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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 8/27/2026. Claims 1-12, 14-18, 20 and 21 remain pending. Claim 12 has been amended. Claims 9-11 are withdrawn. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that the 103 rejection over Cook in view of Hirai is not proper because neither Cook nor Hirai disclose a single pressure port that is configured to provide both a positive pressure and a vacuum to the filling chamber. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to be explicitly clear, the claimed limitation of “wherein the single pressure port is configured to provide both a positive pressure and a vacuum to the filling chamber” is clearly a functional limitation. Therefore, Applicant is not positively reciting any parts of the invention that provide positive or negative pressure. Applicant is merely claiming a pressure port that allows fluid communication in both ways. In this case, the single pressure port of Cook does not have any means, such as a check valve, which would prevent fluid communication from going both ways. Therefore, in the event that there may be a malfunction or some event in which fluid is forced through the single pressure port towards the vacuum device that is attached to the single pressure port, then this limitation is necessarily met. In the event that the Applicant amends claim 1 to introduce a means to provide positive pressure and negative pressure, then the Examiner may reconsider the rejection. However, for at least these reasons, the 103 rejection over Cook in view of Hirai is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 have overcome the 103 rejection over Cook in view of Hirai. The 103 rejection to claim 12 is withdrawn.
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 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)
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 12, 14-18, 20 and 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
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 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