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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
NOTE: line number citations in this section are based upon the Applicant’s line numbers dictated in the claim set.
Claim 1 discloses numerous limitations (at least seven) which have been found to be indefinite as follows:
1. “rotating the stack table to face a first side” (line 9; emphasis added). The obvious question which finds no answer in the claim is: “a first side” of what? It is impossible to guess what the stack table is facing
2. “fixing the negative electrode plate on the separator by the first gripper after the first gripper is released” (lines 11-12; emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The first gripper was never released.
3. “obtaining a first image by photographing the negative electrode plate stacked on the separator and by calculating a position of the negative electrode plate” (lines 13-15; emphasis added). How does “calculating a position” result in “obtaining a first image” as claimed? The Examiner understands that the first image is in part obtained “by photographing” but it is also claimed as being obtained by “calculating” which makes no logical sense. Further, there is no structure or device claimed which would be capable of performing this purported “calculating” and thus the reader is left to surmise that the calculation is nothing more than a mental process. Further still, “a position” is vague, as the reader cannot know what (structure or location) the position is in relation to.
4. “rotating the stack table to face a second side opposite to the first side and supplying the separator on the negative electrode plate after the second gripper is released” (lines 16-18; emphasis added). The “face a second side” limitation is indefinite for the same reason as #1 above. The second italicized limitation in this section is indefinite because it makes no logical sense. The “separator” was already supplied in the very first step of the claim, how is it being supplied again? Further, the negative electrode was already placed upon the separator in the third step of the claim, so how are the two being stacked again? Further still, the second gripper was never released, so there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
5. “obtaining a second image by photographing the positive electrode plate stacked on the separator and by calculating a position of the positive electrode plate and a position of the separator” (lines 21-23; emphasis added). This limitation is indefinite for the same exact reasons as #3 above.
6. “synthesizing the first image and the second image” (line 24; emphasis added). This limitation is indefinite because “synthesizing” is not an industry standard term and makes no logical sense in this context. The reader cannot possibly know what step is actually intended to take place in this purported step. Further, is this a mental step? There is no structure or device claimed to perform this indefinite “synthesizing” step, so the reader is left to guess what is being done, how it is done, and what device is used to do it.
7. “calculating a gap between the negative electrode plate, the positive electrode plate, and the separator by the synthesized first image and second image” (lines 1-3 of second page of claims; emphasis added). This limitation is impossible to interpret. First, there is no prior recitation of any gap at all, much less between all the claimed structures. Second, is it one gap between three structures, or are there more gaps? Third, what does “calculating a gap” even mean? Does is mean a gap “distance” or “width” or “height” or “thickness” or “location” or some other referential term? Further still, how does one calculate a gap “by the synthesized first image and second image”? What does “by” mean in this instance? Are the images doing the calculating?
This claim is replete with errors and the scope and/or metes and bounds are impossible to ascertain. The Applicant is strongly encouraged to rewrite this claim in a manner which is readable and understandable. As a courtesy to the Applicant this claim has been examined on the merits as best understood.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 2 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “obtaining the first image comprises photographing the negative electrode plate stacked on the separator by a first camera and a second camera installed to face the same axial direction as the negative electrode plate stacked on the separator” (lines 5-8; emphasis added). The word “by” is idiomatic and does not make logical sense in this context. Does the Applicant actually mean “using”? As in one uses a camera to take a photograph? Or does the Applicant mean that the photograph is taken “by” (i.e. “next to” or “adjacent to”) first and second cameras? Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the same axial direction”, as there is nothing in any claim language prior which discloses any “axial direction” at all, much less in relation to the negative electrode plate or separator. Further still, the term “to face” is idiomatic, and it is not clear how these elements are intended “to face” anything.
Claims 3-5 are also further rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 2.
Claim 3 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “obtaining the second image comprises photographing the positive electrode plate stacked on the separator by a third camera and a fourth camera installed to face the same axial direction as the positive electrode plate stacked on the separator at a side facing the first camera and the second camera with the stack table interposed therebetween” (lines 10-14; emphasis added). This entire claim is indefinite. The word “by” is indefinite for the same reason as in claim 2. The “same axial direction” lacks antecedent basis in the same manner as in claim 2. The “side facing the first camera and the second camera” lacks antecedent basis. The “stack table interposed therebetween” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 4-5 are also further rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 3.
Claim 4 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “obtaining the first image includes calculating the position of the negative electrode plate, and wherein calculating the position of the negative electrode plate comprises: photographing, by the first camera and the second camera, a horizontal edge and a vertical edge of the negative electrode plate; selecting two intersection points of the horizontal edge and the vertical edge of the negative electrode plate; substituting the two intersection points on a virtual calculation screen; substituting a pre-measured horizontal width of the negative electrode plate on the virtual calculation screen on which each of the two intersection points is substituted; and calculating a vertical width of the negative electrode plate by connecting the two intersection points to each other” (lines #; emphasis added). This claim is also replete with errors and makes no logical sense. How can “obtaining” an “image” comprise “calculating” position? That is not what “obtaining” means. What is “the position of the negative electrode plate” in relation to? How can “calculating the position” comprise “photographing”? That is not what “calculating” means. Is the calculating a mental process? What does “by” mean in this claim context? Does it mean “using”? If so, why not claim as much? Who or what is doing the “selecting two intersection points”? What does “substituting the two intersection points on a virtual calculation screen” even mean? Substituting the two intersection points for what? What is a “virtual calculation screen”? Is it a computer screen? Is there a computer even involved in this process? What does “substituting a pre-measured horizontal width of the negative electrode plate on the virtual calculation screen on which each of the two intersection points is substituted” mean at all? What are you substituting the “pre-measured horizontal width” for or in lieu of? What is achieved by this purported substituting? Is anything actually being modified? Is the calculating a mental step? How does one calculate a vertical width “by connecting the two intersection points to each other”? what does that phrase even mean? How can connecting two intersection points result in calculation of a vertical width? There is no known formula which would breathe life into such an indefinite limitation.
Claim 5 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “obtaining the second image includes calculating the position of the positive electrode plate and the position of the separator, and wherein calculating the position of the positive electrode plate and the position of the separator comprise: photographing, by the third camera and the fourth camera, a horizontal edge and a vertical edge of the positive electrode plate and a horizontal edge of the separator; selecting two intersection points of the horizontal edge and the vertical edge of the photographed positive electrode plate; substituting the two intersection points on a virtual calculation screen; substituting a pre-measured horizontal width of the positive electrode plate on the virtual calculation screen on which each of the two intersection points is substituted; connecting the two intersection points to each other so that a vertical width of the positive electrode plate is calculated; and calculating a vertical width of the separator by substituting a vertical gap between the separator and the positive electrode plate on the virtual calculation screen” (lines 7-24 and 1-2; emphasis added). This claim is replete with errors and makes no logical sense whatsoever. The claim is indefinite for all of the reasons as detailed above with respect to claims 1-4.
Claim 6 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “calculating the gap between the negative electrode plate, the positive electrode plate, and the separator comprises: measuring a first gap in a vertical direction between the negative electrode plate and the separator, a second gap in the vertical direction between the positive electrode plate and the separator, a third gap in a horizontal direction between the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate, and a fourth gap in the vertical direction between the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate” (lines 4-12; emphasis added). This claim is replete with errors and makes no logical sense whatsoever. The claim is indefinite for all of the reasons as detailed above with respect to claims 1-4.
Claim 7 is also further rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of its dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 6.
Claim 8 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “after the first image is obtained and the second image is obtained, correcting a position of the first image and a position of the second image to a predetermined reference position” (lines 18-20; emphasis added). It is impossible to guess how this mental step is intended to further limit the method in any manner. The scope of this claim is entirely indefinite.
Claim 9 is also further rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of its dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 8.
Claim 9 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “correcting the position of the first image and the position of the second image comprises moving the position of the first image and the second image by a difference between positions of the first image and the second image that are obtained by actual photographing and a master position, wherein the master position is a position of a reference hole that is registered in advance by photographing in a non-vibration state the reference hole formed in an outer area other than an area where the negative electrode plate, the positive electrode plate, and the separator are stacked at the stack table, and wherein the position of the first image and the position of the second image are moved by the difference between the position of the reference hole photographed together when the first image and the second image are photographed and the master position” (lines 22-24 and 1-11; emphasis added). This claim is replete with errors and makes no logical sense whatsoever. The claim is indefinite for all of the reasons as detailed above with respect to claims 1-4.
NOTE: All of the examined claims (i.e. claims 1-9) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above. These claims are replete with errors and appear to be literal translations from the original language presentation. The Examiner has endeavored to note and explain each of the indefiniteness issues; however, the Applicant is strongly encouraged to review all of the examined claim language and make any additional corrections necessary to ensure that the scope and/or metes and bounds of the claims are clear and definite. These claims have been examined as a courtesy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. NOTE: this indication of potential allowability is based upon the interpretation and examination of the claims as best understood. Upon amendment of the claims, a new interpretation and updated search will be necessitated.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The pertinent prior art has been cited by the Examiner on the record (in the concurrently mailed PTO-892). The most relevant art is to Kim et al. (KR-101956758 B1), Lin (CN 115824037 A), Kang (KR 20210031152 A) and OH et al. (US 2022/0216501 A1). Though OH discloses the stacking and table rotating steps of the claim, there is only one camera and there is no need for another camera placed in a different location and rotating the table to face that camera. Further the rotation is 90 degrees and not to an opposite side. Kim discloses using two cameras for image acquisition; however, this is to expedite the process and not to view different sides of the same stack. The remaining prior art is pertinent to the state of the art, but does not cure the deficiencies of the most relevant art.
None of the cited references appear to disclose alone nor teach in combination all of the features of claim 1, especially the rotating the stack table to face a first side; obtaining a first image by photographing the negative electrode plate stacked on the separator and by calculating a position of the negative electrode plate; rotating the stack table to face a second side opposite to the first side and obtaining a second image by photographing the positive electrode plate stacked on the separator and by calculating a position of the positive electrode plate and a position of the separator. There is no obvious reason nor long felt need to perform these steps, as the prior art sufficiently determines electrode alignment without the seemingly extraneous step of rotating the table to face a different side and then photographing the stack a second time. Even assuming, ad arguendo, that this limitation were to be discovered, there is no reasonable rationale for modifying the cited prior art to perform this step which would unnecessarily complicate the prior art methods. Such a combination would improperly rely upon hindsight rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729