DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 4/16/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejection of claims 11, 14-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
In view of the cancelation of claims 16-17 the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Benker does not teach or suggest a first and second mode with a switchover in between, however, during the filling process of Benker and initial phase where the pressure is below the limit is the first mode and after the pressure reaches the limit is the second mode with the switchover being the detection of the set point pressure(¶[0060]), see rejection of claim 11 over modified Benker below for more details.
Applicant also argues Pfeiler does not disclose a pressure limit that serves as a switching point, however step S2 and step S3 clearly show the measurement of the pressure and a switch in step once the preset value is reached (¶[0075]) see rejection of claim 11 over modified Hao for more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benker et. al. (DE102018208070 A1, as cited in IDS dated 10/05/2022, reference made to attached English translation) in view of Tansey (US20210039937A1). Additional evidence provided by Jones (US20110236730A1).
Regarding claim 11, Benker discloses a method for manufacturing a battery that has a battery housing and at least one cell module, wherein the cell module is introduced into the battery housing to form an intermediate space between a wall of the battery housing and the cell module, and a heat conducting medium is then introduced into the intermediate space(¶[0015]) by an introduction device(i.e. nozzle, ¶[0024]), wherein the introduction device is operable in a first operating mode(initial filling mode) and a second operating mode(pressure regulated mode) for introducing the heat conducting medium, wherein the preset pressure is a limit value for a measured pressure of the heat conducting medium, wherein the introduction begins in the first operating mode while the measured pressure is below the limit value and is switched to the second operating mode when the measured pressure of the heat conducting medium reaches the limit value (see the metering speed is limited by compliance with limit values for the maximum permissible metering pressure, ¶[0060]), and wherein the second operating mode is used continuously until the introduction of the heat conducting medium is terminated(¶[0034], see overflow sensor), wherein the introduction of the heat conducting medium in the first operating mode is carried out with a volumetric flow rate regulated to a preset introduction volume flow(see metering speed) and the introduction of the heat conducting medium in the second operating mode is carried out with an introduction pressure regulated to the preset pressure, wherein, after switching to the second operating mode, the introduction pressure is maintained at the preset pressure while the volumetric flow rate decreases(when the operation is complete, the flow rate must decrease and stop). Benker does not disclose wherein introducing the heat conducting medium in the second operating mode is terminated when the volumetric flow rate falls below a volume- flow limit value in the second operating mode due to the introduction pressure being set to the preset pressure.
Tansey, related to fluid filing methods, teaches a pressure controlled filling method(¶[0149]) including identifying a stop condition where the control circuitry may be configured to monitor the flow meter to identify when the flow rate reduces, and in response, the control circuitry may cause the transfer pump to stop pumping and/or a valve to close thereby terminating the filling mode(¶[0152]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized with the stop condition as described by Tansey in the operating mode of Banker would result in terminating the flow resulting in a repeatable fluid level in a fluid container during filling(¶[0152]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have used the stop condition of Tansey to terminate the flow on the method of Benker to provide a repeatable fluid level within the container.
Regarding claim 18, Benker discloses the method of claims 11 and further discloses wherein the introduction in the first operating mode takes place with a higher introduction volume flow than in the second operating mode, in this case once the limit value of the pressure is reached the flow/dosing is limited and the second mode is then lower in flow than the first operating mode (¶[0060]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benker et. al. (DE102018208070 A1, as cited in IDS dated 10/05/2022, reference made to attached English translation) in view of Tansey (US20210039937A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Pfeiler et. al. (US20190105621).
Regarding claim 14, modified Benker discloses the method of claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the pressure of the heat conducting medium is measured in the intermediate space or upstream of an outlet opening of the introduction device.
Pfeiler, related to dispensing liquids, teaches a metering device (1) (i.e. introduction device) with pressure sensors (9, 10, and 36) upstream of the exit nozzle 28 (i.e. outlet) of the introduction device(Fig. 2, ¶[0066]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the pressure sensor of Pfeiler in the introduction device of Benker would provide a liquid or pasty product, such as the heat conducting medium of Benker([0026]), is delivered in a more pressure regulated manner (¶[0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the pressure sensor of Pfeiler to the introduction device to Benker to improve pressure regulation.
Regarding claim 15, modified Benker discloses the method of claim 14, and Pfeifer additionally teaches a mixing chamber(27) which contains a static mixer (¶[0027], Fig. 2) which flows though the pressure sensor 36 and out exit nozzle 28 (Fig. 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the static mixer of Pfeiler in the introduction device of Benker would provide would provide a low-maintenance and cost effective means of mixing (¶[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the static mixer of Pfeiler to the introduction device to Benker to provide a low-maintenance and cost effective means of mixing.
Claims 11, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et. al. (CN106450119, reference made to attached English translation.) in view of Pfeiler et. al. (US20190105621) further in view of Tansey (US20210039937A1)..
Regarding claim 11, Hao teaches a method for manufacturing a battery including a housing for accommodating battery pack and a heat-conducting glue which fills the gap (i.e. intermediate space) between the housing shell and battery cell (the battery module of the instant specification may be a single cell or multiple cells, see ¶[0006] of specification), but does not disclose two operating modes for filling the intermediate space or wherein introducing the heat conducting and the method of termination of the flow.
Pfeiler, related to dispensing liquids, teaches a metering device (1) (i.e. introduction device)(Fig. 2, ¶[0050]) and a method for metering a liquid or pasty product where the first operating mode(step S1, ¶[0075]) used a metering pump to dispense a liquid at a first volumetric rate, then after measuring the pressure and comparing it to a preset pressure limit(step S2, ¶[0076]) then switches to the second mode of regulating the flow based on the pressure of the liquid(step S3) which is then used continuously to compete the filling procedure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the metering device and method of Pfeiler to fill the intermediate space within the battery of Hao would provide a liquid or pasty product, such as the heat conducting medium, in an improved pressure regulated manner (¶[0003]-[0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the metering device and method of Pfeiler to improve pressure regulation during the filling process.
Tansey, related to fluid filing methods, teaches a pressure controlled filling method(¶[0149]) including identifying a stop condition where the control circuitry may be configured to monitor the flow meter to identify when the flow rate reduces, and in response, the control circuitry may cause the transfer pump to stop pumping and/or a valve to close thereby terminating the filling mode(¶[0152]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized with the stop condition as described by Tansey in the operating mode of modified Hao would result in terminating the flow resulting in a repeatable fluid level in a fluid container during filling(¶[0152]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have used the stop condition of Tansey to terminate the flow on the method of modified Hao to provide a repeatable fluid level within the container.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hao discloses the method of claim 13 and Pfeiler further teaches the metering device (1) has pressure sensors (9, 10, and 36) upstream of the exit nozzle 28 (i.e. outlet) of the introduction device(Fi. 2, ¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hao discloses the method of claim 14 and Pfeiler further teaches a mixing chamber(27) which contains a static mixer (¶[0027], Fig. 2) which flows though the pressure sensor 36 and out exit nozzle 28 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hao discloses the method of claim 11 and Pfeiler further teaches the first operating mode may be at a higher volume flow, in that the nozzle at the end of the metering device may be closed based on a determination of pressure (i.e. second operating mode) which will decrease the volume causing the excess volume flow to back up to increase pressure within the device(¶[0076]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights