Ex Parte Paik et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201814049526 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/049,526 10/09/2013 28395 7590 05/11/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chi Paik 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. 83348548 2157 EXAMINER O'NEILL-BECERRIL, HARRY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2018 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 CHI PAIK, 1 Satish B. Chikkannanavar, Szushen Ho, and Edward Vann Decker Appeal2017-005305 Application 14/049,526 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Chi Paik, Satish B. Chikkannanavar, Szushen Ho, and Edward Vann Decker ("Paik") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l). We reverse. 1 The applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real party in interest, identified as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. (Appeal Brief, filed 1 August 2016 ("Br."), 4.) 2 Office Action mailed 24 March 2016 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR"). Appeal2017-005305 Application 14/049,526 A. Introduction 3 OPINION The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of controlling the state of charge ("SOC") of a battery in a vehicle (independent claims 1 and 7), and a vehicle with a battery so controlled (independent claim 14). The '526 Specification discloses that "the decay rate for a calendar life of a battery" can depend on a number of factors, including the SOC when the battery is idle. (Spec. 1 [0002].) The Specification defines the term "idled," as the vehicle "being in a key-off state-i.e., not operating." (Id. at [0003].) For example, the Specification teaches that in "a cell that contains mixed cathode materials of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) and lithium manganese oxide (LMO or spinel), the decay rate has been found to be highest in the SOC regions of 40o/o-80%." (Id. at [0002].) Accordingly, if the vehicle is to be left idle (turned off) for an extended period of time, it is desirable to ensure that the SOC of such a battery is below 40% or above 80%, in order to prolong the calendar life of the battery. (Id. at 5 [0014].) According to the Specification, this may be accomplished by "unbalancing" the SOC of cells in the battery, i.e., charging some cells in the battery (i.e., increasing their SOC) from other cells in the battery (i.e., decreasing the SOC of the other cells). (Id. at [0015].) Alternatively, the SOC may be modified by charging cells from or by discharging cells to an external source. (Id.) In the words of the Specification, "Whether the SOC 3 Application 14/049,526, Vehicle and method for controlling a battery in a vehicle, filed 9 October 2013. We refer to the "'526 Specification," which we cite as "Spec." 2 Appeal2017-005305 Application 14/049,526 is modified by charging from or charging to an external storage device, or whether it is modified by unbalancing the SOC as described above, the battery will have a decay rate less than the predetermined decay rate after the SOC is modified." (Id.) Claim 1 is representative and reads: A method for controlling a battery in a vehicle, comprising: modifying a state of charge (SOC) of at least some battery cells in the battery based on a vehicle idle state and the battery having at least a predetermined decay rate, the SOC of the at least some battery cells being modified such that the battery has less than the predetermined decay rate after the SOC is modified. (Br., Claims App. A-1; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection 4, 5, 6 : A. Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of Ukita 7 and Runtime. 8 4 Examiner's Answer mailed 3 January 2017 ("Ans."). 5 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute. 6 A rejection of claims 1-20 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement has been withdrawn. (Ans. 2-3). 7 Susumu Ukita, Battery system and electric motor vehicle using the battery system with charge equalizing features, U.S. Patent No. 5,905,360 (1999). 8 Wayback Machine, http ://batteryuni versity. com/learn/ arti cle/the_secrets_of _battery _untime 3 Appeal2017-005305 Application 14/049,526 Al. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of Ukita, Runtime, and Ishibashi. 9 B. Discussion The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. Paik argues that Ukita does not disclose modifying an SOC based on a vehicle idle state, which is markedly different from "modifying a state of charge when a vehicle happens to be in an idle state." (Br. 9, last para.) In the absence of a definition of the term "based on," we do not find this argument persuasive of harmful error. There is no dispute that Ukita describes, in the flow charts illustrated in Figure 10, varying the SOC of battery cells after determining that the ignition is off at step 102. 10 Put another way, the steps that are undertaken to charge or discharge various cells, as illustrated in Figures 5-7, are done subject to the condition that "IG OFF" is satisfied. Claim 1 requires no more. Paik urges further that the Examiner erred in determining that the battery described by Ukita has at least a predetermined decay rate because the battery has a discharge rate due to its chemical composition. Paik argues that "there is a difference between a battery inherently having a decay rate 9 Y oshihito Ishibashi, Discharge control apparatus and discharge control method, U.S. Patent No. 8,901,899 B2 (2 December 2014), based on an application filed 8 December 2011. 10 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 4 Appeal2017-005305 Application 14/049,526 and a teaching of a 'predetermined decay rate,"' because the latter is a "specific, previously determined value." (Br. 10, 1st para.) The Examiner responds that "determining what the inherent battery decay rate is a necessary step to carry out the equalization operations described by the Ukita reference." (Ans. 3, ,r 2.) Claim 1 requires that the modification of the SOC of a battery cell be done subject to the condition: "the battery having at least a predetermined decay rate." The Examiner, however, has not directed our attention to disclosure in Ukita indicating that the "inherent battery decay rate" is a consideration in the equalization operations. This issue is best resolved while considering the next argument raised by Paik. Contrary to the Examiner's findings, Paik argues that Table 8 of Runtime does not show that the battery, after modification of the SOC taught by Ukita, would have less than the predetermined decay rate. (Br. 10 at 2d para.) Rather, Paik insists, "Table 8 shows self-discharge rates for a lithium- ion battery at various temperatures and states of charge," and "it does not speak to any modification of the state of charge of a battery." (Id.) {Runtime Table 8 is shown below} Charge condition 0°C (32°F) 25°C (77°F) 60°C ( 140°F) Full charge 6% 20% 35% 40-60% charge 2% 4% 15% {Table 8 shows the self-discharge rate per month at various temperatures and state-of-charge conditions} The Examiner responds that "[ a ]t every temperature the discharge rate decreases when the amount of charge in the battery is decreased[,] thus teaching a reduction from the predetermined decay rate." (Ans. 4, ,r 3.) 5 Appeal2017-005305 Application 14/049,526 The Examiner has not directed our attention to credible disclosure that the discharge rates reported in Table 8 are "decay rates" that correspond to the battery lifetime decay rates of concern to Ukita, or to decay rates of concern to the present appeal. The problem of concern to Ukita is that, "[t]o use these batteries connected in series as the secondary battery, operations such as an equalizing charge and a refreshing discharge are necessary to prevent an unequal status ( that is, unequal electrode status or unequal electro-motive forces), which shorten battery life, between these batteries." (Ukita col. 1, 11. 26-31; emphasis added.) Consistently, Runtime discloses that "[b ]atteries begin fading from the day they are manufactured." (Runtime 1, caption to Figure 1.) Runtime teaches further that, "[a]s time goes on, the performance declines further and the battery gets smaller in terms of holding capacity" (id. at 2d para.). More particularly, Runtime teaches that "[ t ]he aging process of lithium-ion is cell oxidation, a process that occurs naturally as part of usage and aging and cannot be reversed." (Id. at 3d para.) The only "decay rate" discussed by the '526 Specification is "the decay rate for a calendar life of a battery" (Spec. 1 [0002]). The consistent reading of the "decay time" discussed by the '526 Specification and Runtime is the irreversible aging of the cell, with the associated declining performance. Although the discharge of a cell described in Runtime Table 8 can be described, generally, as a "decay," the Examiner has not explained plausibly how the disclosed rates of self-discharge per month would have been relevant to the concerns of Ukita. The Examiner has not made findings regarding the further limitations of the dependent claims or regarding remaining reference Ishibashi that cure the defects of Ukita and Runtime. 6 Appeal2017-005305 Application 14/049,526 Although claim 1 is worded in a way that invites extremely broad interpretation, references that render such a broad claim obvious must be combinable in some way reasonable on their own terms from the point of view of a person having ordinary skill in the art. We are persuaded by Paik' s arguments and the preponderance of the evidence of record that the Examiner did not come forward with a sufficient rationale for the proposed combination of teachings. We therefore reverse the appealed rejections. C. Order It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation