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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 9-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Here, it is noted that the amended claim 1, in addition to being amended to require the scope of claim 8, further requires that the first push plate is arranged “to uniformly apply force to the shell along the axis of the guide groove”. This additional limitation was not a part of any claim previously examined, and therefore a new grounds of rejection is required.
Further, in regards to the limitation which requires that the shell tightening mechanism comprise a first push plate arranged on an extension line of an axis of the guide groove to uniformly apply force to the shell along the axis of the guide groove, the applicant asserts that Xiong’s cell moving device pushes the cell, rather than uniformly applying force to the shell, this argument has been fully considered, but is not persuasive. Where the core is pressed into the housing, the contact between the core and the housing imparts force from the core into the housing. As a result of the housing being present in the guide groove, and being held still by Xiong’s clamping jaws, the force exerted by the push plate is imparted from the cell onto the shell, meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Here, it is noted that the limitation which requires that the push plate applies force to the shell does not necessarily mean that the push plate directly applies force to the shell, or pushes the shell. In the current instant, where the push plate pushes the cell along the axis of the guide groove, which in turn pushes the walls of the shell, the push plate can be considered to uniformly apply force to the shell along the axis of the guide groove.
Further, the claim does not necessarily require that the push plate uniformly apply force to the shell along the axis of the guide groove. Rather, in requiring that the push plate is arranged on an extension line of the axis of the guide groove to apply said force, the claim is reciting an intended use of the structure. As the invention of Xiong includes a push plate that pushes along an axis of the guide groove, it is therefore capable of applying said force uniformly to the shell along the axis of the guide groove, in the event that the push plate directly pushes the shell.
Additionally, the applicant’s asserts that claim 1 recites a top block belonging to the shell tightening mechanism, and an object to which the top block recited is applied is also the shell, and the frustum-shaped top block plays a role in fixing the shell by inserting an end of the top block into the shell
First, it is noted that the limitation’s only interaction between the top block and the shell is the portion which requires that “an end of the top block inserted into the shell being configured to fix the shell”. This limitation is intended use, as it does not necessarily require that an end of the top block be inserted into the shell, but rather that in the event that an end of a top block is inserted into the shell, that it fixes the shell. Additionally, where the applicant asserts that Xiong is silent in regards to the specific shape of the pressure head, their figure 6, which is a schematic of their battery core moving device, shows that the pressure head 12 has a frustum shaped segment, with the frontmost portion of said component being a truncated cone/pyramid. Accordingly, in the event that the end of the top block is inserted into the shell, as the shell is held in place by Xiong’s clamping jaws, the end of the top block would work in concert with the clamping jaws to further fix the shell, as is required by the instant claim.
Further, in regards to the applicant’s arguments directed towards the reference Luo, said arguments are moot as Luo is not relied upon in the rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-103779528-B) in further view of Jiang (CN 110010952 A) and further in view of Xiong (CN 207097967 U).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma discloses structure which comprises a full-tab cell production line for processing the full tab cell (Abstract, “The invention discloses an assembly process of a cylindrical lithium-ion cell.”) wherein the full-tab cell comprises a shell and a core (Abstract, “The assembly process comprises the steps of (1), ultrasonically flattening two ends of a winding core; (2), wrapping two ends of the winding core with bottom adhesive tapes; (3), inserting the winding core into a shell; (4),”), and a positive current collector and a negative current collector (Paragraph 0005, “full tab battery positive and negative pole piece coating time, reserve a portion not coated side of active material at the edge, assembling cell, the partial side as tab are respectively welded with the anode and cathode collector or shell;”), where the core is disposed in the shell (Abstract, “inserting the winding core into a shell; (4),”). Additionally, Ma discloses structure wherein two ends of the core are welded with the positive and negative current collectors respectively (Paragraph 0007, “the lithium ion battery rolling core two ends welding combination of collecting plate with the cover plate;”).
Here, Ma discloses structure where each of the positive and negative current collector comprises a first cover plate, a second cover plate, and a tab connected in sequence, (Page 2, “The collecting plate is bent at the ear, and the tab of the collecting plate is bent and shaped by 90 degrees so that the cover plate is perpendicular to the flat plane of the winding core;”), where the layered configuration of the collector plate, tab and cover plate is such that the collector plate can be understood to be an internal first cover plate, and the cover plate is the second cover plate.
Additionally, Ma discloses structure wherein the full-tab cell production line comprises a flattening unit (Page 2, “Ultrasonic flattening both ends of the lithium ion battery core;”), a gluing unit (Page 2, “Pack the bottom tape on both ends of the Li-Ion battery core to ensure that the battery core is not short-circuited;”), a shell insertion unit (Page 2, “The lithium ion battery core is inserted into the shell;”) and a current collector welding unit (Page 2, “Welding a combination of a current collecting plate and a cover plate at both ends of the lithium ion battery core;”), which are sequentially arranged in the aforementioned order (Page 2, “A cylindrical lithium ion battery assembly process, the process specifically comprising the following steps:…”).
Here, Ma discloses structure where the flattening unit comprises an ultrasonic flattening sub-unit configured to perform ultrasonic flattening pretreatment on both end surfaces of the core (Page 2, “Ultrasonic flattening both ends of the lithium ion battery core;”). Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the flattening unit comprises a mechanical flattening sub-unit configured to mechanically flatten the end surfaces of the core after the flattening pretreatment, Ma discloses a later step of the placement of their cover plates on the winding core (Page 2, “The cover plate is embedded, and the combination of the current collecting plate and the cover plate is closed with the lithium ion battery core;”). Here, where the placement of said plates against the core must constitute the plates defining an outer bound to which the core can extend, this therefore represents a flattening, and accordingly, the placement of the cover plates is a mechanical flattening. Therefore, the unit of Ma which places the cover plates can be considered to be a mechanical flattening sub-unit configured to mechanically flatten the end surfaces of the core after the flattening pre-treatment. Additionally, where the claim requires that the mechanical flattening sub-unit is configured to mechanically flatten the end surfaces after the flattening pretreatment, the “after” requirement, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, requires that the mechanical flattening can happen at any time following the ultrasonic flattening pretreatment, rather than require that the mechanical flattening directly follow the ultrasonic flattening pretreatment.
Additionally, Ma discloses structure wherein the gluing unit is configured to wrap insulation tape around a flattened core (Page 3, “Packing the bottom tape at both ends of the core: This process separates the two ends of the core from the casing to ensure that the core is not short-circuited. The core of this process has not been inserted into the shell, and there is no blockage of the battery casing during the rubber coating process. To ensure the smooth progress of the process, as shown in Figure 3.”), and where the shell insertion unit is configured to insert the core wrapped with the insulation tape into the shell (Page 3, “The core is inserted into the shell: in this process, the core is first inserted into the outer casing, and then the tape on both sides of the pole is shaped.”).
Additionally, though Ma discloses structure which comprises a shell insertion unit (Page 2, “The lithium ion battery core is inserted into the shell;”) they are silent in regards to the overall structure of said shell insertion unit. Accordingly, we look to Xiong, which discloses structure which comprises a shell insertion unit (Abstract, “Shell machine is gone into automatically to battery electricity core replaces traditional processing mode with full automated processing mode, has increased substantially the assembly efficiency of electric core and casing, has practiced thrift the cost.”). Here, where Ma is silent in regards to the structure of their shell insertion unit, and Xiong discloses that their unit facilitates core insertion while reducing cost (Abstract, “Shell machine is gone into automatically to battery electricity core replaces traditional processing mode with full automated processing mode, has increased substantially the assembly efficiency of electric core and casing, has practiced thrift the cost.”), it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the shell insertion unit of Xiong for the shell insertion unit of Ma.
Here, Xiong discloses structure wherein the shell insertion unit comprises a shell tightening mechanism (Page 2, “The tightening device 4,”), as well as a core pushing mechanism (Page 3, “When coaxial, the housing moving device 5 pushes the housing 8 into the cell guide groove 3,”), and a guide groove (Page 3, “When coaxial, the housing moving device 5 pushes the housing 8 into the cell guide groove 3,”). Additionally, Xiong discloses structure wherein the shell tightening mechanism is arranged at the first end of the guide groove, as depicted in Xiong’s figure 1, and wherein the core pushing mechanism is arranged at a second end of the guide groove (Page 3, “At the same time, the cell moving device 6 pushes the cell 7 into the cell guide groove 3, and the housing 8 and the cell 7 are assembled in the cell guide slot 3.”).
Additionally, Xiong discloses structure wherein the shell tightening mechanism comprises a first push plate arranged along an axial direction of the guide groove (Page 3, “the cell moving device 6 pushes the cell 7 into the cell guide groove 3, and the housing 8 and the cell 7 are assembled in the cell guide slot 3.”) through their disclosure of the moving plate pushing the cell, the moving device must therefore comprise a face which is a push plate which pushes.
In regards to the limitation that requires that the push plate is arranged on an extension line of an axis of the guide groove to uniformly apply force to the shell along the axis of the guide groove, where the core is pressed into the housing, the contact between the core and the housing imparts force from the core into the housing. As a result of the housing being present in the guide groove, and being held still by Xiong’s clamping jaws, the force exerted by the push plate is imparted from the cell onto the shell, meeting the requirements of the instant claim.
Here, it is noted that the limitation which requires that the push plate applies force to the shell does not necessarily mean that the push plate directly applies force to the shell, or pushes the shell. In the current instant, where the push plate pushes the cell along the axis of the guide groove, which in turn pushes the walls of the shell, the push plate can be considered to uniformly apply force to the shell along the axis of the guide groove.
Further, the claim does not necessarily require that the push plate uniformly apply force to the shell along the axis of the guide groove. Rather, in requiring that the push plate is arranged on an extension line of the axis of the guide groove to apply said force, the claim is reciting an intended use of the structure. As the invention of Xiong includes a push plate that pushes along an axis of the guide groove, it is therefore capable of applying said force uniformly to the shell along the axis of the guide groove, in the event that the push plate directly pushes the shell.
Additionally, Xiong discloses structure wherein a side of the first push plate facing to the guide groove is provided with a frustum-shaped top block (Page 5, “the cell moving device 6 includes a pressure head 12”), as depicted in Xiong’s figure 6, which depicts a frustum shaped block 12, where a frustum is understood to be is the portion of a solid that lies between two parallel planes cutting the solid, here depicted as either a truncated cone or truncated pyramid. Additionally, Xiong discloses structure where the top block is coaxial with the guide groove (Page 1, “the housing moving device is disposed opposite to the first end of the housing; and the housing Arranging coaxially with the battery guide slot,”), and which has an end with a smaller cross-section facing the guide groove, as depicted in Xiong’s figure 12 where all faces of the block can be understood as facing the guide groove, and where an end of the top block inserted into the shell is configured to fix the shell (Page 5, “that the indenter 12 presses the battery core 7 into the housing 8 .”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that an end of the top block is inserted into the shell being configured to fix the shell, it is noted that the limitation’s only interaction between the top block and the shell is the portion which requires that “an end of the top block inserted into the shell being configured to fix the shell”. This limitation is intended use, as it does not necessarily require that an end of the top block be inserted into the shell, but rather that in the event that an end of a top block is inserted into the shell, that it fixes the shell. Additionally, where the applicant asserts that Xiong is silent in regards to the specific shape of the pressure head, their figure 6, which is a schematic of their battery core moving device, shows that the pressure head 12 has a frustum shaped segment, with the frontmost portion of said component being a truncated cone/pyramid. Accordingly, in the event that the end of the top block is inserted into the shell, as the shell is held in place by Xiong’s clamping jaws, the end of the top block would work in concert with the clamping jaws to further fix the shell, as is required by the instant claim.
Additionally, though Ma discloses structure which comprises a current collector welding unit, they do not disclose a distinct positive current collector welding unit and a distinct negative current collector welding unit. However, in their discussion of their process, they state that their process includes a step of welding the composite cover plate at both ends of the core (Page 3, “Welding the composite cover plate at both ends of the core:”), where it is discussed that their process is intended to reduce working time, improve work efficiency, and be quick and easy to implement by an automated assembly process (Page 3, “It is welded to the lithium ion battery through the flattened all-pole ear at one time, which reduces the working time, improves the work efficiency, and is convenient and quick. Easy to implement an automated assembly process.”). Based on this disclosure by Ma, in light of their statement of the process step as being “welding the composite cover plate at both ends of the core”, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to implement a process which welds both cover plates at their respective ends of the core simultaneously, so as to improve work efficiency and reduce the working time. Accordingly, this would result in a respective current collector welding unit for each side, thereby resulting in there being a positive current collector welding unit and a negative current collector welding unit, thereby reading upon the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Ma discloses structure which comprises a cap closing unit (Page 2, “The cover plate is embedded, and the combination of the current collecting plate and the cover plate is closed with the lithium ion battery core;”), and a pre-welding unit, which is arranged behind and in conjunction with the current collector welding unit (Page 2, “Welding a combination of a current collecting plate and a cover plate at both ends of the lithium ion battery core;”), which is configured to pre-weld the cover plate and collector plate to the shell (Page 3, “Welding the composite cover plate at both ends of the core:”; Page 1, “the negative electrode is welded with the battery cover - the positive ear is welded”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-103779528-B) in further view of Jiang (CN 110010952 A) and further in view of Xiong (CN 207097967 U), further in view of Zhang (US 20140087225 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Ma discloses structure where the ultrasonic flattening sub-unit comprises ultrasonic flattening heads arranged at both ends of the core, as shown in their figure 1 (Page 2, “Ultrasonic flattening both ends of the lithium ion battery core;”). Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the ultrasonic flattening heads are provided with grooves, and both ends of the core are inserted into the grooves respectively, Ma discloses said structure, disclosing that the ultrasonic levelling which flattens both ends of their core includes flattening of a depth of 1-3 mm (Page 3, “This process uses ultrasonic leveling to slightly shape the ends of the lithium ion battery core. Through vibration and extrusion, the ends are respectively 1-3 mm into the core. Depth, see Figure 1.”). As depicted in their figure 1, where the ultrasonic flattening heads are wider than the core body, for the ultrasonic vibration to contact up to 3 mm inside the core, the ultrasonic flattening head must therefore extend into the core. For the head to extend into the core without it fully pressing in all of the elements of the core the surrounding elements (i.e. the elements of the core which are not flattened so to allow the measurement of 1-3 mm) must enter into an open space within the ultrasonic flattening head, thereby representing structure where said open space is a groove, which both ends of the core are inserted into respectively.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that with each of the grooves having a bottom with a grid-like convex structure, Ma fails to teach this structure, being silent in regards to the specific the texture of their ultrasonic flattening head. Therefore, we look to Zhang, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of shaping end faces of battery cores (Paragraph 0008, “a method for shaping tab-position end faces of a core winder is provided”). Zhang discloses that their method of shaping end faces of battery cores comprises ultrasonic flattening (Paragraph 0009, “Wherein, the foil bodies of the tab-position end face are oscillated at a high frequency with a 0.1-100.5 KW high-power ultrasonic wave.”). Further, Zhang discloses that their ultrasonic flattening head has the form of a planar face with bulges (Paragraph 0013, “The ultrasonic high-frequency oscillation head is a planar face or a planar face with bulges”). A planar face with bulges is structure that satisfies the shape of a face with a grid-like convex structure, each bulge being one element in said grid. Accordingly, where Ma is silent in regards to the texture of their ultrasonic flattening head, and Zhang discloses an ultrasonic flattening head with the texture of a grid-like convex structure, based on a reasonable expectation of known results, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the grid-like convex structure texture of the ultrasonic flattening head of Zhang to the ultrasonic flattening head of Ma, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-103779528-B) in further view of Jiang (CN 110010952 A) and further in view of Xiong (CN 207097967 U), further in view of Venkateswaran (US 20180108496 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, Ma discloses structure wherein the mechanical flattening sub-unit comprises a mechanical flattening head disposed opposite to the end surface of the core, where they disclose the application of the cover plate on both sides of the core, this therefore means that each application of the cover plate is located on a side of the core that is disposed opposite to the respective other end surface of the core, where the head which applies the cover plate is considered to be a mechanical flattening head. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the mechanical flattening head is a ceramic flattening head, Ma fails to disclose said structure, being silent in regards to the material of the head that facilitates the cover plate embedding. Therefore, we look to Venkateswaran, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of assembling battery cells (Abstract, “Heat resistant, highly conductive electrochemical cells for high temperature applications and methods of their assembly are described herein.”). Here, Venkateswaran discloses the use of heat resistant ceramic components (Abstract, “enclosed in heat resistant ceramic enclosure”), where said ceramic is directly adjacent to welded beads (Paragraph 0036, “and by laser metal tack-weld beads 14 at several places of the lid”). Based on this, the heat resistant ceramic of Venkateswaran is capable of withstanding the temperature of welding. Accordingly, where the cover plate of Ma is welded to the battery (Page 3, “laser welding combined cover plate current collecting plate of the winding core of the present invention.”) it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to have the flattening head which carries the cover plate be able to withstand the temperature of welding. Based on this, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select the heat resistant ceramic material of Venkateswaran for the mechanical flattening head of Ma, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation which requires that the mechanical flattening head is a ceramic flattening head.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-103779528-B) in further view of Jiang (CN 110010952 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 20190130559 A1) and Dixon (US 20070180690 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, Ma discloses structure which comprises a seal-welding unit (Page 2, “The cover-shell is laser welded and the laser welded cover is separately applied to the two ends of the lithium-ion battery core.”). However, Ma fails to disclose structure which comprises a coding unit and a helium detection unit.
Here, in regards to the limitation which requires a coding unit, we look to Zhang, who discloses a recognition system based on optical recognition (Abstract, “A recognition system based on OCR vision includes: a position sensor (2), an OCR vision system (3) and a control system.”), wherein their process includes engraving an identification code on a product (Paragraph 0018, “a code engraving device connected with the upper computer system and configured to engrave the identification code on the product to be processed;”), and facilitate identification of a product through imaging of a product (Paragraph 0025, “the camera is configured to send the captured image to the processor, and the processor is configured to recognize the identification code from the image, and then send the identification code to the upper computer system.”). Here, where the identification capability of individual units is a desirable outcome, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the recognition system based on engraving to the invention of Ma.
Here, in regards to the limitation which requires a helium detection unit, we look to Dixon, which discloses a helium detection unit which utilizes helium to detect gaps in seals in lithium batteries (Paragraph 0116, “The fine leak test, for example, may comprise the steps of placing the thermal battery in a chamber and purging the chamber with helium for thirty minutes, then after removing the external helium source, a `sniff` test is performed. Detection of helium by the "sniff" test may indicate an ineffective seal. The "sniff" test may be useful for detecting relatively small leaks. An ineffective seal often is detrimental to shelf life. Furthermore, testing (step 240) comprises any method for verifying that the thermal battery is sealed to within the standards specified for that particular thermal battery.”). Accordingly, where the helium detection unit of Dixon is capable of verifying the sealing status of sealed batteries, and where battery sealing is advantageous in regards to minimizing damage to battery cells, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the helium detection unit of Dixon in the cell production line of Ma.
Here, it would further be obvious to arrange the seal-welding unit, coding unit, and helium detection units sequentially, where the seal welding unit would be located behind the cap-closing and pre-welding unit where it performs sea welding on the second cover plate, where the seal welding would be obvious to apply following the pre-welding step, where the coding unit would be obvious to apply following seal welding, so as to engrave two dimensional codes to the second cover plate of completed cell units, and lastly the helium unit configured to detect sealing performance lastly, such as to evaluate the sealing status of a product which needs to undergo no additional sealing or engraving steps.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-103779528-B) in further view of Jiang (CN 110010952 A) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ran (CN 207097871 U).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, though Ma discloses structure which comprises a gluing unit (Page 2, “Pack the bottom tape on both ends of the Li-Ion battery core to ensure that the battery core is not short-circuited;”) they are silent in regards to the overall structure of said gluing unit. Accordingly, we look to Ran, which discloses structure which comprises a battery core adhesive dispense (Page 1, “The utility model relates to a battery cell manufacturing technology, and more particularly to a battery core automatic adhesive dispenser.”). Here, where Ma is silent in regards to gluing unit structure, and where Ran discloses the structure of a gluing unit that satisfies the methodological requirements of Ma, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the gluing unit structure of Ran for the gluing unit of Ma.
Here, Ran discloses structure wherein their gluing unit comprises a frame (Page 1, “According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a battery core automatic laminating machine including a frame,”), as well as a tape cutting mechanism 120 (Page 1, “The material device is mounted on the vertical plate, and the vertical plate is provided with a cutting device for blocking the adhesive tape,”), a core rotating mechanism 140 (Page 1, “and a rotating shaft for supporting the rotation of the battery core.”; Page 3 “The rotating shaft 140 is used to support the battery core…”), a tape unwinding mechanism 150 (Page 1, “Preferably, based on the above solution, the tape automatic discharging device comprises a rotating wheel and at least two guiding wheels,”), a tape stretching mechanism 160 (Page 3, “In another preferred embodiment of the present invention, between the rotating wheel 151 and the guide wheel 153 of the present invention, a pressure adjusting device 160 for flattening the adhesive tape is also installed, and the pressure adjusting device 160 can be used to achieve Tape tension adjustment, so as to avoid too tight or too loose tape, affect the core paste effect.”).
Additionally, in regards to the core lifting mechanism, Ran does not specifically disclose it as a distinct mechanism. However, the structure of the core rotating mechanism includes discrete structure which holds the core and supports it during movement (Page 3, “The rotating shaft 140 is used to support the battery core and allows the battery core to rotate relative to the vertical board 110.”). Accordingly, the outer face of the rotating shaft which is in contact with the core to hold and support it functions to lift the core and keep it elevated so as to be accessible to the other units of the gluing mechanism. Therefore, this contact region between the rotating shaft and the core is the core lifting mechanism.
Additionally, Ran discloses structure wherein the frame is provided with a vertically arranged upright plate on which the tape unwinding mechanism is installed, depicted in Ran’s figure 1, where the tape stretching mechanism is configured to move along a length direction of the upright tape (Page 3, “In another preferred embodiment of the present invention, between the rotating wheel 151 and the guide wheel 153 of the present invention, a pressure adjusting device 160 for flattening the adhesive tape is also installed, and the pressure adjusting device 160 can be used to achieve Tape tension adjustment, so as to avoid too tight or too loose tape, affect the core paste effect.”), as well as the tape cutting mechanism 120 installed on the upright plate located above the tape stretching mechanism (Page 3, “and a cutting device 120 and a clip are provided on the vertical plate 110.”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure wherein the core lifting mechanism is configured to lift the core to a predetermined height, Ran fails to disclose said structure, instead disclosing, as discussed above, that the core rotating mechanism which holds the face which is the core lifting mechanism is structured so as to hold the core at a height which is a predetermined height (Page 3, “The rotating shaft 140 is used to support the battery core and allows the battery core to rotate relative to the vertical board 110.”). Therefore we look to Jiang, which discloses an electric core stacking device (Abstract, “The invention claims an electric core stacking device,”) comprising a core lifting and core rotating part (Abstract, “wherein the electric core stacking part comprises electric core rotating working part and an electric core stacking mechanism, electric core rotating working part is provided with an electric core feeding mechanism,”). Here, Jiang discloses that their mechanism which comprises a lifting mechanism and rotating mechanism is a part of a gluing mechanism (Page 6, “the electric core gluing mechanism 11 set on the electric core coating station 102, which is configured to power the core coating the rotation to the electric core is coated with glue at the station 102. As shown in FIG. 7, in a specific embodiment, the gluing mechanism of electric core 11 comprising a translation mechanism 111, a lifting mechanism 112 and dispensing head 113,”), where the lifting mechanism is positioned to facilitate effective coating of the core (Page 3, “a lifting mechanism 112 drives the dispensing head 113 to move up and down so as to realize the dispensing head 113 the bearing feeding mechanism coating the electric core of the electric core 100.”). Accordingly, based on this, to achieve and facilitate coating of the core by the gluing mechanism of Ran, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify the core rotation and lifting mechanism of Ran to allow for lifting to a height so as to achieve and optimize full coating, thereby representing structure wherein the core lifting device lifts the core to a predetermined height, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Additionally, Ran discloses structure wherein the core lifting mechanism is installed below the tape stretching mechanism 160 and is located right below the tape cutting mechanism 120, as depicted in Ran’s figure 2, where the contact face of the core and the rotating shaft is located below the tape stretching mechanism and right below the tape cutting mechanism. Accordingly, based on the interpretation, wherein the core lifting mechanism is the face of the core rotating mechanism which contacts the core, the core lifting mechanism is located directly above the core rotating mechanism, and therefore where the core rotating mechanism 140 is installed below the tape stretching mechanism and directly below the tape cutting mechanism, as depicted in figure 2, the core lifting mechanism also possesses those spatial position attributes, thereby reading upon the limitation in question.
Additionally, where the core rotating mechanism face which is the core lifting mechanism is located on one side of the core rotating mechanism, based on that axis which is the face that separates the core rotating and core lifting mechanisms, the core rotating and core lifting mechanisms are disposed opposite to each other.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Ran discloses structure where the tape unwinding mechanism comprises a runner and at least two guide wheels (Page 1, “Preferably, based on the above solution, the tape automatic discharging device comprises a rotating wheel and at least two guiding wheels,”), where the runner and at least two guide wheels are respectively rotatably installed on the upright plate, as depicted in Ran’s figure 1 which depicts the placement of rotating wheel 151 and two guiding wheels 153 (Page 3, “invention includes a rotating wheel 151 and at least two guiding wheels 153,”), where at least one of the guide wheels is arranged in parallel with the tape stretching mechanism and another one of the at least two guide wheels is arranged in parallel with the runner, which structure is further depicted by the alignment of the components presented in Ran’s figure 1.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Ran discloses structure wherein the core rotating mechanism comprises a motor and a roller and where the roller is installed on an output shaft of the motor so that the roller touches a surface of the core (Page 1, “The cutting device is disposed on the In the upper part of the rotating shaft, the driving device is disposed opposite to the rotating shaft, and the driving device includes a motor and a driving wheel, and the driving wheel is mounted on an output shaft of the motor so that the driving wheel is The cell surfaces are in contact.”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN-103779528-B) in further view of Ran (CN 207097871 U), and Jiang (CN 110010952 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Xiong (CN 207097967 U).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Ma makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Here, though Ran discloses structure which comprises a core lifting mechanism as discussed above in regards to Claim 4, said core lifting mechanism does not comprise a pair of core lifting units arranged opposite to each other. Therefore, we look to Xiong, which discloses structure which comprises a lifting cylinder which moves a battery core housing (Page 2, “Wherein, the housing clamping device comprises a three-axis cylinder and a clamping cylinder, wherein the three-axis cylinder is connected with the clamping cylinder, and the three-axis cylinder is used for controlling the clamping cylinder to move up and down; The jaw cylinder serves to clamp the housing.”). Additionally, Xiong discloses structure where the core lifting unit comprises said lifting cylinder which is Xiong’s three-axis cylinder as well as a jacking support wheel, which is Xiong’s clamping cylinder (Page 2, “and a clamping cylinder,”), as well as a mounting base for the jacking support wheel and the core lifting unit in whole, as depicted in Xiong’s figure 2. Here, Xiong further depicts structure wherein the mounting base is installed at a movable end of the lifting cylinder, where the lifting cylinder moves from the end adjacent to the mounting base.
Here, it would be obvious to make use of the core lifting mechanism of Xiao, as they disclose that it allows for the clamping and moving of a battery core, restricting the degrees of freedom of the battery core, as well as minimizing shaking of the battery core (Page 5, “Preferably, the three-axis cylinder in the housing clamping device 4 is fixed on the platform, the clamping jaw cylinder controls the two clamping jaws, the housing 8 is clamped, the degree of freedom of the housing 8 is restricted, and the housing 8 and the battery core 7 are prevented. Shaking of the housing during assembly causes assembly failure.”).
Additionally, it would further be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of a pair of core lifting units arranged opposite to each other, so as to lift the battery core from two sides and allow for core rotation and application of the adhesive tape, where said capability is fundamental to the invention of Ran. This would in turn result in structure where the core lifting mechanism comprises a pair of core lifting units arranged opposite to each other, as well as each core lifting unit being provided with its own jacking support wheel and the adjacent support wheel of the other unit, which are arranged at intervals, as is required by the instant claim.
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights