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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota ‘645 (JP2002222645A) in view of Kubota ‘144 (JP2001068144A).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota ‘645 discloses an electrode winding device for winding an electrode laminate, comprising: a mandrel (6; Figure 1) for winding the electrode laminate (G), the mandrel (6) having a first end (left side end) and a second end (right side end) opposite the first end, the mandrel (6) being in the shape of a cylindrical rod (Figure 3; page 8, ¶0010, semicircular halves form a circular elongated rod), the mandrel (6) being a single piece member (page 16, ¶0021, integrated structure core having a slit may be used); a first rotation driver (2L) located at the first end of the mandrel (6) to rotate the mandrel (6); and a second rotation driver (2R) located at the second end of the mandrel (6) to rotate the mandrel (6), but fails to teach wherein each the first and second rotation drivers has a hollow having an inner diameter corresponding to an outer diameter of the mandrel such that the mandrel can be inserted into the hollows of the first and second rotation drivers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winding device of Kubota ‘645 to include a torsion angle of the mandrel due to the rotation of the first and second rotation drivers is 0.004 degrees or less in order to reduce stress and torsion on the mandrel to prevent premature failure of the mandrel and separation of the mandrel halves if a split mandrel is used, and prevent uneven winding of the electrode laminate. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Kubota ‘144 teaches a similar electrode winding device and further teaches wherein each the first and second rotation drivers (2a, 2b; Figure 3) has a hollow (recess within rotating blocks 2a,2b) having an inner diameter corresponding to an outer diameter of the mandrel (1) such that the mandrel (1) can be inserted into the hollows of the first and second rotation drivers (2a, 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winding device of Kubota ‘645 to include the hollows of the first and second rotation drivers as taught by Kubota ‘144 in order to fixedly secure the mandrel into the rotation drivers to prevent slippage and rotational movement of the mandrel relative to the rotation driver.
Regarding claim 2, Kubota ‘645 discloses wherein the first and second rotation drivers (2L, 2R) provide a rotational force to rotate the mandrel (6; page 7, ¶0009 and page 11, ¶0015, core 6 is rotated by the pair of rotating shafts 2L and 2R).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota ‘645 discloses wherein each of the first and second rotation drivers independently rotates the mandrel (6; page 7, ¶0009 and page 11, ¶0015, core 6 is rotated by the pair of rotating shafts 2L and 2R).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota ‘645 discloses wherein the first and second rotation drivers (2L, 2R) operate to rotate the mandrel (6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winding device of Kubota ‘645 to include wherein the first and second rotation drivers operate at a same rotation speed in order to reduce stress and torsion on the mandrel to prevent premature failure of the mandrel and separation of the mandrel halves if a split mandrel is used, and prevent uneven winding of the electrode laminate.
Regarding claim 7, Kubota ‘645 discloses the above electrode winding device, but fails to teach wherein the first and second rotation drivers are mechanically fastened to the mandrel in a state in which the mandrel is inserted.
Kubota ‘144 teaches a similar electrode winding device and further teaches wherein the first and second rotation drivers (2a, 2b) are mechanically fastened (page 5, ¶0006, fixing bolts) to the mandrel (1) in a state in which the mandrel (1) is inserted (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winding device of Kubota ‘645 to include the rotation drivers as taught by Kubota ‘144 in order to fixedly secure the mandrel to prevent slippage and rotational movement of the mandrel relative to the rotation driver.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota ‘645, in view of Kubota ‘144, and in further view of Kashioka (JPH1040925A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kubota ‘645 discloses the above electrode winding device, but fails to teach wherein each of the first and second rotation drivers comprises a motor.
Kashioka teaches a similar electrode winding device and further teaches wherein each of the first and second rotation drivers (4, 5; Figure 8) comprises a motor (¶0003, drivers 4 and 5 are driven to rotate in synchronization with each motor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winding device of Kubota ‘645 to include the rotation driver motors as taught by Kashioka in order to reduce gear connections and reduce the overall size of the winding device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kubota ‘645 discloses the above electrode winding device, but is not clear wherein: a maximum stress acting on the electrode laminate by the rotation of the first rotation driver and the second rotation driver is 15 MPa or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winding device of Kubota ‘645 to include a maximum stress acting on the electrode laminate by the rotation of the first rotation driver and the second rotation driver is 15 MPa or less because it is known in the art that the motors of Kashioka are synchronized, regulated, and optimized through repeated experiments accordingly to the tensile strength of the electrode laminate in order to prevent damage and wear to the electrode laminate and drivers to reduce downtime and downtime costs. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
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 HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights