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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Amendments to the Specification filed 06 November 2025 are accepted and entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl.1: “battery pallet are” is believed to be in error for –battery pallets are—
Cl.3: “(LM guide” is believed to be in error for – (LM) guide--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou CN211866918U in view of Rossi 4442335.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou teaches a welding system (Fig 1) comprising:
a main conveyor (11) configured to convey a battery pallet on which a battery module assembly is mounted (100 including battery, end caps, and shell; shell, end caps, or both, may be interpreted as the pallet; [0044]);
at least two auxiliary conveyors (2; Figs 1-2 showing four auxiliary conveyors) disposed in parallel with the main conveyor (Figs 1-2);
a loading-unloading module (12) configured to transfer the battery pallet to the auxiliary conveyor (Fig 1);
clamping jigs (3) on which the battery pallets are seated whereby a welding process can be performed on the auxiliary conveyors (Figs 1-3; [0039]); and
a welding robot (welding device 4 with laser welding machine 42; [0062]) configured to weld the battery module assemblies seated on the at least two auxiliary conveyors (Figs 1-2; [0039]);
wherein the at least two auxiliary conveyors are provided in parallel with a conveyance direction of the battery module assembly mounted on the main conveyor (2s are geometrically in parallel with 11 and the conveyance direction of the battery module assemblies on 11).
Zhou does not teach using at least two welding robots for the auxiliary conveyors rather than a single one.
However, Rossi teaches using multiple welding stations with parallel conveyor lines (Fig 3; two welding robots per station; col.3 ll.57-65) in order to accommodate welding operations with relatively long cycle time while maintaining efficiency, in addition to redundancy (col.3 ll.24-46).
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 single welding robot of Zhou, to use at least two welding robots for each auxiliary conveyor line as taught by Rossi, in order to accommodate welding operations with relatively long cycle time while maintaining efficiency, in addition to redundancy (col.3 ll.24-46).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches the loading-unloading module is configured to transfer the battery pallet, which is conveyed along the main conveyor, to the auxiliary conveyor (Fig 1; [0044])
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches the clamping jig comprises:
a support plate (311) on which the battery module is seated ([0047]);
a first pressing jig (any first one of 332, 331, 322) configured to press, in a first direction (332, 331, 322 pressing in three different orthogonal directions), a welding object (any of corresponding 3322, 3311, 3313, 3221, 3222, 3223) against the battery module assembly seated on the support plate ([0052, 55, 57, 59]);
a second pressing jig (any second one of 332, 331, 322) configured to press, in a second direction (332, 331, 322 pressing in three different orthogonal directions), another welding object (any of corresponding 3322, 3311, 3313, 3221, 3222, 3223) against the battery module assembly seated on the support plate ([0052, 55, 57, 59]); and
a back-up jig (any third one of 332, 331, 322) configured to fix, in a third direction, the battery pallet seated on the support plate ([0052, 55, 57, 59]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches the support plate comprises a support pad (3111) and a support protrusion (312) that set a direction and a position of the battery pallet ([0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches a dust removal device (5) including a suctional module (incl. blower and dust removal pipe; [0060]) provided on the clamping jig (5, 51 in Fig 2; 33321 in Fig 7; [0060]) and configured to remove spatters produced by the welding process ([0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou in view of Rossi as discussed so far, does not teach wherein: when any one of the at least two auxiliary conveyors is abnormal, a welding process is performed on the battery module assembly by the other auxiliary conveyor.
However, Rossi further teaches that when any one of the at least two auxiliary conveyors is abnormal (e.g. under maintenance), a welding process is performed on the battery module assembly by the other auxiliary conveyor (col.1 ll.49-62; col.3 ll.24-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Zhou in view of Rossi to weld assemblies on one auxiliary conveyor when another auxiliary conveyor is abnormal as taught by Rossi, in order to provide redundancy and partially uninterrupted production (Rossi; col.3 ll.24-46).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou in view of Rossi further teaches the system is capable of using two welding robots to perform the welding process on the battery module assembly loaded onto the other auxiliary conveyor.
That is, Zhou teaches the welding robot (4) being capable of welding on all the conveyors.
While Rossi teaches parallel welding stations with respective robots for redundancy and capacity (col.1 ll.49-62; col.3 ll.24-46).
Thus, the combined system of Zhou and Rossi as discussed above, is capable of at least two robots performing welding on a battery module on one of the auxiliary conveyors (one by the device 4 that can operate on all the conveyors, and one by the respective parallel welding robot of the respective conveyor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Zhou in view of Rossi to weld assemblies on one auxiliary conveyor using two robots as taught by Zhou and Rossi above, in order to provide redundancy and partially uninterrupted production (Rossi; col.3 ll.24-46).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou in view of Rossi as discussed so far, does not teach wherein: when any one of the at least two welding robots is abnormal, a welding process is performed on the battery module assembly by the other welding robot.
However, Rossi further teaches that when any one of the at least two welding robots is abnormal (e.g. under maintenance), a welding process is performed on the battery module assembly by the other welding robot (col.1 ll.49-62; col.3 ll.24-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Zhou in view of Rossi to weld assemblies with one robot when the other robot is abnormal as taught by Rossi, in order to provide redundancy and partially uninterrupted production (Rossi; col.3 ll.24-46).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches a detection unit (incl. 62, 3113, and any other sensor/control devices/persons for detecting) configured to detect a state information of the battery module assembly (62 detecting whether the height difference between weld components is within acceptable range, [0061]), and a state information of the at least two auxiliary conveyors (3113 detecting whether the jig of the respective auxiliary conveyor is occupied, [0047])
Zhou in view of Rossi as discussed so far, does not teach the detection unit also detecting a state information of the at least two welding robot.
However, Rossi further teaches detecting state information (e.g. by human observation) of e.g. a first auxiliary (parallel) welding station (comprising welding robot with welder) so as to use e.g. a second of the auxiliary welding stations when the first auxiliary welding station is down for servicing (col.1 ll.49-62; col.3 ll.24-46). The detection involves monitoring both welding stations/robots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Zhou in view of Rossi could be used with state detection of any one or more of the conveyors, batteries, welding robots, and welders as discussed above, in order to carry out the redundant operation taught by Rossi (col.1 ll.49-62; col.3 ll.24-46). Note, MPEP2144.04(III) provides that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (sensors and controllers) to replace a manual activity (human observation of components such as welder and welding robot needing servicing or being serviced) which accomplishes the same result (of redundant welding lines as taught by Rossi) is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches the system comprising multiple moving mechanical parts and processes occurring simultaneously in the system, all of which requiring control by some device or person (i.e. a controller), based on at least the state detection of defective products ([0061]).
Further note, MPEP2144.04(III) provides that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (data transfer via signal transmission to a controller) to replace a manual activity (human observation of components/sensors and control of mechanical apparatuses) which accomplishes the same result (of adequate control of redundant welding lines for at least partially uninterrupted production as taught by Rossi; with management of defective units as taught by Zhou) is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches the welding system of claim 1 as discussed above. Zhou further teaches a welding method (using the system of Fig 1) including
determining whether respective states of the at least two auxiliary conveyors is normal (3113 detecting whether the jig of the respective auxiliary conveyor is occupied, [0047]); and.
welding the battery module assembly by using the welding robot and the auxiliary conveyor based on a state of the welding robot and a state of the at least two auxiliary conveyors (welding device 4 welds battery product 100 on jig 3 when all components are operating normally and a battery is present on the jig).
Zhou does not specifically teach determining whether the welding robot is normal.
However, Rossi teaches determining whether e.g. a first welding station (including welding robots with welders) is being serviced (abnormal) and: 1) using the first welding station when the it is not being serviced (i.e. normal); and 2) using e.g. a second welding station when the first welding station is being serviced (i.e. abnormal).
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 system of Zhou to include determination of whether a welding station (with welding robots) is being serviced as taught by Rossi, in order to provide redundancy and partially uninterrupted production (Rossi; col.3 ll.24-46).
Regarding claims 16-19, the claims are conditional method claims composed of contingent limitations, for which MPEP211.04(II) provides that the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the claimed invention can be performed without any of the welding robots or auxiliary conveyors being abnormal. Thus, claims 17-19 do not require any limitations (and therefore any art rejection) beyond claim 15 (and therefore the refection of claim 15) upon which they depend. Nevertheless, the following rejections are still provided.
Regarding claim 16, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including multiple welding robots and multiple auxiliary conveyors). Zhou further teaches wherein: when the state(s) of the welding robot(s) and the auxiliary conveyor(s) are normal, the battery module assemblies on the auxiliary conveyor(s) are welded (per normal operation of the system of Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches when the state(s) of the welding robot(s) is normal, it/they weld(s) the battery module assemblies on the normal auxiliary conveyor (per normal operation of the system of Fig 1).
Zhou in view of Rossi also teaches when the state(s) of the at least two welding robots are normal and any one of the states of the at least two auxiliary conveyors is abnormal, the normal two welding robots weld the battery module assemblies on the normal auxiliary conveyor.
That is, Rossi teaches using two welding robots per auxiliary conveyor (col.3 ll.57-65) and redundant operation wherein, when e.g. a first welding station (including conveyor) is down for servicing, e.g. a second welding station (including conveyor and two robots) is operated normally for redundant and at least partially uninterrupted operation (col.1 ll.49-62; col.3 ll.24-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou in view of Rossi, to use at least two welding robots for each auxiliary conveyor line as taught by Rossi, in order to provide redundancy and partially uninterrupted production (Rossi; col.3 ll.24-46).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches determining whether the auxiliary conveyor disposed adjacent to the normal welding robot is normal when the state of any one of the at least two welding robots is abnormal (i.e. Zhou uses detection device 3113 one each jig of each auxiliary conveyor regardless of whether the robot(s) is normal or abnormal); and
when the state of the auxiliary conveyor disposed adjacent to the normal welding robot is normal, the normal welding robot welds the battery module assembly on the normal auxiliary conveyor (i.e. normal operation of the system in Fig 1).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Rossi, and further in view of Kim KR20220028722A and Layosa (Carlicia Layosa, Lead Screw vs. Ball Screws, 10 June 2014, Misumi Mech Lab Blog, https://us.misumi-ec.com/blog/lead-screws-vs-ball-screws-differences-benefits-accuracy/?srsltid=AfmBOooq1zm0kwbmNyVPgHCm2Szrik75LrmcX1SITPeFae9GqUUM9LlC).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches the auxiliary conveyor comprises:
a drive unit (22) configured to generate power (to move the jigs 3; “motor” [0045]);
means of connecting the drive unit to a moveable plate of the clamping jig to move the jig and battery pallet (Fig 1; [0045]); and
a linear motion (LM) guide configured to guide the clamping jig (21 includes slide rail; [0045]).
Zhou in view of Rossi does not specifically teach the means of connecting the drive unit to the battery pallet being a lead screw connected to a rotary shaft of the drive unit and screw-coupled to the battery pallet.
However, Kim20220028722 teaches the substitutional equivalence of using a linear motor conveyor drive and a ball screw conveyor drive ([0025], among others). Ball screw conveyor drive, by definition including a lead screw connected to a rotary shaft of the drive unit and coupled to the object to be moved.
And Layosa teaches the substitutional equivalence of ball screw and lead screw drives (p.2 para.1).
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 linear motor (belt) drive of Zhou in view of Rossi, to be a lead screw mechanism as taught by Kim and Layosa, because Kim and Layosa teach the substitutional equivalence of using linear motor belt drives and lead screw drives for linear conveyance (Kim [0025]; Layosa p.2 para.1).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Rossi, and further in view of Wu CN108406109A and Ocean Explorium (Can Ocean Water Be Used to Fight Fires?, 15 April 2022, blog, https://oceanexplorium.org/can-ocean-water-be-used-to-fight-fires/).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou in view of Rossi does not teach a saltwater container configured to extinguish a fire on the battery module assembly by means of the loading-unloading module when a temperature of the battery module assembly is a preset temperature or higher or when a fire occurs on the battery module assembly.
However, Wu CN108406109 teaches a water container (explosion-proof water tank) configured to extinguish a fire on the battery module assembly by means of a loading-unloading module ([0025, 29]) when a temperature of the battery module assembly is a preset temperature or higher or when a fire occurs on the battery module assembly ([0029]).
And Ocean Explorium teaches saltwater and fresh water being generally interchangeable for extinguishing fires (p.2).
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 system of Zhou in view of Rossi to include a saltwater extinguishing tank in reach of the loading/unloading module in order to extinguish detected battery fires during the welding process (Wu, [0025, 29]) using suitable extinguishing agent (saltwater; Ocean Explorium, p.2). See also MPEP2144.07 providing selection of a known material (i.e. saltwater) based on it suitability for its intended use (fire extinguishing) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Rossi, and further in view of Jung 20070000883.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou in view of Rossi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou further teaches the welding being laser welding ([0057, 62]).
Zhou in view of Rossi as discussed so far, does not teach the at least two welding robots comprise an oscillator configured to emit laser beams.
However, Jung 20070000883 further teaches welding robots may use a laser oscillator to generate the welding laser beam ([0009]).
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 nondescript laser welders of Zhou in view of Rossi, to use the oscillator as taught by Jung because it has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, both the nondescript laser welder of Zhou (in view of Rossi) and the laser (with oscillator) welder of Jung, provide laser welding as required by Zhou (in view of Rossi).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou in view of Rossi and Jung teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Zhou in view of Rossi and Jung as discussed so far, does not teach the at least two welding robots comprise a chiller configured to cool the oscillator.
However, Jung further teaches using a chiller to cool the oscillator ([0014]).
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 laser welders of Zhou in view of Rossi and Jung, to use a chiller in order to manage the heat produced by the laser (Jung, [0059]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the auxiliary conveyors in Zhou are in series with the main conveyor of Zhou, rather than being in parallel.
Applicant appears to argue that the claim recitations are not a geometric/mathematical parallelism but a fluid-flow- or electrical-circuit-specific interpretation of the term parallel. However, Applicant’s interpretation is not the only reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. For example, the last paragraph of page 11 states the “two auxiliary conveyors 20 are disposed adjacent to each other in parallel” which leads the audience to interpret the term parallel in a spatial-geometrical sense rather than a flow sense. The Figures also show all the conveyors in spatial-geometric parallel arrangement. In contrast, there does not appear to be any specific language to imply a flow-sense interpretation of parallel. In fact, the “flow” of battery pallets as described by pp.10-11 appears to split from the main conveyor to the two auxiliary conveyors before returning to the main conveyor, which describes parallel flow among the auxiliary conveyors but not including parallel flow along the main conveyor. If Applicant intends the main conveyor to have an extent from a first end to a second end that overlaps geometrically with the extents of the auxiliary conveyors (or any other defining structural characteristic that distinguishes Applicant’s invention from the prior art), such language should be included in the 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (5712727118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741