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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/07/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
In view of the cancelation of claims 12, 13, 21-28 the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 one operating mode is selected from a first operating mode (initial filling mode) of the introduction device and a second operating mode (pressure regulated mode) of the introduction device and is used for introducing the heat conducting medium, with 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, in this case in the first operating mode includes setting the dosing speed(i.e. volumetric flow rate) to begin filling the nozzle regulates the flow and then after switching to the second operating mode the dosing speed is reduced and limited based on pressure limit values with an introduction pressure regulated to a preset pressure by reducing the flow rate(¶[0060]). One of ordinary skill in the battery art would recognize the nozzle is regulating the flow based on the required parameters as evidenced by Jones (US20110236730A1) paragraph 36 where the nozzle distributing the liquid regulated the flow.
But 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 14-17 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.
Regarding claim 16, modified Benker discloses the method of claim 14, and Benker further discloses wherein the first mode is defined as before the limit pressure is reached an operates continuously until the pressure limit value is reached when the dosing is limited to not exceed the pressure and used continuously until the overflow sensor detects the chamber is full(¶[0034]).
Claims 11 and 14-18 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 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.
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 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 then switches to the second mode of regulating the flow based on the pressure of the liquid(¶[0075]-[0076]).
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 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 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 claims 16 and 17, modified Hao discloses the method of claim 14 and Pfeiler further teaches the first operating mode is used continuously until the pressure is recoded and compared to the predetermined pressure then mode two is used continuously to regulate the pressure with a pressure-regulating value(¶[0006]).
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
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.
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726