Ex Parte LEE

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 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. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection2 of claims 9-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 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. Â§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. Claims 9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Kaiya (US 2015/0338468 Al; published Nov. 26, 2015). III. Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 103 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8