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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 9/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the holding member of claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" (see lines 2-3 and line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-23 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" (see line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "in particular" (see lines 3-4 and line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 24 recites “A method …” in the preamble, but the body of the claim does clearly recite any method steps; therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claims 25 and 26 depend on claim 24 and are rejected for inheriting the same problems.
Claims 25 and 26 recite “The method …” in the preamble, but the bodies of the claims do clearly recite any method steps; therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,360,621 issued to Eldred et al. (“Eldred”).
As for claims 1 and 24, Eldred discloses a test chamber system comprising a test chamber (10), the test chamber having a test space (28, 144) for receiving a test objec
Regarding claim 24, the examiner notes that Eldred discloses all the claimed structure (see the rejection above) and that the claim does not recite any method steps that distinguish the claim over Eldred.
As for claim 3, Eldred discloses that the conditioning unit (60, 62, 142) forms a further test chamber (142), in particular a climate chamber, which has a further test space (142) for receiving test material, the further test space (142) being configured to be sealed from an environment and being temperature-insulated (see Fig. 1).
As for claim 4, Eldred discloses that
As for claim 7, Eldred discloses that the temperature control device has a heating device (60) comprising a heater (60) and a further heat exchanger (64).
As for claim 8, Eldred discloses that the conditioning unit is a heating device (60), in particular a convection heating device or a hot-air gun.
As for claim 9, Eldred discloses that the conditioning unit has a control device (78-82) for controlling and/or regulating a temperature.
Regarding claim 26, the examiner notes that Eldred discloses all the claimed structure (see the rejection above) and that the claim does not recite any method steps that distinguish the claim over Eldred. Furthermore, the wherein clause of the claim appears to describe the intended result of the method and does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art; see MPEP 2111.04 (I).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,032,820 issued to Dallinger et al. (“Dallinger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093926 by Haack et al. (“Haack”) and U.S. Patent 11,953,557 issued to Kervinen et al. (“Kervinen”).
As for claims 1 and 24, Dallinger discloses a test chamber system (Fig. 1) comprising a test chamber (12), the test chamber (12) having a test space for receiving a test objectest space serving to subject the test object to a test, in particular an abuse test, as a result of which a preferably explosive increase in pressure is triggered in the test space, the pressure relief device being configured to relieve the increased pressure in the test space (col. 3, lines 47-54).
Dallinger does not disclose a conditioning unit as recited.
However, Haack discloses a test chamber system (10) comprising a conditioning unit (16) for conditioning air, the conditioning unit being connected to the test chamber in such a manner that the conditioning unit is able to air-condition the test chamber (Abstract). Kervinen discloses that a similar test chamber system (Abstract) comprising a conditioning unit for conditioning air is useful for testing a battery in different environmental conditions (col. 3, lines 43-59 and col. 3, line 66 - col. 4,line 9 and col. 4, lines 24-34).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the test chamber system of Dallinger to include the conditioning unit as disclosed by Haack in order to test a battery in different environmental conditions as suggested by Kervinen (col. 3, lines 43-59 and col. 3, line 66 - col. 4,line 9 and col. 4, lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 24, the examiner notes that Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses all the claimed structure (see the rejection above) and that the claim does not recite any method steps that distinguish the claim over Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen.
As for claim 2, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses that the test chamber system comprises at least one conduit which connect the conditioning unit
As for claim 4, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses that the conditioning unit has a temperature control device (Haack: see the figure).
As for claim 5, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses that the temperature control device is configured to establish a temperature in a temperature range of -70 °C to +180 °C (Haack: Abstract).
As for claim 6, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses that the temperature control device has a cooling device comprising a cooling circuit with a refrigerant, a heat exchanger, a compressor, a condenser, and an expansion member (Haack: paragraph [0008]).
As for claim 7, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses that the temperature control device has a heating device comprising a heater and a further heat exchanger (Haack: paragraph [0023]).
As for claim 8, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses that the conditioning unit is a heating device (Haack: paragraph [0023]), in particular a convection heating device or a hot-air gun.
As for claim 9, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses that the conditioning unit has a control device for controlling and/or regulating a temperature (Haack: Abstract).
Regarding claim 26, the examiner notes that Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses all the claimed structure (see the rejection above) and that the claim does not recite any method steps that distinguish the claim over Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen. Furthermore, the wherein clause of the claim appears to describe the intended result of the method and does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art; see MPEP 2111.04 (I).
Claims 10-13, 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,032,820 issued to Dallinger et al. (“Dallinger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093926 by Haack et al. (“Haack”) and U.S. Patent 11,953,557 issued to Kervinen et al. (“Kervinen”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,438,015 issued to Arcos et al. (“Arcos”).
As for claims 10 and 25, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses the test chamber system according to claim 1 and the method of claim 24 (see the rejection of claims 1 and 24 above).
Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen does not disclose that the pressure relief device has at least one pressure relief flap as recited. Instead, Dallinger discloses a pressure relief device (Dallinger:16) that is a rupture disk (Dallinger: 17) that vents gases, although Dallinger also discloses that a pressure relief device of a different design could be used instead (Dallinger: col. 3, lines 10-15).
However, Arcos discloses a pressure relief device (13) that has at least one pressure relief flap (29) sealing a test space (inside 11) from an environment when the pressure relief device is closed and leaving the test space open when the pressure relief device is open (see Fig. 5). Arcos discloses that the pressure relief flap vents gases (col. 1, lines 22-25).
Because Arcos and Dallinger both disclose pressure relief devices that vent gases, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the pressure relief device of Arcos for the pressure relief device of Dallinger to achieve the predictable result of providing a device that vents gases.
Regarding claim 25, the examiner notes that Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos discloses all the claimed structure (see the rejection above) and that the claim does not recite any method steps that distinguish the claim over Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos.
As for claim 11, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos discloses that the pressure relief device (Arcos: 29) has a support frame (Arcos: 30, 37) on which the pressure relief flap rests in the closed state.
As for claim 12, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos discloses the test chamber system according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Dallinger as presently modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos does not disclose that the pressure relief device has a heater for heating the pressure relief flap and/or the support frame.
However, Kervinen discloses a heater for heating a pressure relief flap and/or a support frame (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 15-38).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure relief device of Dallinger, Haack, Kervinen and Arcos to include the heater as disclosed by Kervinen in order to prevent damage when the pressure relief flap opens and the test chamber is very cold (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 24-30).
As for claim 13, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos discloses that the pressure relief flap (Arcos: 29) has a triangular cross section (Arcos: see Fig. 4).
As for claim 16, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos discloses that the pressure relief device (Arcos: 29, 30, 37) has a frame (Arcos: 30, 37).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,032,820 issued to Dallinger et al. (“Dallinger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093926 by Haack et al. (“Haack”), U.S. Patent 11,953,557 issued to Kervinen et al. (“Kervinen”) U.S. Patent 9,438,015 issued to Arcos et al. (“Arcos”) as applied to claim 10, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,612,181 issued to Mann et al. (“Mann”).
As for claim 14, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos discloses the test chamber system according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos does not disclose that the pressure relief flap is made of a fiber-composite material.
However, Mann discloses that exterior portions of a test chamber system is made of a fiber-composite material (col. 5, lines 39-53).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure relief flap of Dallinger, Haack, Kervinen and Arcos to be made of a fiber-composite material as disclosed by Mann in order to increase the ballistic strength of the pressure relief flap (Mann: col. 5, lines 39-53).
As for claim 15, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos discloses the test chamber system according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Arcos does not disclose that the pressure relief flap is made of a steel-spring-strip material.
However, Mann discloses that exterior portions of a test chamber system is made of a steel-spring-strip material (col. 5, lines 39-53).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure relief flap of Dallinger, Haack, Kervinen and Arcos to be made of a steel-spring-strip material as disclosed by Mann in order to increase the ballistic strength of the pressure relief flap (Mann: col. 5, lines 39-53).
Claims 10-12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,032,820 issued to Dallinger et al. (“Dallinger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093926 by Haack et al. (“Haack”) and U.S. Patent 11,953,557 issued to Kervinen et al. (“Kervinen”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of JP 2021-83255 by Ueki (“Ueki”).
As for claim 10, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses the test chamber system according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen does not disclose that the pressure relief device has at least one pressure relief flap as recited. Instead, Dallinger discloses a pressure relief device (Dallinger:16) that is a rupture disk (Dallinger: 17) that vents gases, although Dallinger also discloses that a pressure relief device of a different design could be used instead (Dallinger: col. 3, lines 10-15).
However, Ueki discloses a pressure relief device (Figs. 9-12) that has at least one pressure relief flap (4) sealing a test space (inside 1) from an environment when the pressure relief device is closed (Fig. 9) and leaving the test space open when the pressure relief device is open (Fig. 11). Ueki discloses that the pressure relief flap vents gases (Abstract).
Because Ueki and Dallinger both disclose pressure relief devices that vent gases, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the pressure relief device of Ueki for the pressure relief device of Dallinger to achieve the predictable result of providing a device that vents gases.
As for claim 11, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Ueki discloses that the pressure relief device (Ueki: Fig. 9) has a support frame (Ueki: 5) on which the pressure relief flap (Ueki: 4) rests in the closed state.
As for claim 12, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Ueki discloses the test chamber system according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Dallinger as presently modified by Haack, Kervinen and Ueki does not disclose that the pressure relief device has a heater for heating the pressure relief flap and/or the support frame.
However, Kervinen discloses a heater for heating a pressure relief flap and/or a support frame (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 15-38).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure relief device of Dallinger, Haack, Kervinen and Ueki to include the heater as disclosed by Kervinen in order to prevent damage when the pressure relief flap opens and the test chamber is very cold (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 24-30).
As for claim 16, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Ueki discloses that the pressure relief device (Ueki: 29, 30, 37) has a frame (Ueki: 5).
As for claim 17, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Ueki discloses that the pressure relief flap (Ueki: 4) is attached to the frame (Ueki: 5) by means of at least one hinge (Ueki: 17, 18), which has an oblong hole (Ueki: 18).
Claims 10-12, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,032,820 issued to Dallinger et al. (“Dallinger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093926 by Haack et al. (“Haack”) and U.S. Patent 11,953,557 issued to Kervinen et al. (“Kervinen”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 5,361,549 issued to Betts (“Betts”).
As for claim 10, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses the test chamber system according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen does not disclose that the pressure relief device has at least one pressure relief flap as recited. Instead, Dallinger discloses a pressure relief device (Dallinger:16) that is a rupture disk (Dallinger: 17) that vents gases, although Dallinger also discloses that a pressure relief device of a different design could be used instead (Dallinger: col. 3, lines 10-15).
However, Betts discloses a pressure relief device (Fig. 5) that has at least one pressure relief flap (26’/ B’) sealing a test space (inside 22) from an environment when the pressure relief device is closed (Figs. 1 and 3) and leaving the test space open when the pressure relief device is open (Fig. 5). Betts discloses that the pressure relief flap vents gases (col. 1, lines 17-24).
Because Betts and Dallinger both disclose pressure relief devices that vent gases, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the pressure relief device of Betts for the pressure relief device of Dallinger to achieve the predictable result of providing a device that vents gases.
As for claim 11, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Betts discloses that the pressure relief device (Betts: Fig. 9) has a support frame (Betts: 36’) on which the pressure relief flap (Betts: 26’) rests in the closed state.
As for claim 12, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Betts discloses the test chamber system according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Dallinger as presently modified by Haack, Kervinen and Betts does not disclose that the pressure relief device has a heater for heating the pressure relief flap and/or the support frame.
However, Kervinen discloses a heater for heating a pressure relief flap and/or a support frame (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 15-38).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure relief device of Dallinger, Haack, Kervinen and Betts to include the heater as disclosed by Kervinen in order to prevent damage when the pressure relief flap opens and the test chamber is very cold (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 24-30).
As for claim 16, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Betts discloses that the pressure relief device (Betts: Fig. 5) has a frame (Betts: 36’).
As for claim 18, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Betts discloses that the pressure relief device (Betts: Fig. 5) has a damper (168).
As for claim 19, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Betts discloses that the damper (Betts: 168) has a baffle plate (Betts: 170) for stopping the pressure relief flap (Betts: 26’) in the open state and a damper element (Betts: 183) for damping the baffle plate (Betts: 170).
As for claim 20, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Betts discloses that the damper element (Betts: 183) is an oil pressure damper, a gas pressure damper or a spring damper (Betts: 183).
Claims 10-12, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,032,820 issued to Dallinger et al. (“Dallinger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093926 by Haack et al. (“Haack”) and U.S. Patent 11,953,557 issued to Kervinen et al. (“Kervinen”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,936,168 issued to Rose-Poetzsch et al. (“Rose-Poetzsch”).
As for claim 10, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses the test chamber system according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen does not disclose that the pressure relief device has at least one pressure relief flap as recited. Instead, Dallinger discloses a pressure relief device (Dallinger:16) that is a rupture disk (Dallinger: 17) that vents gases, although Dallinger also discloses that a pressure relief device of a different design could be used instead (Dallinger: col. 3, lines 10-15).
However, Rose-Poetzsch discloses a pressure relief device (Fig. 2) that has at least one pressure relief flap (14) sealing a test space (inside 2) from an environment when the pressure relief device is closed (Figs. 1 and 2) and leaving the test space open when the pressure relief device is open (Fig. 3). Rose-Poetzsch discloses that the pressure relief flap vents gases (col. 4, lines 6-10).
Because Rose-Poetzsch and Dallinger both disclose pressure relief devices that vent gases, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the pressure relief device of Rose-Poetzsch for the pressure relief device of Dallinger to achieve the predictable result of providing a device that vents gases.
As for claim 11, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Rose-Poetzsch discloses that the pressure relief device (Rose-Poetzsch: Fig. 3) has a support frame (Rose-Poetzsch: 2) on which the pressure relief flap (Rose-Poetzsch: 14) rests in the closed state.
As for claim 12, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Rose-Poetzsch discloses the test chamber system according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Dallinger as presently modified by Haack, Kervinen and Rose-Poetzsch does not disclose that the pressure relief device has a heater for heating the pressure relief flap and/or the support frame.
However, Kervinen discloses a heater for heating a pressure relief flap and/or a support frame (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 15-38).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure relief device of Dallinger, Haack, Kervinen and Rose-Poetzsch to include the heater as disclosed by Kervinen in order to prevent damage when the pressure relief flap opens and the test chamber is very cold (Kervinen: col. 5, lines 24-30).
As for claim 16, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Rose-Poetzsch discloses that the pressure relief device (Rose-Poetzsch: Fig. 3) has a frame (Rose-Poetzsch: 2).
As for claim 18, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Rose-Poetzsch discloses that the pressure relief device (Rose-Poetzsch: Fig. 3) has a damper (Rose-Poetzsch: 16).
As for claim 21, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Rose-Poetzsch discloses that the pressure relief device (Rose-Poetzsch: Fig. 3) has a holding member (Rose-Poetzsch: 16) for holding the pressure relief flap (Rose-Poetzsch: 14) in the open state.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,032,820 issued to Dallinger et al. (“Dallinger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093926 by Haack et al. (“Haack”) and U.S. Patent 11,953,557 issued to Kervinen et al. (“Kervinen”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of KR 2022-0149241 by Kim (“Kim”).
As for claim 22, Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen discloses the test chamber system according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Dallinger as modified by Haack and Kervinen does not disclose that the test chamber has a penetration device for penetrating the test object.
However, Kim discloses a test chamber (10) that has a penetration device (15) for penetrating a test object (1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the test chamber of Dallinger, Haack and Kervinen to include the penetration device in order to verify the penetration safety of the test object (Kim: see “Background Art”).
As for claim 23, Dallinger as modified by Haack, Kervinen and Kim discloses that.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 11,460,504 issued to Zhang (“Zhang”) is cited for all that it discloses including a test chamber system for a battery that includes a pressure relief device and a conditioning unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights