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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Airtightness Sealing Test Cabinet For Battery Pack
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is not properly labeled. The label “Fig. 2” is on a separate sheet from the actual figure.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al US11598690 (hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a sealing test cabinet (See Figs 1-5 showing apparatus for testing airtightness) for battery pack (battery pack-PO1), wherein the battery pack comprises a battery pack body (Col 1 line 21-29) and a water cooling plate (Col 1 line 21-29), characterized in that the sealing test cabinet comprises:
a housing (See Figs 1-5);
a first test unit (low pressure sensor-108) arranged in the housing, the first test unit being configured to test airtightness of the battery pack body; and
a second test unit (first and second high pressure sensors-106 and 107) arranged in the housing, the second test unit being configured to test airtightness of the water cooling plate. (Col 5 line 4-Col 6 line 64)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Brine et al US9377374 discloses manufacturing requirements by providing for high accuracy flow based leak testing of large volumes, providing adaptive techniques for use during testing, providing equivalent circuit modeling techniques allowing optimization and parameter extraction to be simulated prior to manufacturing commitment, and providing for the automatic tuning of setup parameters. (Fig 1-18B, Col 2 line 1- Col 18 line 47)
Sacca US7174772 discloses a leak testing system of a type that cooperates with a test part interface that is coupled with a test part. In a broad aspect the leak testing control assembly includes a working fluid generator for applying a working fluid having a fluidic pressure to a test part. A flow controller assembly is coupled to the working fluid generator. The flow controller assembly includes a flow controller element for controlling the flow rate of the working fluid. A pressure level measuring element is positioned relative to the test part for measuring the fluidic pressure. A control system is coupled to the flow controller assembly and the pressure level measuring element. A user interface is coupled to the control system for providing user interaction with the leak testing control assembly. During operation, the control system 1) facilitates application of the fluidic pressure at a selected relatively constant flow rate; and, 2) interprets the value of the fluidic pressure, after the application of the fluidic pressure at the selected relatively constant flow rate, to determine whether the test part is free of leaks. (Fig 1-10B, Col 6 line 58 – Col 13 line 43)
Black et al US6112578 (hereinafter “Black”) discloses leak testing a first and a second cavity of a part. A fixture is provided for engaging and individually sealing the cavities of the part. Pressurized fluid from a pressure source is introduced into each of the cavities. The first cavity is allowed to stabilize and its leak rate is measured using a pressure-measuring device. The first cavity is then vented. Upon stabilization of the second cavity, the leak rate thereof is similarly measured. The second cavity is then also vented. The leak rates are then evaluated to determine if a leak is present in either of the cavities. (Fig 1-3, Col 3 line 12 – Col 5 line 19)
Prior arts made available do not teach, or fairly suggest, a pressure stabilizing tank, wherein the pressure stabilizing tank is operably connected to the first test unit and the second test unit and configured to inject gas to the battery pack body and the water cooling plate; and a vacuum generator, wherein the vacuum generator is operably connected to the first test unit and the second test unit and configured to extract gas from the battery pack body and the water cooling plate as recited in claim 2.
In addition, the prior arts fails to teach the specific valve by valve sequencing of the claims recited above, particularly that the pressure stabilization period of the control valve is closed while the pressure-stabilizing valves remain open so that the standard end and test end communicate to equalize, then the pressure-stabilizing valves close to isolate for measurement. Prior art fails to teach the specific intermediate communication for pressure stabilization steps where both sides actively share pressure through the open stabilizing valves before isolation.
Dependent claims 3-20 have dependency from claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights