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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 1/29/2026. Claims 1-12 and 14-17 remain pending. Claims 1-12 and 14-17 have been amended. Claims 9-11 are withdrawn. Claims 18-21 are new.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite a pre-chamber comprising a pre-chamber opening; a filling chamber comprising a single pressure port, wherein the single pressure port is configured to provide both a positive pressure and a vacuum to the filling chamber as well as other amendments has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection over Cook in view of Hirai have not been found persuasive. A new interpretation of Cook in view of Hirai as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including a pre-chamber comprising a pre-chamber opening; a filling chamber comprising a single pressure port, wherein the single pressure port is configured to provide both a positive pressure and a vacuum to the filling chamber.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At the end of claim 19, please add punctuation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 12, 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (GB 2,289,461 A) in view of Hirai et al. (US 2022/0247052, hereafter “Hirai”).
Regarding claim 1, Cook discloses a filling head for filling an electrochemical cell with electrolyte, comprising: a pre-chamber (26) comprising a pre-chamber opening (the opening that communicates with 32); a filling chamber (12) comprising a single pressure port (24; note that this claim is open ended so additional pressure ports may be included in the system of Cook), wherein the single pressure port is configured to provide both a positive pressure and a vacuum to the filling chamber (24 is connected to a vacuum drawing device, but is at least able to provide positive pressure or negative pressure in the event that the vacuum drawing device malfunctions temporarily); a shutoff element (32), wherein the shutoff element is configured to move between an open position and a closed position, and wherein the open position releases the pre-chamber opening (the opening that is controlled by 32) and the closed position closes off the pre-chamber opening (pages 8 and 9); and wherein the shutoff element is configured to move against a restoring force from the closed position into the open position (pages 8 and 9, the shutoff element is capable of performing this limitation), but fails to disclose a restoring element configured to exert a restoring force on the shutoff element to maintain the shutoff element in the closed position.
Hirai teaches a restoring element (26) configured to exert a restoring force on the shutoff element (23) to maintain the shutoff element in the closed position. (Fig. 3; para. [0017])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the filling head of Cook to include a restoring element as taught by Hirai since this is combining prior art elements (springs) according to known methods to yield predictable results (providing a normally closed valve by use of a spring). The motivation for doing so is to provide a simple, effective, and cost efficient means to ensure proper use of the valve is provided.
Regarding claim 2, Cook in view of Hirai further discloses the filling head of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the pre-chamber opening is a plurality of pre-chamber openings.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the pre-chamber opening of Cook to be a plurality of openings since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide multiple openings that the valving element is capable of metering individually.
Regarding claim 3, Cook in view of Hirai further discloses the filling head of claim 1, wherein a tube projects from the pre-chamber into the filling chamber, an electrochemical cell, or a combination thereof. (pages 8 and 9; note that electrolyte from the tube starting at 30 flows into 14 which maintains a vacuum until the electrolyte is dispensed so a portion of the line is necessarily in fluid tight relationship into 12)
Regarding claim 12, Cook in view of Hirai further discloses a method for filling an electrochemical cell with an electrolyte using the filling head of claim 1, comprising: a. filling the pre-chamber with an electrolyte, wherein the shutoff element is in a closed position; subsequently b. placing the filling head on an electrochemical cell; c. evacuating the filling chamber and the electrochemical cell; d. moving the shutoff element into the open position thereby causing the electrolyte to flow from the pre-chamber into the filling chamber and the electrochemical cell; and e. moving the shutoff element into the closed position. (pages 8 and 9; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Cook in view of Hirai further discloses the method of claim 12, wherein subsequent to moving the shutoff element into the closed position, the shutoff element is moved into the open position. (the shutoff element is moved again into an open position at least when performing another filling for another electrochemical cell)
Regarding claim 15, Cook in view of Hirai further discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising carrying out a plurality of pressure cycles. (pages 8 and 9; Fig. 1; note that a plurality of pressures are utilized throughout operation)
Regarding claim 17, Cook in view of Hirai further discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the pre-chamber is filled with electrolyte in a filling station of an electrolyte filling arrangement (the portion of 10 leading from 52 to 26) and the electrochemical cell is filled with electrolyte from the filling head in a process station (the portion of 10 leading from 12 to 20) of the electrolyte filling arrangement.
Regarding claim 17, Cook in view of Hirai further discloses the filling head of claim 1, further comprising a high pressure element (connector for connecting the vacuum element to 24) and a vacuum element (as mentioned on page 6) in fluid communication with the single pressure port.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wipperfuerth (US 2015/0364746) in view of Cook and Hirai.
Regarding claim 4, Wipperfuerth discloses a process device comprising: a workpiece carrier (the workpiece formed within 21) configured to receive an electrochemical cell; and a cover (the cover portion in which 10 is secured to within 21; Exhibit A) configured to be placed on the workpiece carrier, wherein a filling head (the filling head of 10) is arranged on the cover, but fails to disclose the at least one filling head is the at least one filling head according to claim 1.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
921
1288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cook in view of Hirai teaches at least one filling head according to claim 1 as detailed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the process device of Wipperfuerth to include the details of the filling head of Cook in order to provide a means for accurately and rapidly measuring and dispensing the material into cell housings. (page 10, lines 5-7)
Regarding claim 5, Wipperfuerth in view of Cook and Hirai further discloses the process device of claim 4, wherein the workpiece carrier and the cover are connected or are connectable to one another in a fluid-tight manner. (Abstract)
Regarding claim 6, Wipperfuerth in view of Cook and Hirai further discloses the process device of claim 4, further comprising a process port (28) connected to the single pressure port (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Wipperfuerth in view of Cook and Hirai further discloses the process device of claim 4, further comprising a process port (28) configured to evacuate an interior of the workpiece carrier. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 8, Wipperfuerth in view of Cook and Hirai further discloses the process device of claim 4, wherein the workpiece carrier comprises a mounted receptacle (3) configured to receive the electrochemical cell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights