DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA (JP 2003242957 A, English translation used for citations, previously cited) in view of JIANZHEN (CN 103050735 A, English translation used for citations, previously cited).
Fig. 7 of FUJIWARA below for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, FUJIWARA discloses a device for assembling a button-type secondary battery (button-type is intended use) in which an electrode assembly is mounted in a can having a closed lower side and an opened upper side (as shown in Fig. 1), and when an electrode tab extending from the electrode assembly is provided in a state of being welded to an inner surface of a cap coupled to cover the upper side of the can (Fig. 7a as well as claim 2 which states “the lead is welded to the internal terminal portion of the sealing plate”) , the device comprising:
a can holder configured to vertically fix the can so that a top surface of the electrode assembly faces the upper side of the can (battery case 9 is positioned with a top surface facing an upper side as shown in Fig. 7 and therefore the assembly device has structure reading on can holder and the can is vertically fixed);
a cap holder configured to grip the cap so that the cap rotates and ascends or descends (chuck 12);
and a guide that is horizontally slidable toward the electrode tab so that an end of one side of the guide presses a predetermined point to form a bending point, at which bending of the electrode tab occurs when the electrode tab is bent (either of spatulas 13 or 14 as shown in Fig. 7 which move horizontally into and out of contact with the lead),
wherein, when the guide forms the bending point at the electrode tab, the cap holder being configured to allow the cap to be coupled to the can so that the opened upper side of the can is closed (as shown in Fig. 7, the bend(s) allow for the can/cap coupling).
Regarding the guide including a sliding device that is horizontally slidable and a blade coupled to the sliding device, FUJIWARA discloses Fig. 7 as discussed previously in which the spatulas (where the tips, or contacting edges, of the spatulas read on blades) move horizontally into and out of contact with the lead. Furthermore, FUJIWARA discloses that "to bend the lead in a serpentine shape with high accuracy, it is necessary to precisely define the bending position" [0022] as well as “achieving high-precision positioning and storage within the case” [0023]. This accuracy and precision speak to the presence of a sliding device. However, FUJIWARA does not expressly teach such a device.
JIANZHEN is directed to a pole tab bending mechanism and a pressing mechanism, like FUJIWARA. JIANZHEN discloses Fig. 1 (annotated below) with two parallel bending pieces 14 and pressing rod 13, all reading on blades. JIANZHEN shows that components 14 and 13 move in a horizontal manner due to the action of the associated arms. JIANZHEN teaches that the bending device has “good controllability” [0016], like FUJIWARA’s statements regarding precision and accuracy.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a device such as that taught by JIANZHEN for horizontally positioning the spatulas of FUJIWARA. The motivation to do so being good controllability.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA discloses the guide including a sliding device that is horizontally slidable and a blade coupled to the sliding device (as taught by JIANZHEN).
PNG
media_image2.png
950
1859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses before the guide approaches the electrode tab to define the bending point, the cap holder allows the cap to rotate in a direction perpendicular to a sliding direction of the guide (as shown in Figs. 7a and 7b).
Regarding claim 3, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses when the cap rotates in the direction perpendicular to the sliding direction of the guide, the can and the cap are fixed to be perpendicular to each other (as shown in Figs. 7a and 7b).
Regarding claim 5, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses when the cap holder couples the cap to the can, the cap holder is configured to allow the cap to rotate so that a lower edge of the cap is in contact with an upper edge of the can and is configured to allow the cap to descend so that a side surface of the can is inserted into a side surface of the cap (as shown in Figs. 7d and 7e the chuck 12 positions the sealing plate 5 such that is allowed to descend and be inserted into case 9, notably the claim is not being read as requiring the cap holder to make a final coupling, merely to allow for such an event).
Regarding claim 10, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses when the guide presses the electrode tab to form the bending point, the cap holder fixes the cap so that an opposite side of the pressed point is supported by an inner surface of the cap (as shown in Fig. 7, notably the opposite sides of lead 1a at all points are supported by the internal terminal 6 provided on the sealing plate 5, which reads on inner surface of the cap, and if were not for the support at all points the bend would not take the final desired shaped).
Regarding claim 11, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses the guide is controlled to apply a pressing force (as shown in Fig. 7). Regarding varying pressing force according to a thickness of the electrode tab, one of ordinary skill the art at the time of filing would recognize that varying thicknesses of tabs would require different pressing force. The same would hold true for changes in the tab material. Notably the claim does not require sensing of tab thickness or any other limitations toward anything like real-time adjustments based on micro-variability in thickness. Instead, the claim requires the ability to control, or set, the pressing force. As such, the design of FUJIWARA indicates the pressing force, and therefore tab thickness, has been accounted for in that the device is taught as functional.
Regarding claim 14, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses the guide is configured to be controlled to apply a predetermined pressing force to the electrode tab.
FUJIWARA discloses Fig. 7 as discussed previously in which the spatulas move horizontally into and out of contact with the lead. In addition, JIANZHEN expressly teaches a guide with a sliding device that has good controllability. Furthermore, FUJIWARA discloses that "to bend the lead in a serpentine shape with high accuracy, it is necessary to precisely define the bending position" [0022] as well as “achieving high-precision positioning and storage within the case” [0023]. This accuracy and precision speak to the control of a predetermined pressing force. Like claim 11, one of ordinary skill the art at the time of filing would recognize that the pressing force would need to be determined based on factors well within the control of one of ordinary skill in the art such as lead thickness and lead material. The claim requires the ability to control, or set, the predetermined pressing force. As such, the design of modified FUJIWARA indicates the pressing force has been accounted for in that the device is taught as functional.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA in view of JIANZHEN in view of KOSUGI (JP 4276002 B2, English translation used for citations, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, FUJIWARA discloses chuck 12. However, FUJIWARA does not expressly teach a vacuum device.
KOSUGI is directed to “a manufacturing device of a button type battery” which utilizes a vacuum per the abstract.
KOSUGI discloses Figs. 2 and 3 which show a vacuum device including vacuum pump 20 as well as vacuum tip 15 with conical hole 13 which contacts the metal cap 33.
KOSUGI teaches “the manufacturing apparatus .. allows a metal cap to be inserted and fixed … possible to avoid scratches and deformation of the metal cap during insertion and fixing, resulting in significant effects such as improved yield” per [0028].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to that a vacuum device such as that of KOSUGI was a viable substitute for the chuck of FUJIWARA because the vacuum device of KOSUGI allows for positioning of the cap, including inserting and fixing, while avoiding scratches and deformation while also improving yield.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA, as taught by KOSUGI, discloses a vacuum device configured to generate a negative pressure (via vacuum pump 20) so that the gripping is performed at a contact point (conical hole 13) with the cap by the negative pressure is coupled to the cap holder (as shown in KOSUGI Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and FUJIWARA further discloses the cap holder and the guide are disposed to face each other with the can holder therebetween (as shown in Fig. 7, chuck 12 faces both spatulas 13 and 14 with case 9 therebetween; notably therebetween does not imply or require all elements are on the same plane as demonstrated by instant Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 7, modified FUJIWARA discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and KOSUGI further discloses vacuum tip 15 reading on an upper coupling plate.
FUJIWARA further discloses Fig. 7 which shows the chuck 12 operating in multiple axis of travel. As shown in comparison of Figs. 7b-d, the chuck moves in a vertical manner relative to the case, reading on a second sliding part. As shown in comparison of Figs. 7c and 7d, the chuck is both capable of rotation as well as travel in a direction that is the same as the movement of either spatula 13 or 14, reading on both a rotation part and a first sliding part. Notably “a sliding direction that is the same as a direction which the guide is slid” allows for multiple interpretations. The guides, or spatulas, of FUJIWARA have both an x and y direction of travel that the chuck is able to match, as shown in Figs. 7c-d. The spatulas 13 and 14 as well as chuck 12 may also be moved in the z-axis of Fig. 7 (toward or away from the viewer) to clear the battery assembly area.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA discloses the cap holder comprises:
an upper coupling plate into which the cap is inserted to be fixed through the vacuum device (as taught by KOSUGI);
a first sliding part slid toward the can holder in a sliding direction that is the same as a direction in which the guide is slid (as taught by FUJIWARA and shown in Figs. 7c-d);
a second sliding part coupled to the first sliding part and slid to allow the cap to ascend or descend (as taught by FUJIWARA and shown in Fig. 7b-d);
and a rotation part having one end, to which the upper coupling plate is coupled, and the other end that is coupled to be rotatable on the second sliding part (as taught by FUJIWARA and shown in Figs. 7c-d),
wherein the first sliding part, the second sliding part, and the rotation part are simultaneously or individually operable (as taught by FUJIWARA and shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, FUJIWARA does not expressly teach the way the case is held.
KOSUGI discloses Fig. 3 showing table 1 with circular recesses 2 which hold annular packing 31 reading on the can.
KOSUGI teaches “the manufacturing apparatus .. allows a metal cap to be inserted and fixed … possible to avoid scratches and deformation of the metal cap during insertion and fixing, resulting in significant effects such as improved yield” per [0028].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the recesses of KOSUGI to secure the case of FUJIWARA because doing so would allow for insertion and fixing of the cap while avoiding scratches and deformation while also improving yield.
Therefore, modified FUJIWARA discloses the can holder comprises a lower coupling plate (table 1 of KOSUGI) in which a groove is punched (recesses 2 of KOSUGI) so that the can is inserted to be fixed (as taught by KOSUGI).
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 7 of the remarks, applicant states “as disclosed at paragraph [0007] of Fujiwara, it is not possible to accurately determine [control] the position of the bent part of the lead.” However, as noted in [0007] this is specifically stated as one of the “problems to be solved by the invention” [0007] by Fujiwara. Fujiwara further discloses that "to bend the lead in a serpentine shape with high accuracy, it is necessary to precisely define the bending position" [0022] as well as “achieving high-precision positioning and storage within the case” [0023], directly addressing the stated problem.
Arguments toward a sliding device and horizontally slide presented on page 7 of the remarks are moot as the arguments are directed to the amended language and the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm CT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights