FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2021

2020003344 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)

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.
14/674,432 03/31/2015 Daniel MILLER 83514053;
67186-164 PUS1
7456
46442 7590 05/24/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NEDIALKOVA, LILIA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2021 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 DANIEL MILLER, DAVE MOSCHET,
ANIL REDDY PULLALAREVU, SARAVANAN PARAMASIVAM, and
LOUIS PASPAL
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6–17 and 21–25. (Final Act. 1.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 The term “Appellant” to refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle assembly that includes a blocking
member configured to impede access to high voltage components. (Spec. ¶
1.). Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A method, comprising:
incorporating a blocking member into an enclosure of a
vehicle assembly, the blocking member including a first bent
portion stamped in an exterior surface of a cover of the enclosure
and a second bent portion stamped in an exterior surface of a tray
of the enclosure; and
impeding access through the enclosure to an interior of the
enclosure via the blocking member,
wherein the impeding includes preventing insertion of a
cutting tool into the interior of the enclosure such that the cutting
tool is prevented from contacting a battery component housed
inside the enclosure.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Noh US 6,242,130 B1 June 5, 2001
Kiya US 2009/0166116 A1 July 2, 2009
Takashina US 2012/0164504 A1 June 28, 2012
Lev US 2013/0209857 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Shin US 2013/0280577 A1 Oct. 24, 2013
Katayama US 2014/0284125 A1 Sept. 25, 2014

REJECTIONS
I. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply
with the written description requirement. (Final Act. 2.)
II. Claims 1, 7, and 9–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Noh. (Final Act. 3.)
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
3
III. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kiya. (Final Act. 11.)
IV. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9–13, 15–17 and 21–25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takashina. (Final Act. 5.)
V. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lev and Katayama. (Final Act. 13.)

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long
been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error
in the examiner’s rejections . . . ” citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
Appellant, in an effort to simplify the issues on appeal, attempted to
cancel claims 1 and 6–15 in response to the Final office action dated March
22, 2019. However, despite acknowledging the cancellation of these claims
would overcome several rejections, the Examiner refused to enter the
amendment. (Advisory Act. 2.) Appellant has not appealed the rejection of
claims 1 and 6–15 and plans to cancel these claims after the Board decides
the other issues regarding appealed claims 16, 17, and 21–25 presented in
the Appeal brief. (Appeal Br. 4.) We summarily affirm the rejections of
claims 1 and 6–15 without further comment.
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Office
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
4
Action and the Answer, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claims 16, 17, and 21–25 for the reasons the Appellant presents.2 We add the
following.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a vehicle assembly that includes,
inter alia, an enclosure, a high voltage component housed inside the
enclosure and a blocking member configured to restrict access to the high
voltage component along a path that extends through the enclosure. Figures
2–6 illustrate various vehicle assembly arrangements. Figure 2 is reproduced
below:

Figure 2 illustrates portions of a vehicle assembly 54 comprising a
blocking member 74 that is exterior of the enclosure 60 and interior to the
fastening members 70.

2 We limit our discussion to independent claims 16 and 21, from which all
other claims depend.
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
5
Figure 3 illustrates a prospective schematic view of a vehicle
assembly 54 and is reproduced below:

Figure 3 illustrates a prospective schematic view of the vehicle
assembly 54 depicting a blocking member 74 that impedes access to the
contents located within interior of the enclosure 60, and a seal 72 located
externally from the blocking member 74 and interior to fastening members
70.
Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 17, and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takashina.
Claims 16 and 17
The method of claim 16 includes the incorporation of a blocking
member into an enclosure of a vehicle assembly that functions to impede
and prevent the insertion of a cutting tool into the interior of the enclosure.
(Spec ¶ 33.) We interpret the cutting tool as tools customarily used by
persons of ordinary skill in the art to break the seal between the cover and
base of the enclosure.
The Examiner determines Takashina teaches a method comprising
incorporating a blocking member into an enclosure of a battery pack for an
electric vehicle that anticipates the subject matter of independent claims 16.
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
6
The Examiner finds Takashina teaches press formed cover plate 5 and a base
plate 4 comprising bent portions that form the blocking member. (Final Act.
8–9.)
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner’s rejection
relies upon Takashina’s cover plate 5 and a base plate 4 as comprising bent
(stepped) portions. Takashina figure 2 is reproduced below:

Takashina figure 2 depicts a battery pack enclosure that comprises a
cover plate 5 and a base plate 4 that when combined establishes a battery
compartment.
It is not clear from the Takashina disclosure that a blocking member is
necessarily incorporated into the enclosure as required by independent claim
16. The Examiner has not explained adequately which elements form the
blocking member. To the extent the cover plate 5 and base plate 4 include
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
7
lateral bent (stepped) portions, the Examiner has failed to identify where the
reference explains that these portions would have been suitable for
preventing a cutting tool from entering the encasement.

Claim 21
The Examiner determines Takashina teaches a battery pack enclosure
comprising cover plate 5, base plate 4, sealing member 15 disposed between
the first and second flanges (4a and 8a) and fasteners 27 that extend through
the first and second flanges. (Final Act 8–9.)
The battery pack enclosure of Takashina does not anticipate the
subject matter of claim 21. Claim 21 requires a seal that is located axially
between the fastener and the bent portions of the first and second flanges. As
illustrated in Specification Figure 3, the seal 72 is located in between the
fastening member 70 and the bent portion 74. However, the arrangement of
Takashina does not include a seal located in between the fastening member
and a bent member. As illustrated in Takashina Figures 7–12, the fastener 27
is inserted through holes formed in the sealing member 15.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and those Appellant
presents, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
16, 17 and 21–25.
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lev and Katayama.
The Examiner finds Lev teaches a battery cover pack including an
enclosure formed by a cover having a first flange and tray having a second
flange. The Examiner finds Lev includes a sealing member disposed in
between the first and second flanges. The Examiner recognizes Lev
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
8
discloses the sealing member is located within the grooves 70 and 100.
(Final Act. 14.) The Examiner relies on Katayama for establishing the
obviousness of utilizing bolts to secure the flanges of the tray and cover of a
battery pack. (Final Act. 14.)
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner in the final
action reproduced Lev Figure 3 with annotations identifying the bent
portions 70 and 100 as the location where the sealing member is located.
(Final Act. 15.) This arrangement relied upon by the Examiner does not
meet the requirements of claim 21 which requires the seal to be located
axially between the fastener and the bent portions of the first and second
flanges.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and those Appellant
presents, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
21.
CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6–17 and 21–25 is
AFFIRMED IN PART.
Appeal 2020-003344
Application 14/674,432
9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8 112(a) Written
Description
8
1, 7, 9–14 102(a)(1) Noh 1, 7, 9–14
1, 7, 8, 10,
12, 13, 15
102(a)(1) Kiya 1, 7, 8, 10,
12, 13, 15

1, 6, 7, 9–
13, 15–17,
21–25
102(a)(1) Takashina 1, 6, 7, 9–
13, 15
16, 17, 21–
25
21 103 Lev, Katayama 21
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–15 16, 17, 21–
25

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART