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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11, and 15-16 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claim language to address objections are satisfactory, therefore all objections to the claim language have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claim language to address rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been considered and are satisfactory, therefore all rejections under 112(b) have been dropped.
Applicant’s arguments that the independent claims are distinguishable over the prior art have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that neither Lee nor Kenji recognizes the problem of nonuniformity on the cross section of a cell packaging when performing insulation testing. The examiner agrees that neither explicitly discusses this, nevertheless both recognize the need of ensuring stable electrical contact (Lee, ¶56 teaches that the grooves 321 supply a supporting force to ensure stable electrical contact, while Kenji applies conductive solution to enable the first and second probes 110 and 120 to test defects even though neither probe may physically touch the locations of those defects). The applicant further argues that because Kenji applies conductive liquid to the surface of a pouch, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to motivate the invention of Lee with the teachings of Kenji. The examiner disagrees; starting with Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the use of conductive solution to extend a probe’s ability to establish electrical contact, and would be motivated to apply this teaching to Lee’s problem of testing the insulation resistance of cell packaging (note Lee, Figs. 8 and 9 which depict probes testing the end surfaces of cell packaging material of battery cells).
The applicant also argues that there is no motivation to combine Kenji with Pointl or Spurlock, and states that Kenji and Pointl are in different fields.
The examiner notes that neither Pointl nor Spurlock were combined with Kenji alone; rather, Pointl was combined with Lee in view of Kenji, and Spurlock was combined with Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl. Lee teaches performing an insulation resistance test on the end surfaces of cell packaging material of a battery cell; Kenji motivates applying conductive solution to ensure stable electrical contact. The question of how to apply conductive solution arises, and Pointl teaches that it one may apply liquid to a surface in a controlled manner using a wet pad. Finally, since liquid may splash, leak and drip, the teachings of Spurlock were applied to motivate using a concave guard to catch and direct any unwanted liquid.
The applicant argues that because Kenji only applies conductive liquid to a surface, the liquid can be supplied in the direction of gravity and there is no motivation to introduce any element to protect liquid from reaching unwanted places. The examiner disagrees, noting that Lee was not modified to apply liquid to a surface but to the probes which touch the end surfaces of cell packaging material; the arguments motivating applying a guard did not apply to Kenji alone, but to Lee in view of Kenji.
See 103 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110191043 A1) in view of Kenji (JP 2016001195 A) and Pointl (US 20070272099 A1) and Spurlock (US 20100083440 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an insulation resistance tester (Abstract: “an apparatus for checking insulation of a cell module assembly…[and] measuring insulation resistance”) comprising:
a test unit (Figs. 8 and 9, probing unit 320) configured to measure an insulation resistance of a battery cell (Abstract: the insulation resistance of a pouch cell is measured), where the test unit includes a plurality of test probes (Fig. 9, grooves 321 in probing unit 320 contain electrically conductive test probes which measure insulation resistance) which contact with an end surface of a cell packaging material of the battery cell (Figs. 8 and 9, grooves 321 in probing unit 320 contact the edges of the cell packaging material).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
Kenji discloses an insulation tester (Abstract) comprising a solution supply unit (Figs. 2 and 3A: conductive solution is supplied to a first probe 110; ¶63: the liquid supply device may be separate from the first probe), and a test unit (Fig. 2, first probe 110) configured to receive a conductive solution from the solution supply unit (¶20: first probe 110 receives conductive solution), and to establish contact with a battery cell (Fig. 3A, laminated film 10) through the conductive solution (second insulating layer 42 of laminated film 10 of a battery is electrically contacted by probe 110 through the solution to measure defects at the second insulating layer; see ¶21 and ¶33, where chattering refers to establishing conduction between the first and second probes by fluid penetrating through a defect in the second insulating layer 42) to measure a conductance of the battery cell (¶33: see chattering as explained above).
Noting that conductance and resistance are reciprocals of each other, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kenji with the invention of Lee by providing a solution supply unit and by causing the plurality of test probes to be applied with the conductive solution from the solution supply unit. Doing so would extend the test unit’s electrical contact with the insulation material beyond what the probe can physically touch, resulting in a more comprehensive test for defects affecting insulation resistance.
Lee in view of Kenji does not teach the other limitations of claim 1.
Pointl discloses a self-inking hand stamp comprising an ink pad wetted with ink for wetting a stamp with ink (Abstract; Fig. 2, ink pad 13 and stamp unit 6). The stamp is inked by contacting the wetted pad (Abstract: “the stamp characters abut on an ink pad”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pointl with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji by causing the solution supply unit to include a pad wetted with a conductive solution; and by causing the plurality of test probes to be applied with the conductive solution from the solution supply unit by contacting with the pad. Doing so would enable one to use a known method for wetting a surface in a controlled manner.
Pointl also discloses that the hand stamp includes a guard member (Fig. 1, housing 2) and a stamp (Fig. 2, carrier plate 6 with stamp characters 5) which is movably mounted to the guard member (Figs. 2 and 3; ¶12: the stamp may move along turning grooves 9 along the side walls 12 of the housing 2). Among other things, this protects the stamp and prevents the stamp from unintentionally inking objects around it.
While Pointl discloses a stamp movably mounted in a housing for ensuring ink is applied only where desired, the same protection could be achieved by causing the housing to be movably mounted on the stamp, such that the housing retracts to reveal the stamp rather than the stamp moving to the open end of the housing. One of ordinary skill would be able to make this substitution, and one would reasonably expect the results to be similar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pointl with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji by providing a guard member movably mounted with respect to the plurality of test probes and extending along a longitudinal direction of the plurality of test probes (that is, the direction parallel to the axis of symmetry of each groove). Following the teachings of Pointl, such a guard member may surround the test probe on four sides and have an opening opposite the test probe to allow a battery cell to come into contact with the test probe; as such, a portion of the guard member would be positioned under the test probe. The guard member would prevent unwanted dripping of conductive solution due to the force of gravity.
Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl does not teach that the center portion of the guard member is concave to receive the conductive solution flowing from the plurality of test probes. However, Kenji teaches that its conductive solution may include ethanol, and that it may be volatile and may drip (¶20).
Spurlock discloses a splash guard for a washing basin, the splash guard being concave to direct splashed material into the washing basin (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Spurlock with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl by causing the center portion of the guard member to be concave to receive the conductive solution flowing from the plurality of test probes. By doing so one would be able to direct impinging solution away from the edge of the guard member, reducing the risk of dripping.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pointl with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock by causing the guard member to be retracted based on the plurality of test probes being in contact with the pad (see arguments in the rejection of claim 6).
Lee further discloses testing the insulation resistance of multiple protruding pouch cell films simultaneously (Fig. 8, probing unit 320 contacts multiple protruding films). To facilitate a secure contact with each protruding film, Lee discloses use of a plurality of insertion portions (Fig. 9, grooves 321 in housing of probing unit 320) to guide the film to the electrically conductive test probes (Fig. 9, probing unit contains grooves 321 into which the pouch cell films fit).
Considering this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock by causing the guard member to comprise a plurality of insertion portions i.e. grooves or notches, and to cause the end surface of the cell packaging material to be inserted into the insertion portions of the guard member based on the plurality of test probes being in contact with the end surface of the cell packaging material. These notches in the guard member would guide the protruding films to the right positions, such that as the guard member retracts the films will be placed in electric contact with the grooves 321 in the probing unit 320. Finally, one would expect the insertion portions to be recessed from an end of the plurality of test probes when the guard member retracts.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the plurality of test probes are configured to measure the insulation resistance (Fig. 9, grooves 321 in probing unit 320 contain electrically conductive test probes which measure insulation resistance), and wherein the test unit further comprises a holder configured to hold the test probes securely (Fig. 9, housing material around grooves 321 in probing unit 320).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock teaches the limitations of claim 4. Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock further teaches that the guard member is positioned under the plurality of test probes (see rejection of claim 1 where the guard member may surround the test probe on four sides).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock teaches the limitations of claim 5. Pointl further discloses a guide groove formed in the housing configured to guide movement of the stamp (Figs. 2 and 3; ¶12: the stamp may move along turning grooves 9 along the side walls 12 of the housing 2), and an elastic member (Fig. 2, spring 16) interposed between the housing and the stamp and configured to provide a restoring force to the stamp (¶13: stamp abuts on ink pad 13 when resting, manual force causes the stamp to move toward the housing opening). It was argued in the rejection of claim 1 that the housing performs the functions of a guard member, and that it would have been obvious to cause the housing to move instead of the stamp. This reasoning was applied to show that it would have been obvious to mount a movable guard member with respect to the plurality of test probes. Continuing with this substitution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock to include a guide groove formed in a holder configured to guide movement of the guard member; and to include an elastic member interposed between the holder and the guard member and configured to provide a restoring force to the guard member. Doing so would enable the guard member to retract when the test unit is brought to an end surface of the cell packaging material or the pad so that the guard member may not prevent the test unit from establishing electrical contact with the end surface of the cell packaging material or pad.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock teaches the limitations of claim 6. Lee further discloses testing the insulation resistance of multiple protruding pouch cell films simultaneously (Fig. 8, probing unit 320 contacts multiple protruding films). To facilitate a secure contact with each protruding film, Lee discloses use of a plurality of insertion portions (Fig. 9, grooves 321 in housing of probing unit 320) to guide the film to the electrically conductive test probes (Fig. 9, probing unit contains grooves 321 into which the pouch cell films fit).
Considering this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock by causing the guard member to comprise a plurality of insertion portions i.e. grooves or notches, positioned at least below (preferably above and below) each test probe of the plurality of test probes to at least partially overlap with each test probe in parallel with the respective insertion portions, wherein the end surface of the cell packaging material is insertable into each insertion portion. These notches in the guard member would guide the protruding films to the right positions, such that as the guard member retracts the films will be placed in electric contact with the grooves 321 in the probing unit 320.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110191043 A1) in view of Kenji (JP 2016001195 A) and Pointl (US 20070272099 A1) and Spurlock (US 20100083440 A1), and further in view of McIntyre (US 6048091 A).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock teaches the limitations of claim 2 but does not teach the limitations of claim 3.
McIntyre discloses an atmometer for measuring the rate of water evaporation to the atmosphere (Abstract; Column 1, Field of the Invention). The atmometer monitors the rate of evaporation from a pad and supplies more liquid to the pad as needed (Column 4, line 56 – Column 5, line 16: a control circuit measures resistance between conducting tracks (Fig. 2, element 48) to determine resistance across a pad (Fig. 2, element 42); the resistance is related to liquid content in the pad, and the control circuit is configured to activate a pump to provide more liquid if the moisture content is determined to drop below a predetermined level). As part of the atmometer, McIntyre discloses:
a storage container configured to store a liquid (Fig. 2, reservoir 62);
a supply pipe configured to fluidly communicate the storage container with a pad (Fig. 2, supply conduit 64 and pad 42); and
an adjustment valve configured to allow or block a flow of the liquid between the storage container and the pad (Column 4, line 56 – Column 5, line 16: the control circuit activates a pump to provide more liquid if the moisture content of the pad drops below a predetermined level. Column 4, lines 51-55: “The pump receives liquid from a liquid reservoir 62 which is connected thereto via supply conduit 64. The supply conduit also includes a non-return valve 66, once again which only allows fluid flow in the direction as indicated by the arrow.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McIntyre with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock by causing the solution supply unit to comprise: a storage container configured to store the conductive solution; a supply pipe configured to fluidly communicate the storage container with the pad; and an adjustment pump configured to allow or block a flow of the conductive solution between the storage container and the pad. Doing so would enable one to supply the pad with conductive solution as needed.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110191043 A1) in view of Kenji (JP 2016001195 A) and Pointl (US 20070272099 A1) and Spurlock (US 20100083440 A1), and further in view of Bugg (US 20190056307 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the other limitations of claim 9.
Bugg discloses a bond test apparatus for testing the strength of a bond in electrical circuitry (Abstract; ¶2). The apparatus includes a test support (Figs. 1A and 1F, table 13) configured to be movable on a platform (¶142: motors can move the table 13 relative to the apparatus; the rest of the apparatus as pictured in Fig. 1F is the platform supporting the other elements of the apparatus) and to mount a battery cell thereon (Figs 1A and 1F, sample 100 is placed on table 13). While Bugg does not explicitly teach a fixation unit configured to grip the sample at a test position on the test support, it would have been obvious to do so to keep the sample from shaking or moving out of place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bugg with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock by causing the insulation resistance tester to further comprise a platform for supporting the solution supply unit and the test unit; a test support configured to be movable on the platform and to mount the battery cell on the test support; and a fixation unit configured to grip the battery cell at a test position on the test support. Doing so would provide a secure supporting structure for the testing apparatus and battery cell and enable precise control of the position of the battery cell relative to the test unit, thus minimizing the risk of damage due to shifting, shaking or inadvertently bumping the equipment.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock and Bugg teaches the limitations of claim 9. While Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and Spurlock and Bugg does not teach that the solution supply unit is positioned above the test support at the platform, Bugg does show that some components of the bond test apparatus are above the test support (Fig. 1F, a number of elements are higher than stage 13). Since one would not expect any particular disadvantage for placing the solution supply unit above the test support, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try doing so. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configure the test unit to be movable between the solution supply unit and the test support to enable the test unit both to be supplied with conductive solution and to establish electrical contact with the end surface of the cell packaging material while it is fixed on the test support.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110191043 A1) in view of Kenji (JP 2016001195 A) and Pointl (US 20070272099 A1).
Regarding claim 11, many of the limitations of claim 11 are found in claim 1 and are rejected by Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl for the same reasons (The teaching of Spurlock is not needed for claim 11, as claim 11 does not recite a center portion of a guide member being concave). Of the remaining limitations, Lee discloses a first controller (Fig. 11, checking device 300 comprising determining unit 307) configured to receive the measured insulation resistance from the test unit and to determine whether the insulation resistance is normal (¶64: determining unit 307 receives measured insulation resistance and compares it to a reference value; ¶73: reference value determines if insulation resistance is acceptable or not).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110191043 A1) in view of Kenji (JP 2016001195 A) and Pointl (US 20070272099 A1), and further in view of McIntyre (US 6048091 A).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl teaches the limitations of claim 11 but does not teach the limitations of claim 12.
McIntyre discloses an atmometer for measuring the rate of water evaporation to the atmosphere (Abstract; Column 1, Field of the Invention). As part of the atmometer, McIntyre discloses a measurement unit configured to measure electric resistance of a pad and determine if more fluid should be supplied to the pad (Fig. 2, a pad 42 is fed liquid from reservoir 62; Column 4, line 56 – Column 5, line 16: a control circuit measures resistance between conducting tracks (Fig. 2, element 48) to determine resistance across the pad; the resistance is related to liquid content in the pad, and the control circuit is configured to activate a pump to provide more liquid if the moisture content is determined to drop below a predetermined level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McIntyre with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl by including a measurement unit configured to measure electric resistance of the pad. Doing so would enable one to monitor whether the pad needs more solution.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and McIntyre teaches the limitations of claim 12. McIntyre further discloses a second controller configured to receive the measured electric resistance from the measurement unit and to determine whether the electric resistance is normal (Column 4, line 56 – Column 5, line 16: the control circuit both measures resistance between conducting tracks and determines whether moisture content is above a predetermined level, which may involve determining whether pad resistance is in a predetermined range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McIntyre with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and McIntyre by supplying a second controller configured to receive the measured electric resistance from the measurement unit and to determine whether the electric resistance is normal. Doing so would enable one to monitor whether the pad needs more solution.
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and McIntyre teaches the limitations of claim 13. Noting that the first controller disclosed in Lee (Lee: Fig. 11, checking device 300 comprising determining unit 307) and the second controller disclosed in McIntyre (McIntyre: Fig 2. control circuit 75) are recited as general computing units and perform the same functions of receiving a measurement and comparing it to one or more values to determine if the measurement is normal, it would have been obvious to integrate the first and second controllers into one controller to consolidate processing and command functions into a single controller.
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl teaches a method of controlling an insulation resistance tester, the method comprising contacting a test probe with a pad to apply conductive solution to the test probe, and contacting the test probe with an end surface of a cell packaging material of a battery cell to measure insulation resistance of the battery cell (see rejection of claim 1). Furthermore, Lee discloses implementing an insulation resistance method with a controller (Fig. 11, checking device 300; ¶88: method for checking insulation may be implemented as computer-readable codes).
Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl does not disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
McIntyre discloses an atmometer for measuring the rate of water evaporation to the atmosphere (Abstract; Column 1, Field of the Invention). As part of the invention, McIntyre receives electric resistance of a pad (Fig. 2, pad 42) supplied with a conductive solution from a storage container (Fig. 2, liquid reservoir; Column 4, line 56 – Column 5, line 16: a control circuit measures resistance between conducting tracks (Fig. 2, element 48) to determine resistance across a pad; the resistance is related to liquid content in the pad, and the control circuit is configured to activate a pump to provide more liquid if the moisture content is determined to drop below a predetermined level), then compares the received electric resistance with preset limits (Column 5, lines 10-16: the liquid is supplied to a pad until its resistance reaches a “previously predetermined range”) and controls, based on a result of the comparison, an adjustment valve (Fig. 2, non-return valve 66) configured to allow or block a flow of the conductive solution between the storage container and the pad (Column 4, lines 51-55: “The pump receives liquid from a liquid reservoir 62 which is connected thereto via supply conduit 64. The supply conduit also includes a non-return valve 66, once again which only allows fluid flow in the direction as indicated by the arrow.”) such that the received electrical resistance stays within a predetermined range (Column 4, line 56 – Column 5, line 16: “When a lower liquid content level is detected, (i.e. that is lower than some predetermined level necessary to simulate evaporation) the control circuit activates the pump via electrical power supply 72 so that liquid is fed into the chamber via base 50 and channels 54, through the sensor plate and to the pad. When the control circuit measures that the pad resistance has reached its previously predetermined range, the electrical power supply to the motor is shut off.”). McIntyre does not explicitly disclose keeping the pad resistance at a predetermined value instead of a predetermined range, however it would have been obvious to set a target resistance value instead of a range as it would accomplish the same result and requires only one value instead of two. Furthermore, McIntyre does not explicitly disclose that the electric resistance is received in real time, however it would have been obvious to do so in order for the controller to make decisions and control processes using up-to-date data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McIntyre with the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl by causing the method of controlling an insulation resistance tester to comprise: receiving in real time electric resistance of a pad supplied with a conductive solution from a storage container; comparing the received electric resistance with preset limits; and controlling, based on a result of the comparison, an adjustment valve configured to allow or block a flow of the conductive solution between the storage container and the pad such that the received electrical resistance stays at a predetermined value. Doing so would enable one to supply the pad with conductive solution as needed and ensure the pad is neither over- nor under-saturated.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and McIntyre teaches the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches supplying conductive solution from the storage container to the pad based on the pad’s liquid content being too low (Column 4, line 56 – Column 5, line 16: “When a lower liquid content level is detected, (i.e. that is lower than some predetermined level necessary to simulate evaporation) the control circuit activates the pump via electrical power supply 72 so that liquid is fed into the chamber via base 50 and channels 54, through the sensor plate and to the pad.).
Noting that the pad’s resistivity decreases as it collects more conductive solution, it would have been obvious to one practicing the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and McIntyre to cause the controlling the adjustment valve to comprise opening the adjustment valve to supply the conductive solution from the storage container to the pad based on the received electric resistance exceeding an upper limit of the preset limits.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and McIntyre teaches the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches stopping the flow of liquid to the pad based on the received electric resistance being within a predetermined range (Column 5, lines 14-16: “When the control circuit measures that the pad resistance has reached its previously predetermined range, the electrical power supply to the motor is shut off.”).
Considering that the supply system includes a valve (Fig. 2, non-return valve 66), it would have been obvious to one practicing the invention of Lee in view of Kenji and Pointl and McIntyre by closing the adjustment valve based on the received electric resistance being at or below a lower limit of the preset limits in order to stop the flow of solution to the pad
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heinz (US 20230134617 A1; note that it claims foreign priority to DE 102021211949 filed 22 October, 2021, and that all features mentioned here are found in the foreign document) discloses a heating device with two electrodes, a workpiece, and conductive liquid, where the conductive liquid ensures that electrical contact is established between the electrodes and the workpiece even though the electrodes may not themselves be in physical contact with the workpiece (Abstract and ¶3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857