Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2017

13451879 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2017)

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.
13/451,879 04/20/2012 Yonghua Li 83210369 1698
28395 7590 02/13/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER AISAKA, BRYCE M
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2017 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 YONGHUA LI,
RICHARD DYCHE ANDERSON,
ANTHONY MARK PHILLIPS, and XU WANG
Appeal 2015-006609
Application 13/451,879
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 19-22
of Application 13/451,879 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious and rejected
claims 1 and 12 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 12. Final Act.
(October 1, 2014). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006609
Application 13/451,879
BACKGROUND
The ’879 Application describes model-based battery control systems.
Spec. 11. In particular, the Specification describes methods for monitoring
whether use of a closed-loop model to control a battery meets certain criteria
regarding model stability and projection error. Id. 15. If the closed-loop
method does not satisfy the criteria, an open-loop operation is used. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’879 Application’s claims and is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief below:
1. A metho d c ompris ing:
monitoring, by a controller in communication with a
battery, a battery variable;
using, by the controller, a closed-loop operation to
control the battery while a difference between an estimate of the
battery variable estimated from the closed-loop operation and
the battery variable is within a predetermined range; and
using, by the controller, an open-loop operation to
control the battery while the difference is out of the
predetermined range.
Appeal Br. App. 1 (emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2015-006609
Application 13/451,879
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination ofSomogye3 and
Hsu.4 Final Act. 4.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination ofSomogye, Hsu, and Cawthome.5 Final Act. 5.
3. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Somogye, Hsu, and McGee.6
Final Act. 6.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, and 20-
22 as unpatentable over the combination ofSomogye and Hsu. Final Act. 4.
Claims 1, 12, and 21 are independent. Appellants only present substantive
argument for the reversal of claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 21 are
argued to be patentable because they include similar features to claim 1 and,
thus, are patentable over the combination ofSomogye and Hsu for the same
reasons Appellants presented with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Claims
2, 10, 13, 20, and 22 are alleged to be patentable based upon their
2 Appellants’ Amendment After Final overcame the rejection of claims 1 and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,12. Advisory Action (February 25, 2015).
3 US 2010/0266875 Al, published October21, 2010.
4 US 2012/0173081 Al, published July 5, 2012.
5 US 2005/0077867 Al, published April 14, 2005.
6 US 2006/0022642 Al, published February 2, 2006.
3
Appeal 2015-006609
Application 13/451,879
dependence from one of the independent claims. Id. Accordingly, we
confine our analysis to claim 1. The remaining claims subject to this
rejection will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Hsu described the
method of switching between closed-loop operation and open-loop
operation. Final Act. 4 (citing Hsu| 25). The Examiner specifically found
that Somogye “does not explicitly state that the closed-loop operation is used
to control the battery while a difference between an estimate of the battery
variable estimated from the closed-loop operation and the actual battery
variable is within a predetermined range.” Id. at 4—5. The Examiner further
found that “Hsu teaches the use of a controller for selection between
close[d]-loop and open-loop operations based on whether or not sensor
readings are within certain operational or expected ranges.” Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed because the
Examiner erred by finding that Hsu describes or suggests switching from
closed-loop control of the battery to open-loop control of the battery based
upon the difference between an estimate of a battery variable calculated
using the battery model used for closed-loop control and the actual value of
the battery variable. Appeal Br. 4—6. According to the ’879 Application’s
Specification, closed-loop control of the battery’s operation should only be
used when this difference is within a previous determined range. Spec.
|| 19-22, 27. Claim 1 specifically recites that closed-loop operation is used
to control the battery “while a difference between an estimate of the battery
variable estimated from the closed-loop operation and the battery variable is
within a predetermined range.” If the difference is outside the
predetermined range, open-loop operation is used to control the battery. See
Claim 1.
4
Appeal 2015-006609
Application 13/451,879
The Examiner agrees that Hsu does not teach switching between
open- and closed-loop control based upon a difference between an estimate
of the battery variable and the measured battery variable. Instead, the
Examiner argues that “[sjeeing if a variable is within a range is equivalent to
determining if a difference between an estimate and an actual value is less
than a certain amount because both calculations check to see if a variable is
within a certain bound centered around a specific value[.]” Advisory Action
2 (January 22, 2015). The Examiner further argues:
The “normal operational range” of Hsu can be considered an
“estimate of the battery variable estimated from the closed loop
operation” because the normal operational range is some range
of values for a power supply characteristic. This range of
values would be calculated based on modeling or analysis of
how a circuit should be operating normally (i.e., in closed loop
mode), and can therefore be interpreted as being estimated from
closed-loop operation. In conclusion, Hsu’s “normal
operational range ... in the closed-loop operation” is within the
range of the claimed “estimate of a variable estimated from the
closed-loop operation”, or at least this claimed limitation to
been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art in view of the
103 combination of Somogye and Hsu.
Answer 2—3.
Appellants reply that the Examiner’s position is inconsistent with
Hsu’s teaching and ignores the fundamental difference between a normal
operational range for a variable and an estimate of a variable estimated from
the closed-loop operation according to claim 1. Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner’s explanation in the
Examiner’s Answer assumes that the “normal operational range” of the
battery variable would be calculated based upon modeling or analysis of
how a circuit should be operating normally. The Examiner, however, has
not established that Hsu establishes the normal operational range for its
5
Appeal 2015-006609
Application 13/451,879
battery variables in this way. Indeed, the Examiner ignores the possibility
that Hsu establishes the normal operational range of the various monitored
battery variables bytesting and observation of a representative sample of
batteries employed in Hsu’s electric power steering system circuitry.
The Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning to support the
finding that the combination of Somogye and Hsu suggests switching
between open-loop and closed-loop operation of a battery based upon the
observed difference between a battery variable in the predicted value of the
battery variable from the closed-loop model. Thus, we cannot affirm the
rejection of claim 1. We, therefore, also reverse the rejection of claims 2,
10, 12, 13, and 20-22 as unpatentable over the combination of Somogye and
Hsu.
Rejection 2. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 5 should be
reversed based upon claim 5’s dependence from claim 1. Appeal Br. 6.
Because we have reversed the rejection of claim 1, we also reverse the
rejection of claim 5.
Rejection 3. Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 9 and 19
should be reversed based upon their respective dependence from claims 1
and 12. Appeal Br. 6. Because we have reversed the rejection of claims 1
and 12, we also reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 19.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the rejections of claims 1,2, 5, 9,
10, 12, 13, and 19-22 of the ’879 Application.
REVERSED
6