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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 6/30/25 is acknowledged. Further, Species IA-IC are existed in group I however no burden to examination Group I claims 1-11 at this point of time. Therefore, the further restriction of species IA-IC has been withdrawn.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-11 as following:
Drawings
Figure 1 of the drawings should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the elected claims 1-11 directed to an assembly line (or laminated apparatus) as represented in the preamble of the claims, therefore the Examiner only relies on only the structure inventive features of the claimed apparatus but not the operational intended used after each of the structure features in the body of claim 1 and other dependent claims thereto.
“a lamination part” (claim 1, line 4) should be more specific since it is not known exactly what structure feature is referring to as “a lamination part”?
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 1-11 is/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.
The phrases: “configured to” occurrence after each part cited in the claim (see claim 1, lines 4, 6, 8 and 11) is not known if the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, since the elected claims 1-11 directed to “an apparatus” not the optional in form of operation. In formulate the rejection on the merits the Examiner presumes that the scope of the claim directed to an apparatus and claims will be rejected accordingly.
Note: the phrase(s) "configured to, adapted to, capable of, operable to, and/or can be" is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04 and/or 2173.05(d). The office hereby notes the phrase(s) do not limit a claim to a particular structure but rather makes optional and does not denote how features are structurally associated; whereas the claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions. If a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, then the claim may be deemed indefinite. See Board Decision: Ex parte Miyazaki, 2008 WL 5105055 at *5(BPAI Nov. 19, 2008). Going further, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of, adapted to, configured to, operable to and/or can" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Similar to claim 1 above the phrases such as ”configured to” also existed in claims 2-4, 6-8, line 2 and claims 9, lines 4, 6 , claim 10, line 3, respectively which is/are not positive structure limitations (see noted above).
Claims 2-5 and 7 directed to a list or number of parts (entities) but lacking of where these parts are being used or mounted in order to form the claimed lamination apparatus. Thus claims 2-7 considered to be incomplete.
Claim 6 directed to the intended use and no inventive feature existed in claim 6.
Claims 8-11 are also objected to as being depended to an informal base claim 1 (see above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Applicant Admitted prior Art (AAPA, see Fig. 1 and discussion under the heading “Background”, pages 1-6). In an alternative is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Bong et al (KR20200066901).
AAPA (see Fig. 1, and discussed in pages 1-6 related to Fig. 1) discloses the claimed lamination apparatus 1000 for manufacturing an electrode cell assembly by laminating an electrode and a separator respectively unwound from an electrode roll and a separator roll, the lamination apparatus comprising:
a lamination part (designated as A section) configured to laminate the electrode cell assembly (see Fig. 1);
an inspection part (as designated by B section) configured to detect a defective electrode cell assembly by measuring a thickness of the electrode cell assembly (see Fig. 1);
a discharge part 300 (following B section as shown in Fig. 1) configured to separate the defective electrode cell assembly from the lamination apparatus and to discharge the defective electrode cell assembly from the lamination apparatus; and
a control part (see discussion in lines 18-20 of page 5), configured to calculate a time point at which the defective electrode cell assembly reaches the discharge part on the basis of distance data between a point at which the defective electrode cell assembly is detected and the discharge part and separate,
PNG
media_image1.png
343
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the control part configured to discharge the defective electrode cell assembly when the defective electrode cell assembly reaches the discharge part (see Fig. 1 and discussed at bottom of page 5 about lines 18-20, respectively).
if argues that the AAPA does not teach a control part (in term of control unit) then refers to Bong et al for the teaching of control unit 150, 250 of Figs 2 and 5. Therefore, at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the Bong’s teaching as noted above onto invention of AAPA in order to form the lamination apparatus having the above feature by utilize with the known and available concepts facilitate of operation would result.
As applied to claims 2-4, refer to AAPA, for teaching of conveyors c1-c2 and driving parts 10, Fig. 1, respectively.
As applied to claims 4-5, noting the bong et al discloses the thickness measurement unit 110/210 (see Figs. 2 and 5, and discussed under abstract and reference sign list of translation).
Limitation of claim 11 is also met by the AAPA as modified by the Bong (see Figs. 2 and 5 of the bong for the teaching of control unit 150, 250).
Limitation of claim 6 is met by the AAPA since no inventive feature existed thereto only function intended use recited in claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Prosecution Insights