DEVICE FOR DETECTING LEAKS FOR
MOTOR VEHICLE BATTERY PACK
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s preliminary amendment of Sep. 09, 2024.
DRAWINGS
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the element number 5A which is set forth in the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the element number 208 which is not set forth in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the element numbers in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified of such in the next Office Action.
TITLE
The title has been considered and approved.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The specification is objected to because the specification fails to set forth section headings as per 37 CFR 1.77(b).
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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
of this title, 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 1 - 5 and 8 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald et al. (3,813,922).
With respect to independent claim 1, Oswald et al. set forth a device for detecting leaks for a motor vehicle battery pack, said device comprising:
a pneumatic circuit (13) comprising a plurality of valves (15, 16, 32); and
a connector (14) connecting said pneumatic circuit to an element of the battery pack (11);
wherein said pneumatic circuit being configured to operate a procedure for detecting leaks under pressure on an element of said battery pack (abstract).
Oswald et al. teach that the pneumatic circuit has a pressurized air source (12) but fail to explicitly teach that the pneumatic circuit has a pressure sensor and a pump.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Oswald et al. teaching to interpret the pneumatic circuit as having a pressure sensor and a pump.
The motivation being that the pneumatic circuit comprises a pressurized air source (12), and a very common pressurized air source is that of an air compressor wherein air compressors are well known to have a pressure sensor and a pump.
With respect to claim 2, Oswald et al. set forth that the device is configured to generate a relative pressure ranging from -1 to 3 bar (col. 1, lines 62+).
With respect to claim 3, Oswald et al. set forth a man-machine interface (17).
With respect to claim 4, Oswald et al. set forth that the device is configured to have an angle of inclination with respect to the surface on which the device is placed so that the man-machine (17) interface is oriented upwards (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Oswald et al. fail to set forth that the angle of inclination is between 10 and 30 degrees. However, such an angle would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation being to account for any irregularity in the surface so that the interface remains upright.
With respect to claim 8, Oswald et al. set forth various valves in the pneumatic circuit (Fig. 1) but fail to explicitly teach which valve is a one-way valve and which valve is a two-way valve. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art to use one-way valves and a two-way valve therein. The motivation being to prevent back flow at points in the pneumatic circuit where damage to the components could result from the back flow.
With respect to claim 9, Oswald et al. set forth that the pneumatic circuit has a flow limiter (15).
With respect to claim 10, Oswald et al. fail to explicitly set forth that the device is configured to measure and take into account the value of the back pressure during a procedure for detecting leaks in an element of said battery pack. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Oswald teaching that the device is configured to measure and take into account the value of the back pressure during a procedure for detecting leaks in an element of said battery pack. The motivation being that as discussed above, the air source in Oswald is deemed as being an air compressor. Air compressors have a pressure gauge therein that shows the air pressure therein. Thus, any pressure would be reflective in the pressure reading. The Examiner also points out that the claim does not require that the back pressure to be measured. Instead the claim only requires the device be configured to measure it.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald et al. (3,813,922) in view of Bidawid (2009/0183407).
With respect to claim 6, Oswald et al. fail to set forth that the device comprises a magnetized support foot. However, Bidawid teaches the use of a magnetized support foot (29) to support a device. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to use a magnetized support foot on the device of Oswald et al. The motivation being to properly support and secure the device on a metallic surface.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald et al. (3,813,922) in view of St. Peter (5,901,712).
With respect to claim 7, Oswald et al. fail to set forth that the device comprises a winding support. However, St. Peter teaches the use of a winding support (20). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to use the winding support of St. Peter on the device of Oswald et al. The motivation being to securely store and protect a cord, of any type, when the cord is not in use.
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users
only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855