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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 24 March 2026.
Claim 17 is objected to because “the evacuation over time” (l. 4) should be amended to read - - the evacuation chamber over time - -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen et al. (US 2023/0253633 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen et al. discloses a method for determining the integrity of a hermetically sealed electronic component (a finished battery cell is tested for airtightness to ensure gases and/or vapors from the cell do not leak, and therefore the battery cell is hermetically sealed; ¶¶ [0001, 0028]), the method comprising: placing the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) in an evacuation chamber (4; fig. 1) without the use of introduced tracer gases (a battery cell is placed inside vacuum chamber 4 without introducing tracer gases; ¶ [0044]); and evacuating the evacuation chamber (4) of atmosphere through a mass spectrometer (gases and/or vapors are evacuated from vacuum chamber 4 into mass spectrometer 1; ¶ [0049]) coupled to the evacuation chamber (4) for chemical analysis of at least one of the evacuated atmosphere and a determination of an atmospheric pressure evacuation relationship (change in pressure over time; fig. 4) inside the evacuation chamber (4) to determine integrity of the hermetically sealed electronic component (gases and/or vapors from vacuum chamber 4 are evacuated into mass spectrometer 1 for chemical analysis and a rate of change of pressure inside vacuum chamber 4 is also determined to determine the integrity of the battery cell; ¶¶ [0074-0075, 0077-0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Cohen et al. discloses preheating the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) in the chamber (4) for a time period in order to remove moisture prior to evacuating the evacuation chamber (4) of atmosphere (heat generator 7 preheats vacuum chamber 4 and a battery cell is placed inside preheated vacuum chamber 4 by which the battery cell is heated for a time period in order to remove residues of gases and/or vapors before vacuum chamber 4 is evacuated; ¶¶ [0030, 0071-0072]).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen et al. discloses further comprising: the evacuation chamber (4) including a load-lock system capable of temporarily isolating the chamber (4) to accommodate the hermetically sealed component (battery cell), wherein release of the load-lock system enables evacuation of the hermetically sealed component (leak testing system 100 is a load-lock system controlled by opening and closing of valves 3, 5, and 8), along with monitoring chemical components emerging from the hermetically sealed electronic component (battery cell) via chemical analysis with the mass spectrometer (leak testing system 100 is a load-lock system with valves 3, 5, and 8 in which a battery cell is temporarily isolated in vacuum chamber 4 and release of the load-lock system enables evacuation of the battery cell along with monitoring chemical components leaking from the battery cell via chemical analysis with mass spectrometer 1; ¶¶ [0072-0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Cohen et al. discloses monitoring an area under an evacuation curve (evacuation curve; fig. 4) along with constituent chemical components (monitored by mass spectrometer 1) to determine a direct measurement of a leak rate of the hermetically sealed component (an area under an evacuation curve is monitored and the extent of a peak is proportional to the detected leak rate; ¶ [0086]).
Regarding claims 8, Cohen et al. discloses wherein determining the atmospheric pressure evacuation relationship (change in pressure over time) comprises: providing a reference curve of pressure (fig. 4) in the evacuation chamber (4) over time (a reference curve of pressure in vacuum chamber 4 shows a leak testing cycle in a battery cell without a leak; fig. 4 and ¶ [0086]); determining a test curve of pressure in the evacuation (4) over time when the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) is within the evacuation chamber (a test curve of pressure in vacuum chamber 4 over time is determined when a battery cell is within vacuum chamber 4; ¶ [0086]); and comparing the reference curve (fig. 4) to the test curve (fig. 5) to determine at least one of integrity of the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) and a leak rate of the hermetically sealed component (a reference curve of a battery cell without a leak is compared to a test curve to determine whether a leak exists as well as the leak rate; ¶ [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Cohen et al. discloses an apparatus (fig. 1) for determining the integrity of a hermetically sealed component (a finished battery cell is tested for airtightness to ensure gases and/or vapors from the cell do not leak, and therefore the battery cell is hermetically sealed; ¶¶ [0001, 0028]) comprising: an evacuation chamber (4) configured to receive the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) without the use of introduced tracer gases (a battery cell is placed inside vacuum chamber 4 without introducing tracer gases; ¶ [0044]); an evacuation pump (6) coupled to the evacuation chamber (4) and configured to evacuate atmosphere from the evacuation chamber (vacuum pump 6 evacuates vacuum chamber 4; ¶ [0072]); a pressure measurement device (P) configured to measure pressure in the evacuation chamber (pressure sensor P measures a pressure in vacuum chamber 4; ¶ [0073]); and a controller (processing unit; ¶ [0065]) communicatively coupled to the pressure measurement device (P), the controller (processing unit) configured to determine an atmospheric pressure evacuation relationship inside the evacuation chamber (4) to determine the integrity of the hermetically sealed electronic component (the processing unit communicates with pressure sensor P and determines a change of pressure in vacuum chamber 4 over time to determine presence of a leak in a battery cell and a detected leak rate; ¶ [0086]).
Regarding claim 13, Cohen et al. discloses further comprising: a mass spectrometer (1) coupled to at least one of the evacuation pump (6) and the evacuation chamber (4) and configured to perform mass spectrometry analysis of the atmosphere evacuated from the evacuation chamber (mass spectrometer 1 is coupled to vacuum chamber 4 and vacuum pump 6 and performs mass spectrometry analysis of the gas and/or vapors evacuated from vacuum chamber 4; fig. 1 and ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Cohen et al. discloses further comprising: the evacuation chamber (4) including a load-lock system capable of temporarily isolating the chamber (4) to accommodate the hermetically sealed component (battery cell), wherein release of the load-lock system enables evacuation of the hermetically sealed component (leak testing system 100 is a load-lock system controlled by opening and closing of valves 3, 5, and 8), along with monitoring chemical components emerging from the hermetically sealed electronic component (battery cell) via chemical analysis with the mass spectrometer (leak testing system 100 is a load-lock system with valves 3, 5, and 8 in which a battery cell is temporarily isolated in vacuum chamber 4 and release of the load-lock system enables evacuation of the battery cell along with monitoring chemical components leaking from the battery cell via chemical analysis with mass spectrometer 1; ¶¶ [0072-0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Cohen et al. discloses a heating device (7) thermally coupled with at least the evacuation chamber (heat generator 7 is thermally coupled with vacuum chamber 4; fig. 1) and configured for preheating the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) in the chamber (4) for a time period in order to remove moisture prior to evacuating the evacuation chamber (4) of atmosphere (heat generator 7 preheats vacuum chamber 4 and a battery cell is placed inside preheated vacuum chamber 4 by which the battery cell is heated for a time period in order to remove residues of gases and/or vapors before vacuum chamber 4 is evacuated; ¶¶ [0030, 0071-0072]).
Regarding claim 16, Cohen et al. discloses wherein the controller (processing unit; ¶ [0065]) is further configured to monitor an area under the evacuation curve (evacuation curve; fig. 4) along with the constituent chemical components (monitored by mass spectrometer 1) to determine a direct measurement of a leak rate of the hermetically sealed component (the processing unit monitors chemical components detected by mass spectrometer 1 and an area under an evacuation curve in which the extent of a peak is proportional to the detected leak rate; ¶¶ [0048, 0086]).
Regarding claim 17, Cohen et al. discloses wherein the controller (processing unit; ¶ [0065]) is further configured to determine the atmospheric pressure evacuation relationship (change in pressure over time) by: providing a predetermined reference curve of pressure (fig. 4) in the evacuation chamber (4) over time (a predetermined reference curve of pressure in vacuum chamber 4 shows a leak testing cycle in a battery cell without a leak; fig. 4 and ¶ [0086]); determining a test curve of pressure in the evacuation (4) over time when the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) is within the evacuation chamber (a test curve of pressure in vacuum chamber 4 over time is determined when a battery cell is within vacuum chamber 4; ¶ [0086]); and comparing the predetermined reference curve (fig. 4) to the test curve (fig. 5) to determine at least one of integrity of the hermetically sealed component (battery cell) and a leak rate of the hermetically sealed component (the processing unit compares a predetermined reference curve of a battery cell without a leak to a test curve to determine whether a leak exists as well as the leak rate; ¶ [0086]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2023/0253633 A1) in view of Reich (US 4,172,477).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Cohen et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Although Cohen et al. discloses that the pressure in the evacuation chamber (4) during a leak test is determined based on the type of battery cell (¶ [0048]), Cohen et al. is silent as to the particular pressure.
However, Reich teaches that a mass spectrometer used in a hermetic sealing test requires pressure to be reduced to less than 10-4 mbar (equivalent to 7.5 x 10-5 torr; c. 1, l. 67 – c. 2, l. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Cohen et al. to reduce the pressure in the evacuation chamber to below that required for a mass spectrometer as taught in Reich while also optimizing the evacuation pressure for the particular object to be tested, such as to an ultra-high vacuum pressure of less than 1 x 10-6 torr, as this applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 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.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights