Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021002737 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 16/012,192 06/19/2018 Wesley Burkman 84034233; 67186-659PUS1 2606 46442 7590 03/01/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford 400 W. MAPLE RD. SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER BARRERA, RAMON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): cgolaw@yahoo.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WESLEY BURKMAN ____________ Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, and 15-20 of Application 16/012,192. Final Act. (July 16, 2020). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 2 I. BACKGROUND A contactor assembly can be used to control a flow of electric current to and from the battery in an electric vehicle. Spec. ¶ 4. In this use, uncharged load capacitance can cause an inrush current to flow when the contacts in the contactor assembly are moved from an open to a closed state. Id. The inrush current, although transitory, can be large enough to weld parts of the contactor assembly together. Id. The ’192 Application describes a contactor assembly and a method for transitioning the contactor assembly from an open to a closed state. Id. ¶ 1. This contactor assembly and the transitioning method it implements are said to reduce the chance that an inrush current will weld parts of the contactor assembly together. Id. Claims 1 and 12 are representative of the ’192 Application’s claims and are reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix. 1. A contactor assembly, comprising: a movable contact that transitions relative to a plurality of stationary contacts back and forth between a closed position and an open position, the movable contact contacting at least one of the stationary contacts with a first initial contact surface and then first final contact surface when the movable contact is in the closed position; a first tab of the movable contact, the first tab including the first initial contact surface and the first final contact surface; a second tab of the moveable contact, the second tab include a second initial contact surface and a second final contact surface; and an attachment section disposed between the first tab and the second tab relative to a longitudinal axis of the movable Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 3 contact, the first and second tab tilted about the longitudinal axis relative to the attachment section. Appeal Br. 8. 12. A contactor transitioning method, comprising: changing areas of contact between a movable contact and a plurality of stationary contacts when the movable contact is in a closed position with the plurality of stationary contacts; and when the movable contact is in the closed position, contacting the plurality of stationary contacts with initial contact surf aces of the movable contact, and then contacting the plurality of stationary contacts with final contact surfaces, wherein the initial contact surfaces and final contact surfaces are included on respective tabs that are joined by an attachment section disposed between the tabs relative to a longitudinal axis of the movable contact, the tabs tilted about the longitudinal axis relative to the attachment section. Appeal Br. 9. II. REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 -13, and 15 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Bedggood2 and Ramezanian3 (incorporated by reference in Bedggood). Final Act. 2. 2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bedggood. Final Act. 4. 2 US 2019/0122831 A1, published April 25, 2019. 3 US 2011/0279202 A1, published November 17, 2011. Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 4 III. DISCUSSION A. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 -13, and 15 -20 as anticipated by Bedggood and Ramezanian Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Appellant presents additional arguments for the separate patentability of claims 2, 4, 15, and 20. Appeal Br. 5 -6. Accordingly, we divide the claims subject to this rejection into six groups: (1) claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11; (2) claim 2; (3) claim 4; (4) claims 12, 13, and 16 -19; (5) claim 15; and (6) claim 20. We will address each of these groups in turn. 1. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 Appellant presents specific arguments for reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 4-5. Claims 5 and 7 -11 ultimately depend from claim 1. Id. at 8 -9. We, therefore, choose claim 1 to represent this group of claims and limit our discussion accordingly. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed because Bedggood does not describe the limitation “an attachment section disposed between the first tab and the second tab relative to a longitudinal axis of the movable contact, the first and second tab tilted about the longitudinal axis relative to the attachment section. Appeal Br. 4 -5. For ease of reference, we reproduce Bedggood’s Figure 16 below. Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 5 Bedggood’s Figure 16 is an exploded perspective view of a contact bridge member and plunger assembly. Bedggood ¶ 25. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Bedggood’s bridge member 18 corresponds to the claimed movable contact. Final Act. 2 (citing Bedggood ¶¶ 57, 65; Fig. 16). The Examiner further found that Bedggood’s wedge-shaped washer 41 corresponds to the claimed attachment section. Id. Appellant argues that this rejection should be reversed because wedge-shaped washer 41 cannot describe the recited attachment section because it is not part of the movable contact. Appeal Br. 4 -5. Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 6 The Examiner responds that Bedggood teaches that the wedge could be fixed to or form of surface feature of the upper surface of bridge member 18. Answer 6 (citing Bedggood ¶ 65). Appellant argues that, even if the wedge is a surface feature of the upper side of bridge member 18, Bedggood still would not describe that “the alleged tabs tilted relative to the bridge member 18.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 requires that the first and second tabs be tilted about longitudinal axis “relative to the attachment section” and not the bridge member as a whole. When wedge-shaped washer 41 is attached bridge member 18 or the wedge is a surface feature of bridge member 18, the first and second tabs are in a plane that is tilted relative to the plane defined by the upper surface of the attachment section of bridge member 18. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 7 -11 as anticipated by Bedggood. 2. Claim 2 For ease of reference, we reproduce claim 2 below. 2. The contactor assembly of claim 1, wherein the initial contact surface resides in a first plane, and the final contact surface resides in a second plane that is transverse to the first plane. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 2 should be reversed for the reasons given for reversal of the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. For the reasons given above, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant also argues that the rejection of claim 2 should be reversed because the rejection does not show that “different points of the domed Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 7 contact pads of Bedggood reside in planes that are transverse to each other.” Id. This argument also is not persuasive. As Appellant acknowledges, Bedggood describes an embodiment in which the surfaces of the contact pads on bridge member 18 have a dome shape. Bedggood Figs. 4a, 4c. As Bedggood explains, the presence of the wedge shape on bridge member 18’s surface combined with the oversize bore in bridge member 18 causes the contacts carried by bridge member 18 to be tilted relative to those of the fixed studs, thus “causing contact to be made away from the centre first and then close across the centre of the contact pads.” Bedggood ¶ 63. When bridge member 18’s contact pads have a domed shape, planes tangent to the contact pad’s surface at the initial and final contact points are transverse to each other. Thus, we also affirm the rejection of claim 2. 3. Claim 4 For ease of reference, we reproduce claim 4 below. 4. The contactor assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and second final contact surfaces are planar and disposed along a plane that is tilted about the longitudinal axis of the movable contact relative to a plane of the attachment section. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 4 should be reversed for the reasons given for reversal of the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. For the reasons given above, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant also argues that the rejection of claim 4 should be reversed because Bedggood’s contact surfaces are points on domed contact pads. Appeal Br. 5. Thus, according to Appellant, Bedggood fails to describe a Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 8 contactor assembly having first and second final contact surfaces that are planar and are disposed along a plane that is tilted relative to the plane of the attachment section. Id. This argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner found, Bedggood’s Figure 4b shows that the contact pads on bridge member 18 can be planar. Moreover, as we explained above, the plane defined by the contact surfaces is tilted about the longitudinal axis of bridge member 18 relative to the upper surface of the attachment section when the wedge is formed as a surface feature of the upper surface of bridge member 18. Cf. Bedggood Fig. 16. Thus, we also affirm the rejection of claim 4. 4. Claims 12, 13, and 16 -19 Claim 12 is independent. Claims 13 and 16 -19 ultimately depend from claim 12. Thus, we choose claim 12 to represent this group of claims and limit our discussion accordingly. For ease of reference, we reproduce claim 12 below. 12. A contactor transitioning method, comprising: changing areas of contact between a movable contact and a plurality of stationary contacts when the movable contact is in a closed position with the plurality of stationary contacts; and when the movable contact is in the closed position, contacting the plurality of stationary contacts with initial contact surf aces of the movable contact, and then contacting the plurality of stationary contacts with final contact surfaces, wherein the initial contact surfaces and final contact surfaces are included on respective tabs that are joined by an attachment section disposed between the tabs relative to a Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 9 longitudinal axis of the movable contact, the tabs tilted about the longitudinal axis relative to the attachment section. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 12 should be reversed for the same reasons given for reversal of the rejection of claim 1. Id. at 5. For the reasons given in § III.A.1 above, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant also argues that the rejection of claim 12 should be reversed because the alleged initial and final contact surfaces are not included on tabs that are joined by an attachment section. Id. at 6. This argument also is not persuasive. As noted above, Bedggood teaches that the wedge shape can be a feature of the upper surface of bridge member 18. Bedggood ¶ 65. In such a structure, the attachment section both includes wedge 41 and joint the tabs comprising the initial and final contact surfaces. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16 -19. 5. Claim 15 Claim 15 depends from claim 12. Appellant first argues that the rejection of claim 15 should be reversed for the reasons given for reversal of the rejection of claim 12. Appeal Br. 6. For the reasons set forth above, we do not find those arguments persuasive. Appellant next argues that the rejection of claim 15 should be reversed because Bedggood does not describe the additional limitation recited by claim 15. Id. Claim 15 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 2. We, therefore, do not find these arguments persuasive for essentially the same reasons as set forth in § III.A.2 above. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 15. Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 10 6. Claim 20 Claim 20 depends from claim 12. Appellant first argues that the rejection of claim 20 should be reversed for the reasons given for reversal of the rejection of claim 12. Appeal Br. 6. For the reasons set forth above, we do not find those arguments persuasive. Appellant next argues that the rejection of claim 20 should be reversed because Bedggood does not describe the additional limitation recited by claim 20. Id. Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 4. We, therefore, do not find these arguments persuasive for essentially the same reasons as set forth in § III.A. 3 above. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 20. B. Rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Bedggood Appellant’s sole argument for patentability of claim 9 is its dependence from claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1, we also affirm the rejection of claim 9. IV. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 -13, 15 -20 102 Bedggood, Ramezanian 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 -13, 15 -20 9 103 Bedggood 9 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, 15-20 Appeal 2021-002737 Application 16/012,192 11 V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED