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
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 112(d) has been overcome by the amendment and is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the system of Jenneus requires reducing pressure in the chamber below ambient pressure, rather than below the pressure of the device being tested, as required by the amended claims (pp. 6-8). However, Jenneus explicitly states that gas escapes from the leaks on the low-pressure side (Jenneus [0004]) and refers to the chamber and tested device as having lower and higher pressures, respectively (Jenneus [0036]). The pressure in the device is therefore necessarily less than the pressure in the chamber.
Applicant contends that the method of Jenneus detects tracer gases supplied into the object rather than vapors from parts or substances inside a battery as required by the instant claims (p. 8). However, Jenneus does not limit acceptable tracer gases, and Go teaches that leaks in batteries are detected by detecting volatilized solvents (Go [0026]-[0029]). The solvents are therefore tracer gases supplied into the battery during its manufacture.
The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Introducing gas into a chamber will necessarily raise the pressure in the chamber. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 15-17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenneus et al. (US 2007/0157704 A1) in view of Go (KR 101198857 B1; citations refer to the English translation attached to the office action mailed November 10, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Jenneus teaches a method of detecting leaks in a sealed object in which the object is placed in a vacuum chamber (Jenneus [0047]), the pressure in the chamber is lowered (i.e. sealing the chamber and starting a vacuum creation phase) below the internal pressure of the tested device (Jenneus [0004] and [0036]) until a tracer gas escapes the object (i.e. starting a stabilization phase) (Jenneus [0048]-[0049]), and introducing a transport gas into the chamber, which will necessarily increase pressure in the system, to carry the gas to the detector (i.e. starting an acceleration phase) (Jenneus [0056]) so that non-zero leak rates are registered by the detector (Jenneus [0079]-[0080]).
Jenneus does not teach that the method is used to detect leaks in a battery. Jenneus teaches that the method is applicable to any object that must be leak tested for environmental or quality concerns (Jenneus [0002]). Go teaches that leaks in batteries may similarly be detected by placing a battery cell in a vacuum chamber and detecting volatilized solvents (i.e. the tracer gas; Go [0026]-[0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to test any device requiring leak testing, including battery cells, in the testing device of Jenneus, since Jenneus teaches that that is its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 2, modified Jenneus teaches that the gas is introduced during a controlled time period (Jenneus [0056]), which implies that it is introduced in a predetermined quantity.
Regarding claim 10, the pressure in the chamber is lowered until a tracer gas escapes the object (i.e. starting a stabilization phase) (Jenneus [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jenneus teaches that the gas is introduced during a controlled time period (Jenneus [0056]), which implies that it is introduced impulsively (i.e. in a controlled burst or pulse).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jenneus does not teach any particular operating temperature. The system is therefore assumed to operate at room temperature, which will necessarily involve heating the room (and therefore the chamber).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jenneus does not teach that testing is stopped based on a determination that the leak has reached a threshold value. Jenneus teaches that it is desirable to increase average productive time of the testing system (Jenneus [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to stop testing as soon as a leak has been detected in order to increase productive time of the testing system.
Regarding claim 17, modified Jenneus teaches that the system is for determining "leakproofedness" (Jenneus Abstract) and that the system detects tracer gas concentration (Jenneus [0018]). Determining whether the system is leakproof (i.e. whether a leak exists) therefore necessarily depends on determining whether tracer gas concentration is above a threshold value (e.g., the minimum detection value or a typical background value).
Regarding claim 20, Jenneus teaches the use of air or nitrogen for the transport gas (Jenneus [0056]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Jenneus teaches introducing a transport gas into the chamber, which will necessarily increase pressure in the system, to carry the gas to the detector (i.e. starting an acceleration phase) (Jenneus [0056]).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenneus in view of Go as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Ford (US Patent 4,374,476 A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jenneus does not teach that pressure in the system is raised by actuating mechanical means that reduces the volume of the system and compresses the leaked gases. Jenneus teaches that a pump (13) moves air from the chamber to the detector (Jenneus [0054] and Figs. 1 and 2). Ford teaches a pumping system for a test chamber comprising a variable volume vacuum chamber with a piston to decrease and increase pressure, alternately vaporizing a sample liquid and forcing the vapor to a detector (Ford Abstract and 1:53-2:2). The transport gas of modified Jenneus and the variable volume vacuum chamber of Ford are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and combining or substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use either or both of the transport gas system and chamber piston pump system in the testing system of modified Jenneus.
Regarding claim 5, the system of modified Jenneus includes a piston in the chamber (Ford Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jenneus does not teach that pressure in the system is raised by actuating mechanical means that reduces the volume of the system and compresses the leaked gases. Jenneus teaches that a pump (13) moves air from the chamber to the detector (Jenneus [0054] and Figs. 1 and 2). Ford teaches a pumping system for a test chamber comprising a variable volume vacuum chamber with a piston to decrease and increase pressure, alternately vaporizing a sample liquid and forcing the vapor to a detector (Ford Abstract and 1:53-2:2). The transport gas of modified Jenneus and the variable volume vacuum chamber of Ford are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and combining or substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use either or both of the transport gas system and chamber piston pump system in the testing system of modified Jenneus.
Regarding claim 20, modified Jenneus teaches the use of nitrogen or air (Jenneus [0056]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenneus in view of Go and Ford as applied to claims 4 above, and further in view of Inomata et al. (JP 2015161555 A; citations refer to the English translation attached to the office action mailed November 10, 2025).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jenneus does not teach the use of a piston between the vacuum chamber and the sensor. Jenneus teaches that a pump (13) moves air from the chamber to the detector (Jenneus [0054] and Figs. 1 and 2). Inomata teaches that a cylinder with a piston between the vacuum chamber and the sensor is a suitable means of compression to supply test gas to the sensor (Inomata [0076]). The piston of Inomata and the pump of modified Jenneus are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any appropriate pump, including the cylinder piston pump system of Ford, in the testing system of modified Jenneus.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenneus in view of Go as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant's admitted prior.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jenneus teaches that detected vapors may include solvents from the electrolyte, and that such solvents typically include carbonates such as methylene-carbonate-based solvents ([Go [0027]-[0029]). Applicant has indicated that dimethyl carbonate is one such commonly-used solvent (p. 5, lines 9-11 of the instant specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any commonly used solvent, including dimethyl carbonate, as indication of a leak.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenneus in view of Go as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu (CN 107806969 A; citations refer to the English translation attached to the office action mailed November 10, 2025).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jenneus does not teach that the auxiliary gas is argon. Jenneus teaches the use of air or nitrogen (Jenneus [0056]). Zhu teaches that air, nitrogen, and argon are all acceptable carrier gases for vacuum battery leak detection systems (Zhu [0022]). Air, nitrogen, and argon are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any conventional carrier gas, including argon, in the system of modified Jenneus.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenneus in view of Go as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snyder et al. ("Miniature and Fieldable Mass Spectrometers: Recent Advances," Analytical Chemistry 88(1), pp. 2-29, September 2015).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jenneus does not teach that the detector is a mass spectrometer. Jenneus teaches that detector should be an atmospheric pressure detector (Jenneus [0054]). Snyder teaches that miniature mass spectrometers are operable at atmospheric pressures (Snyder Vacuum Systems); are cheap, convenient, and less bulky than alternative benchtop instruments (Snyder Mesoscale Systems); and have wide applicability and high sensitivity (Snyder Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a miniature mass spectrometer as the detector of Snyder as the detector of modified Jenneus for their wide applicability and high sensitivity.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenneus in view of Go as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gu et al. ("Investigation of leak detection method by means of measuring the pressure increment in vacuum," Vacuum 80(9), pp. 996-1002, June 2006).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jenneus does not teach that a pressure difference between the chamber and the battery is determined based on the type of battery cell. Gu is directed to methods of leak testing. Gu teaches that leakage rate is determined in part by pressure differences (Gu Fig. 6). This difference would necessarily depend on the internal pressure of the battery, which would necessarily depend on the type of battery cell.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jenneus does not teach that pressure is detected inside the chamber using a pressure detector. Gu teaches that pressure detectors are used to measure the pressure inside vacuum chambers (Gu Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional testing configuration, including one in which pressure of the chamber is measured by a pressure detector.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Jenneus does not teach how the leak rate is determined. Gu teaches that both mean (i.e. average) leak rate and maximum leak rate may be considered for leak testing (Gu 6. Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional measure, including average or maximum leak rate, as both are known to be useful quantities.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights