
modify Lee’s secondary battery system to allow a user to select between the
conventional, fast-charging method and Lee’s charging protocol.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection as to claim 1. We also do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 18, which include similar
limitations. Nor do we sustain the rejections of the dependent claims, as the
Examiner does not rely on the additional references to cure the above-noted
deficiencies in the Lee and Patil combination. See generally Final 10–17.

Appeal 2019-004260
Application 15/001,618

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–12, 15,
18 103 Lee, Patil
1, 5–12,
15, 18
2, 13, 14, 20 103 Lee, Patil, Eto 2, 13, 14, 20
4, 16 103 Lee, Patil, Liu 4, 16
17 103 Lee, Patil, Moore 17
19 103 Lee, Patil, Suganuma 19
Overall
Outcome: 1, 2, 4–20

REVERSED