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 .
Response to Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment, drawings, and amended Specification filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 3, 5-17 and 19-22, and canceled Claims 4 and 18. Claims 1, 3, 5-17 and 19-22 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The corrected drawings filed 24 June 2026 are accepted, and the corresponding objection is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: In light of the amended claims, the objections are withdrawn. However, new objections concerning the amended claims are presented below.
Claim interpretation: Applicant’s arguments (see pg. 11) traversing Examiner’s invocation of 35 USC 112(f) for the terms “fixing device”, “clamping drive”, “positioning device”, “centering device”, and “closure element” is persuasive, and the interpretations are withdrawn. Examiner notes the corresponding structural description of these terms within the Specification.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(b): In light of the amended claims, the rejections of Claims 5-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-22 are withdrawn. However, new rejections concerning the amended claims are presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 24 June 26, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are partially persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the amendments to the Claim 1 overcome the previous rejection’s reliance on Emmer (US 6,220,310). Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made to the amended claims as explained in the Sections below.
Specifically, Examiner agrees that Emmer does not teach nor suggest applicability for the “pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly…wherein the assembly is a battery, (an) accumulator cell, a sensor unit or an electronic unit”, as now required in the amended Claim 1.
Examiner notes for the record, however, that Applicant’s disclosure makes limited mention of these specific applications (see paras 88, 118, and 128), describes these specific applications as “variants” of the overall claimed invention, and appears to state that the main application for the claimed invention is drawn to vacuum pressure filling within the automotive industry, wherein “vehicles are filled with the necessary service fluids at the manufacturers' assembly lines.” Please see “Background”, detailed at paras 3-7.
If Applicant does intend for the primary application of the claimed invention to be in support of the “pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly…wherein the assembly is a battery, (an) accumulator cell, a sensor unit or an electronic unit”, Examiner respectfully recommends further amendment to the Specification to make this intent clearer, and to further advise one of ordinary skill in the art of what would or would not infringe upon Applicant’s claims.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 8 has been considered, but is moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the claim contains the following (amended) verbiage (underscore by Examiner for emphasis): “…wherein the assembly is a battery, a accumulator cell, a sensor unit or an electronic unit.” Here, the phrase “a accumulator cell” should be changed to “an accumulator cell”.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim contains the following (amended) verbiage (underscore by Examiner for emphasis):
“…wherein the a vacuum port, an auxiliary gas port and the first sensor port of the device and the filling port, the gas supply port, the second sensor port a control port of the adapter are arranged on the same side of the device.”
Here, the phrase “the a vacuum port” should be changed to “a vacuum port”, and a comma (,) should be appropriately placed within the phrase “the second sensor port (,) a control port of the adapter”.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim contains the following verbiage (underscore by Examiner for emphasis): “…wherein the first housing component and/or the second housing component include a closure element…”. Here, the word “include” should be corrected to “includes” for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 10-17 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 6, the claim contains limitations that further limit components that were listed as optional in antecedent Claim 5. Specifically,
- Claim 5 requires a “device” that includes “a line port, and/or a first sensor port”… “integrated in a structural unit”. Claim 5 additionally requires “an adapter” that includes “a filling port, a gas supply port, and/or a second sensor port”.
- Claim 6 describes a “device” with “the a vacuum port, an auxiliary gas port and the first sensor port”. However, in antecedent Claim 5, the “first sensor port” is optional, as indicated by the phrase “and/or”.
- Similarly, Claim 6 describes an “adapter” with “the filling port, the gas supply port, the second sensor port a control port”. However, in antecedent Claim 5, “the gas supply port” and “the second sensor port” are both optional, as indicated by the phrase “and/or”.
- Claim 6 further limits these optional items (e.g. “the first sensor port”, “the gas supply port” and “second sensor port”) as being “arranged on the same side of the device.” It is unclear if these optional items are actually required for Claim 6, and if prior art that does not contain these specific components (but does contain the other components) would read upon the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim contains two instances of the limitation “a base plate” and “a vacuum pressure trough”. It is unclear if the second set of instances of “a base plate” and “a vacuum pressure trough” (directed to “the vacuum chamber of the device”) is the same as the first set of instances of “a base plate” and “a vacuum pressure trough” (directed to second and first housing components).
Regarding Claim 11, the amended verbiage to the claim now introduces indefiniteness regarding the structure of the claimed invention, as well as to the overall scope of the claim. Specifically, as currently written, Claim 11 now requires (item numbers and underscore added by Examiner for clarity):
“The device according to claim 10… wherein the base plate (4a) includes on its underside at least one seal (6) and a centering device (7a) for an operative connection with the vacuum pressure trough (5a), and a fixing device (8) with a clamping drive (9) for fixing a position of the assembly (1) to be filled.”
However, Applicant’s disclosure (see at least Fig 1) clearly shows “fixing device 8” and “clamping drive 9” as attached to, part of, and/or located upon “first housing component 5”, and not “base plate 4a” as currently claimed at Claim 11. The structure of the claim, and therefore its scope, is therefore unclear.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the limitation as ““The device according to claim 10… wherein the device further comprises a fixing device (8) with a clamping drive (9)”.
Regarding Claims 12-17, these claims depend upon Claims 10 and 11, and therefore suffer the same deficiencies.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukatsu (US 2013/0247364).
Regarding Claim 1, Fukatsu discloses a device (see at least Fig 2 and paras 22-27) for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, the device comprising:
- a first housing component (case 23) and a second housing component (cover 24),
- the second housing component is coupled to the first housing component such that a chamber is formed for accommodating the assembly to be treated (see para 23: "The decompression chamber 21 comprises a case 23 in the form of an open-topped rectangular box and a cover 24 that closes the opening of the case 23.",
- the device includes an adapter (para 27, electrolyte injection nozzle 22a) for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling (with electrolyte) of the assembly and
- the assembly is a battery (battery cells 11), a accumulator cell, a sensor unit or an electronic unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
584
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Fukatsu discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein
- the adapter includes an outlet piece (inherent to any "nozzle", such as the "electrolyte injection nozzle 22a" shown above in the rejection of Claim 1), and
- the outlet piece is aligned and configured such that, during a pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling process, the outlet piece can be coupled in a fluid-tight manner to an opening of an assembly to be treated (para 30: "the electrolyte injection nozzle 22a abuts the electrolyte injection hole 17 of the battery cell 11 so that the electrolyte supply unit 22 and decompression device 29 communicate with the cell 11..In this arrangement, the region around the injection hole 17 is sealed in an airtight manner as the cell 11 is pressed against the O-ring 26 by the urging mechanism 28").
Regarding Claim 3, Fukatsu discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein
- the device includes a first shaped piece (Figs 2 and 5, spring/"urging mechanism" 28), with the aid of which an assembly to be treated can be aligned relative to the adapter (this action described at para 24, wherein “an urging mechanism 28, such as a spring, which urges each battery cell 11 upward to close the region around the opening 24a, can be disposed at the bottom of the decompression chamber 21, as shown in FIG 2. The urging mechanism 28 presses the battery cell 11 against the O-ring 26, thereby hermetically sealing the entire region around the injection hole 17 of the cell 11"), and
- the device includes a shaped piece receptacle (see Fig 5, Examiner's annotations) and
- the first shaped piece is adapted to the dimensions and/or a shape of the assembly to be treated such that the outlet piece can be coupled in a fluid-tight manner to the opening during a pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling process (shown at Figs 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Fukatsu discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein
- the device includes a line port (Fig 2 and para 26, which teaches "A decompression device 27 for use as a second decompression unit is connected to the decompression chamber 21". Fig 2 shows a "port" in the schematic form of a valve connected to chamber 21), and/or a first sensor port,
- the line port and/ or a first sensor port are integrated in a structural unit (shown at Fig 2), and
- the adapter "electrolyte injection nozzle 22a" includes a filling port (see Fig 2, wherein nozzle 22a is shown to be further connected to electrolyte supply unit 22 via a "filling port", shown schematically as a valve), a gas supply port, and/or a second sensor port.
Regarding Claim 10, Fukatsu discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein
- the chamber (21) is configured as a vacuum chamber (see para 23 and the rejection of Claim 1 above),
- the device comprises the vacuum chamber for accommodating the assembly to be filled and a filling adapter for filling the assembly to be filled (per paras 23 and 27 and the rejection of Claim 1 above), and
- the second housing component (24) is a base plate and the first housing component (23) is a vacuum pressure trough,
- the vacuum chamber of the device is releasably assembled from a base plate and a vacuum pressure trough (through the normal operation of the overall device of Fukatsu).
Regarding Claim 19, Fukatsu discloses a method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, the method comprising:
- providing a device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of Claim 1 above);
- inserting an assembly to be treated into the device (the normal operation of the apparatus of Fukatsu);
- closing the device, such that the device forms a chamber which is fluid-tight with respect to the environment (as described by Fukatsu, para 30) and the assembly is arranged in the chamber; and
- filling the assembly with a fluid at a defined positive pressure or a defined volume over a predefined time, up to a predefined volume and/or a predefined pressure (Fukatsu discloses that it is known to establish a defined positive pressure within a battery cell prior to filling it with electrolyte in the normal operation of the apparatus of Claim 1 as described above. see at least para 4.)
- wherein the assembly is a battery or accumulator cell and the fluid is an electrolyte (per at least para 27), the assembly is a sensor unit and the fluid is an oil or the assembly is an electronic unit and the fluid is an inert gas.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, in view of Erhardt (US 2007/0074489).
Regarding Claim 6, the claim requires several “ports”, interpreted by the Examiner as any connection between a component providing a function and the vacuum chamber and/or the assembly treated within the vacuum chamber.
Fukatsu discloses a vacuum port (Fig 2 and para 26, decompression device 27) of the device (manufacturing device 20). Fukatsu additionally discloses a filling port (electrolyte injection nozzle 22a), and a gas supply port (per para 28, “The injection nozzle 22a is connected to a decompression device 29 as a first decompression unit, as well as to the electrolyte supply unit 22 for electrolyte supply.” Here, item 29 reads upon Applicant’s claim of “a gas supply port”).
Further regarding Claim 6, although Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, the reference does not make specific mention of sensing equipment, and so is silent on “the first sensor port of the device” and “the second sensor port (and) a control port of the adapter” as claimed at Claim 6. The reference is also silent on “an auxiliary gas port of the device” as also claimed at Claim 6.
However, sensing equipment for vacuum chambers are well known and necessary to ensure that the required negative pressure within the chamber is achieved, maintained, and or controlled. Auxiliary gas ports are also well known and in use for the same purposes.
Erhardt et al., for example teaches “sequence control means 10” at para 27 that “uses a plurality of communication lines K to control the temperature, vacuum and filling-level means of the device as well as the corresponding valves and motors”, and “is in communication with measurement and detection systems (not shown) for the process parameters of the installation or device, which comprise corresponding optical, mechanical or electrical sensors, likewise via correspondingly assigned communication lines K”.
Examiner interprets this above teaching as describing “the first sensor port of the device”, and “the second sensor port (and) a control port of the adapter” of Applicant’s Claim 6.
Erhardt et al. additionally teaches an auxiliary gas port (that communication from inert gas reservoir 14 and gasification valve 12 into vacuum chamber 1 as shown at least in Fig 2 and described at paras 35 and 44 “in a known manner”.)
PNG
media_image3.png
856
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Fukatsu and Erhardt references each teach filling of a container under vacuum conditions. The Erhardt reference provides additional detailed guidance in the controlling of said vacuum in a manner well known to the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general guidance of the Fukatsu reference with the detailed “port”, control, and vacuum control guidance as taught by Erhardt (through the addition of the sensing and auxiliary gas equipment), in order to gain the advantages of detailed guidance in the controlling of said vacuum in a manner well known to the art.
Further regarding Claim 6, the combination of the Fukatsu and Erhardt references would result in “a vacuum port, an auxiliary gas port and the first sensor port of the device and the filling port, the gas supply port, the second sensor port a control port of the adapter are arranged on the same side of the device” as claimed by Applicant at Claim 6. Please see Erhardt, at least Fig 2, wherein these components are arranged on the top of the device. Examiner notes however, that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide an apparent reason for this particular limitation, makes no statement of criticality, and offers no unexpected or novel results for the arrangement of these components all on a particular side of the device. In the absence of any statement of criticality, Examiner concludes that this limitation is one of design choice, and anticipated by the cited art as shown above. Please see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 20, Fukatsu discloses a method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, further including:
- fluid-tight coupling of the adapter to an opening of the assembly before the assembly is filled at the defined positive pressure (Fukatsu discloses that it is known to establish a defined positive pressure within a battery cell prior to filling it with electrolyte in the normal operation of the apparatus of Claims 1 and 19, as described above. See at least para 4. One of ordinary skill in the art would additionally know that establishing a "fluid-tight coupling" of the adapter 22a with the assembly 11 would be a necessary step occurring prior to said establishment of a defined positive pressure);
- pressurizing the chamber at a defined first negative pressure (see para 33) and the assembly at a defined second negative pressure (para 4), such that a constant pressure ratio is established between the pressure in the chamber and the pressure in the chamber before the assembly is filled at the defined positive pressure;
- measuring the pressures present in the chamber and in the assembly before filling the assembly at the defined positive pressure (measuring initial pressures would be a necessary step prior to establishing desired negative pressures in both the chamber 21 and assembly 11 by decompression devices 27 and 29).
Further regarding Claim 20, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include controlling the pressure within the chamber, but doesn’t explicitly mention the use of an “auxiliary gas” as required in Claim 20. However, and as shown above in the rejection of Claim 6, Erhardt et al. teaches the use of auxiliary gas, and therefore teaches:
- subsequent filling of the chamber with an auxiliary gas (via vacuum pump 9 and a means 12, 13, 14, as described at least at paras 35-37) at the defined positive pressure depending on the pressure specified or measured in the assembly, such that there is a predefined positive pressure in the assembly relative to the chamber (paras 35-37 described setting an appropriate pressure to enable filling of the battery cell with electrolyte),
- wherein, after completion of the predefined filling of the assembly, the auxiliary gas of the chamber is drained and the pressure of the chamber is set to ambient pressure (this would be a necessary step in order to remove and use the filled assembly from the chamber. Regardless, the Erhardt reference teaches re-establishing a "fresh atmosphere" by opening the door at para 42).
The Fukatsu and Erhardt references each teach filling of a container under vacuum conditions. The Erhardt reference provides additional detailed guidance in the controlling of said vacuum in a manner well known to the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general guidance of the Fukatsu reference with the detailed “port”, control, and vacuum control guidance as taught by Erhardt (through the addition of the sensing and auxiliary gas equipment), in order to gain the advantages of detailed guidance in the controlling of said vacuum in a manner well known to the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, in view of Stuart (US 3,612,344).
Regarding Claim 7, the claim is drawn to a “volume ballast”, which per Applicant’s Specification, “serves as a displacement body to be able to set the defined pressure in the chamber 15 more quickly”. However, Applicant does not provide any physical examples of an appropriate “ballast”, and it appears from the disclosure that adding a “displacement body” within a vacuum chamber would have the same predictable result as simply using a smaller vacuum chamber.
Regardless, Stuart teaches a “volume ballast” in the form of cells (see at least Claim 1), wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon".
Therefore, Stuart teaches a device that includes:
- a volume ballast (see Claim 1, wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon"),
- the volume ballast is replaceable (The cells of Stuart are explicitly taught as being "removable". Examiner additionally broadly interprets the term "replaceable", since mechanical components are generally known to be "replaceable") and is arranged within the chamber (15) such that a free residual volume is reduced (Claim 1).
Fukatsu and Stuart each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Stuart additionally teaches reducing the unused volume of said vacuum chamber in order to lessen the amount of operational time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the unused portion of the vacuum chamber as disclosed by Fukatsu with the cells of Stuart in order to lower operation time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, in view of Spohn et al. (US 2008/0213476).
Regarding Claim 8, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include first and second housing components arrayed in a sealed manner, as shown above in the rejection of Claim 1. Although Fukatsu doesn’t explicitly mention how the components are aligned, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect “alignment” of the components as a normal and necessary action in order to assure a vacuum seal.
Regardless, Spohn et al. teaches the second housing component is aligned with the first housing component by a positioning device (fastening means 28), such that an outlet piece of the adapter can be connected in a sealed manner to an opening of the assembly to be treated for a pressure test, evacuation, and/or filling operation (see Fig 1 and para 65, "fastening means 28 for securing said top wall member 20 to said sidewall member 22 through the opposing flat surfaces that are optionally in contact with one another").
PNG
media_image4.png
1068
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fukatsu and Spohn et al. each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Spohn et al. teaches routine components necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of centering devices/locking pins and a seal, as taught by the Spohn reference, to the enclosure of Fukatsu, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Fukatsu.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as modified by Spohn et al., and in further view of De Creane (US 2,569,410).
Regarding Claim 9, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include first and second housing components arrayed in a sealed manner, as shown above in the rejection of Claim 1 and at para 24, wherein a seal (para 24, elastic seal member 25) is provided in a coupling area of the housing components on the first housing component and/or on the second housing component.
Although Fukatsu doesn’t explicitly mention how the components are closed, and therefore doesn’t explicitly recite a “closure element” as also required in Applicant’s Claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect “closure” of the housing components as a normal and necessary action in order to assure a vacuum seal.
Regardless, De Craene teaches:
- the first housing component and/or the second housing component include a closure element (Col 2, lines 17-22: "a vacuum vessel generally referred to as 1, preferably consisting of upper and lower halves 2 and 3 respectively, bolted together by means of the bolts 4 or held together to form a pressure-tight joint by any other suitable means"),
- the closure element releasably connects the first housing component to the second housing component (the normal operation of the apparatus described by De Craene).
PNG
media_image5.png
892
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fukatsu and De Craene each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. De Craene teaches routine components in the form of “closure elements” necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the closure elements as taught by De Craene to the enclosure of Fukatsu, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Fukatsu.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, in views of Erhardt et al., Spohn et al., De Creane, and Chetaille (US 6,736,172).
Regarding Claim 11, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include a second housing component in the form a base plate as part of a sealed vacuum chamber, as shown above in the rejections of Claims 1 and 10. Fukatsu additionally teaches an opening (para 23, openings 24a) formed in the base plate in which a filling adapter (22a) is supported, as required in Applicant’s Claim 11.
Fukatsu discloses a vacuum port (Fig 2 and para 26, decompression device 27) of the device (manufacturing device 20), but does not explicitly teach “the base plate includes on its upper side a structural unit which can be brought into operative connection with the vacuum chamber and includes a vacuum port for evacuating the vacuum chamber and supplying auxiliary gas into the vacuum chamber and a vacuum pressure sensor”, as required in Claim 11.
However, Erhardt et al. teaches the base plate (Fig 2, Examiner’s annotations) includes on its upper side a structural unit (the combination of inert gas reservoir 14, gasification valve 12, and vacuum pump 9, as shown in the annotated Fig 2 and explained above by Examiner in the rejection of Claim 6) which can be brought into operative connection with the vacuum chamber (1) and includes a vacuum port for evacuating the vacuum chamber and supplying auxiliary gas into the vacuum chamber and a vacuum pressure sensor (provided by sequence control means 10, as explained above by Examiner in the rejection of Claim 6).
The Fukatsu and Erhardt references each teach filling of a container under vacuum conditions. The Erhardt reference provides additional detailed guidance in the controlling of said vacuum in a manner well known to the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general guidance of the Fukatsu reference with the detailed “port”, control, and vacuum control guidance as taught by Erhardt (through the addition of the sensing and auxiliary gas equipment), in order to gain the advantages of detailed guidance in the controlling of said vacuum in a manner well known to the art.
Further regarding Claim 11, Fukatsu additionally teaches a base plate (24) further comprising a seal (para 24, elastic seal member 25). Although Fukatsu doesn’t explicitly mention how the components are closed, and therefore doesn’t explicitly recite a “closure element” as also required in Applicant’s Claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect “closure” of the housing components as a normal and necessary action in order to assure a vacuum seal.
Regardless, De Craene teaches the base plate (2) includes on its end- face ends at least two closure elements arranged opposite one another for an operative connection with the vacuum pressure trough (Col 2, lines 17-22: "a vacuum vessel generally referred to as 1, preferably consisting of upper and lower halves 2 and 3 respectively, bolted together by means of the bolts 4 or held together to form a pressure-tight joint by any other suitable means").
Fukatsu and De Craene each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. De Craene teaches routine components in the form of “closure elements” necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the closure elements as taught by De Craene to the enclosure of Fukatsu, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Fukatsu.
Further regarding Claim 11, Fukatsu additionally teaches a base plate (24) further comprising a seal (para 24, elastic seal member 25). Although Fukatsu doesn’t explicitly mention how the components are aligned (e.g., doesn’t explicitly mention a “centering device” as claimed at Claim 11), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect “alignment” of the components as a normal and necessary action in order to assure a vacuum seal. Regardless, Spohn et al. teaches the base plate (Fig 1 and at least paras 65-67, top wall member 20) includes on its underside at least one seal (Fig 1, seal 10) and a centering device (fastening means 28) for an operative connection with the vacuum pressure trough (22). Examiner notes for the record that Applicant does equate the terms “centering device” and “positioning device” within the Specification.
Fukatsu and Spohn et al. each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Spohn et al. teaches routine components necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of centering devices/locking pins and a seal, as taught by the Spohn reference, to the enclosure of Fukatsu, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Fukatsu.
Further regarding Claim 11, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include means (Figs 2 and 5, spring/"urging mechanism" 28) for fixing a position of the assembly to be filled but doesn’t explicitly mention said means as being “a fixing device with a clamping drive”, as claimed at Applicant’s Claim 11. Chetaille et al., however, teaches a fixing device (fork 20) with a clamping drive (rod 24) for fixing the position of the assembly (container 18) to be filled (see at least Figs 1 and 2, wherein a "base plate" comprising upper frame 12 and filling head 15 uses clamping device 24 and fixing device 20 to align assembly 18 with fill nozzle 16. Also see text at Col 3, line 43- Col 4, line 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
1220
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Fukatsu and Chetaille references each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. The Chetaille reference provides additional guidance for further securing said container, advantageous for ensuring safe filling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Fukatsu, and add the additional stabilizing components of a fixing device related clamping device as taught by Chetaille et al., in order to gain the advantage of additional stabilization of the container.
Claims 12-14 are presented below in order of dependence as claimed by Applicant, and not in numerical order.
Regarding Claim 13, Fukatsu as modified above teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the seal (Fukatsu, seal 25) on the base plate is designed with two round seals running parallel to one another, each of which being arranged in a groove on the underside of the base plate (see at least Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Fukatsu as modified above teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the closure elements (Da Craene, bolts 4) on the base plate are pawls (shown at Fig 1) and have a contour that is congruent with the contour on the associated section of an associated section of the vacuum pressure trough (Da Craene, Col 2, lines 17-22: "a vacuum vessel generally referred to as 1, preferably consisting of upper and lower halves 2 and 3 respectively, bolted together by means of the bolts 4 or held together to form a pressure-tight joint by any other suitable means").
Regarding Claim 14, Fukatsu as modified above teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the centering devices on the base plate are designed as locking pins (Spohn et al., fasteners 28) and have a contour which is congruent with the contour of an opening on the associated section of the vacuum pressure trough (see Fig 9).
Regarding Claims 15-17, Examiner acknowledges the lengthy combination of prior art used in the present rejections of Claims 15-17 on the following pages. Should Applicant wish to traverse these rejections as being non-obvious due to the length of the combinations and/or number of combined references, Examiner also notes the following:
During prior prosecution, Claims 7-15 were each separately dependent upon Claim 1, and each contained limitations drawn to one or more minor features of a vacuum chamber that would be necessary to a) further ensure a seal of said vacuum chamber, and/or b) further ensure the stable alignment of the object within the vacuum chamber that is being filled under vacuum. As shown in the previous Office Action, most of these features and methods have been known to the prior art at large for decades, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate any or all of them within a modern vacuum chamber in order to perform these basic tasks. Examiner further notes that in the Arguments filed 24 June 26, the validity of these rejections was not specifically traversed by Applicant on the grounds of accuracy nor being pertinent to Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Indeed, in the present Office Action, new art (Fukatsu) was applied in lieu of Emmer in response to Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1, and the Erhardt and De Creane references were added to teach some supplemental subject matter previously taught by Emmer, but not explicitly by Fukatsu. The remainder of the references relied upon in the present Office Action remain the same as in the previous Office Action, and remain valid for the same reasons of obviousness.
In the present set of claims, however, Applicant has amended Claims 11-17 in such fashion as to depend almost linearly from Claim 10, thereby necessitating increasingly lengthy combinations of prior art for the higher numbered claims. However, given that a) the subject matter of these dependent claims is well-known as previously shown, and b) Applicant has made no statement or argument of novel or unexpected results in the use of these minor structural features in either the original or amended disclosures, Examiner concludes that the lengthy combinations as presented below for Claims 15-17 are indeed proper, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings into a modern vacuum chamber prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore:
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, in views of Erhardt et al., Spohn et al., De Creane, and Chetaille, and in further view of Carter (US 2,815,621) and Lehmann (5,957,338).
Regarding Claim 15, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include a vacuum pressure trough (23) that includes a U-shaped cross-section (see Fig 1). Fukatsu does not provide additional details on said vacuum pressure trough, so does not explicitly mention “a flange-like circumferential projection is formed on an upper end section of side walls, which projection includes a section leading outwards and a section leading inwards, the section leading outwards has a contour which is congruent with the contour of the pawls on the closure elements on an associated section of the base plate, and the section leading inwards has openings which are congruent with the contour of the locking pins on the associated section of the base plate”, as also required in Applicant’s Claim 11.
Examiner notes that although these limitations are described verbatim in Applicant's Specification, Applicant does not detail any criticality, nor unexpected results for their inclusion. Examiner concludes that these limitations are purely ones of design choice, and obvious to anyone of ordinary skill seeking to provide additional stability to the upper lid of a vacuum chamber.
Carter, for example teaches a flange-like circumferential projection (Examiner's annotations) is formed on the upper end section of the side walls, which projection includes a section leading outwards and a section leading inwards (see Fig 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
936
786
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fukatsu and Carter each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Carter additionally teaches a well-known (arguably ancient) method of providing additional support for the chamber lid, through the use of a flange. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flange-like circumferential projection (as taught by Carter) on the side walls of the U-shaped vacuum pressure trough of Fukatsu, in order to achieve additional support for the chamber lid.
Further regarding Claim 15, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include an enclosure (21) further comprising a first housing component (23) and a second housing component configured as a base plate (lid 24). Fukatsu does not go into exhaustive detail on the housing components, and is therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claim 15, wherein the section leading outwards has a contour which is congruent with the contour of the locking pawls on the closure elements on the associated section of the base plate, and the section leading inwards has openings which are congruent with the contour of the locking pins on the associated section of the base plate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide locking, sealing, and/or centering mechanisms in order to achieve the airtight seal of Fukatsu’s enclosure 21.
Lehmann, for example, teaches the section leading outwards has a contour which is congruent with the contour of the locking pawls (Fig 3, toggle clamps 20) on the closure elements on the associated section of the base plate (see Fig 3).
Spohn et al. teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the section leading inwards has openings which are congruent with the contour of the locking pins (fasteners 28) on the associated section of the base plate (see Fig 9).
Fukatsu, Lehmann, and Spohn et al. each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. The Lehmann and Spohn references teach routine components necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of centering devices/locking pins/pawls, as taught by the Lehmann and Spohn references, to the enclosure (to include the base plate) of Fukatsu, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Fukatsu.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, in views of Erhardt et al., Spohn et al., De Creane, Chetaille, Carter, and Lehmann, and in further view of Bellato (US 2,984,057).
Regarding Claim 16, Fukatsu as modified above teaches the claimed invention, to include a vacuum pressure trough (23) and means (Figs 2 and 5, spring/"urging mechanism" 28) for stabilizing the assembly to be filled. Fukatsu, however, is silent on the vacuum pressure trough is equipped on the upper side of its bottom surface with replaceable shaped pieces for fixing the position of the assembly to be filled, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 16. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this limitation as simply further stabilizing the container to be filled, and would have obvious motivation to do so.
Bellato, for example, teaches the vacuum pressure trough (being) equipped on the upper side of its bottom surface with replaceable shaped pieces for fixing the position of the assembly to be filled (Fig 3 teaches "vertically displaceable platform 38 for the support of the drum during the filling operation", described in full at Col 3, lines 15-36. Examiner broadly interprets the term "replaceable", since it is very well known across the arts to "replace" worn or broken mechanical components. The combined teachings of Fukatsu and Bellato therefore read upon the claim).
Fukatsu as modified above and Bellato each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Bellato additionally teaches supporting the container, which has obvious advantages for overall apparatus stability and to ensure the container stays upright. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the support structure (e.g. “a shaped piece receptacle”) as taught by Bellato to the modified invention of Fukatsu, in order to gain the further advantage of stability and an upright container.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, in views of Erhardt et al., Spohn et al., De Creane, Chetaille, Carter, Lehmann, Bellato, and in further view of Stuart.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is drawn to a “volume ballast”, which per Applicant’s Specification, “serves as a displacement body to be able to set the defined pressure in the chamber 15 more quickly”. However, Applicant does not provide any physical examples of an appropriate “ballast”, and it appears from the disclosure that adding a “displacement body” within a vacuum chamber would have the same predictable result as simply using a smaller vacuum chamber.
Regardless, Stuart teaches a “volume ballast” in the form of cells (see at least Claim 1), wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon".
Therefore, Stuart teaches a device that includes a batch-specific volume ballast that:
- is a displacement body for reducing a free residual volume in the chamber (see Claim 1, wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon"), and
- can be arranged on an upper side of a bottom surface of the vacuum pressure trough (see Claim 1, wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon").
Fukatsu and Stuart each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Stuart additionally teaches reducing the unused volume of said vacuum chamber in order to lessen the amount of operational time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the unused portion of the vacuum chamber as disclosed by Fukatsu with the cells of Stuart in order to lower operation time.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu as modified by Erhardt et al. above, and in further view of Pacetti (US 2012/0216912).
Regarding Claim 21, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include a vacuum chamber in the form of an enclosure (21). Fukatsu additionally teaches manipulating the pressure within said chamber to fill a container. However, Fukatsu does not provide exhaustive details of the mechanisms used to manipulate said pressure, and therefore is silent on the features of Applicant’s Claim 21, to include a method, wherein, after measuring the pressures, the method further includes: changing the set pressure in the chamber and/or the assembly; re-measuring the set pressures in the chamber and/or the assembly; and comparing the measured pressures of the chamber and/or the assembly before and after the pressure change.
However, Examiner asserts that this method is both known and necessary in the practical operation of any vacuum chamber, as one must know when a desired pressure is achieved, and usually does so through iterative measurements.
For example, Pacetti teaches a method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein (see at least Claim 10, which teaches "a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure inside the vacuum chamber; and a controller in communication with the pressure sensor, the controller configured to activate the pump based at least on input from the pressure sensor"), after measuring the pressures, the method further includes:
- changing the set pressure in the chamber and/or the assembly (via the pump of Claim 10);
- re-measuring the set pressures in the chamber and/or the assembly (Claim 10 describes an iterative process via the controller and pressure sensor); and
- comparing the measured pressures of the chamber and/or the assembly before and after the pressure change (via the claimed controller).
Fukatsu and Pacetti each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Pacetti teaches routine components necessary to achieve a desired pressure within said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of a pressure sensor and related controller as taught by Pacetti to the enclosure of Fukatsu, in order to achieve the desired pressure within said vacuum chamber.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu as modified by Erhardt et al. above, and in further view of Chetaille et al.
Regarding Claim 22, Fukatsu discloses a method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, further including:
- providing a first shaped piece (Figs 2 and 5, spring/"urging mechanism" 28);
- inserting the first shaped piece into the device (1), wherein the first shaped piece (28) is aligned with a shaped piece receptacle (Fig 5, Examiner's annotations) of the device;
Further regarding Claim 22, Fukatsu teaches the claimed invention, to include means (Figs 2 and 5, spring/"urging mechanism" 28) for fixing a position of the assembly to be filled but doesn’t “gripping an assembly with a fixing device of the device; and inserting the gripped assembly into the device, such that the assembly is aligned for fluid-tight coupling with the adapter with the aid of the first shaped piece”, as required by Applicant’s Claim 22.
Chetaille et al., however, teaches gripping an assembly with a fixing device (fork 20) of the device; and inserting the gripped assembly into the device, such that the assembly is aligned for fluid-tight coupling with the adapter with the aid of the first shaped piece (see at least Figs 1 and 2, wherein a "base plate" comprising upper frame 12 and filling head 15 uses clamping device 24 and fixing device 20 to align assembly 18 with fill nozzle 16. Also see text at Col 3, line 43- Col 4, line 5).
The Fukatsu and Chetaille references each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. The Chetaille reference provides additional guidance for further securing said container, advantageous for ensuring safe filling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Fukatsu, and add the additional stabilizing components of a fixing device related clamping device as taught by Chetaille et al., in order to gain the advantage of additional stabilization of the container.
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 CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights