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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 03/24/2023 and 01/23/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14 are amended, Claims 13 and 15-24 are canceled, Claims 25-31 are newly added and and Claims 1-12, 14 and 25-31 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature is not disclosed in the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the independent claim 1 discloses the special technical features of steps 1-4 required to achieve the method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell which are explicitly disclosed in Zang et al. as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) rejection below. Thus, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it doesn’t make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL and Claims 14 and 25-31 are withdrawn from further consideration
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2023 and 10/23/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-2, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zang et al. (CN 109244554A -Machine Translation), hereinafter "Zang".
In regard to Claim 1, Zang et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell, comprising:
step S1 - unwinding a diaphragm by using a diaphragm unwinding device (Zang, Abstract, [16]).
step S2 - hot-pressing and compositing electrode plates comprising hot-pressing and compositing a first electrode plate on a first side of the diaphragm, and hot-pressing and compositing a second electrode plate on a second side of the diaphragm, wherein the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate have opposite polarities, and the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are separately hot-pressed and composited on the two sides of the diaphragm (Zang, Abstract, [11-12, 17])
step S3 - performing Z-shaped folding on the diaphragm and the electrode plates comprising folding, in a Z-shaped folding method, the diaphragm on which the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are hot-pressed and composited, and alternately stacking the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate to form a composite stack (Zang, Claim 1, Figure 2)
step S4 - performing pressing to form a cell comprising pressing and forming the composite stack completing the Z-shaped folding into a cell product (Zang, [58-59]).
In regard to Claims 2 and 9, Zang et al. discloses the method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell of claim 1. Zang et al. also discloses wherein in the step S2, a first hot-pressing and compositing device hot-presses and composites the first electrode plate on the first side of the diaphragm, and a second hot-pressing and compositing device hot-presses and composites the second electrode plate on the second side of the diaphragm, wherein both the first hot-pressing and compositing device and the second hot-pressing and compositing device have a pre-heating and pressing function and complete the hot-pressing and compositing of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate through the pre-heating and pressing function (Zang, Abstract, [17, 55]). Zang further discloses after the step S2 is completed, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plates are distributed in a longitudinally staggered manner on the two sides of the diaphragm (Zang, 18]).
In regard to Claim 10, Zang et al. discloses the method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell of claim 1. Zang et al. also discloses wherein the diaphragm is pre-coated with composite glue; and in a process of hot-pressing and compositing the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate , the diaphragm pre-coated with the composite glue is pre-heated, the composite glue on the diaphragm is softened through a pre-heating operation, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are pressed onto corresponding positions on the diaphragm and kept pressed, and the softened composite glue bonds the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate to the corresponding positions on the two sides of the diaphragm (Zang, [56]), which is a known technique to the skilled artisan.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (CN 109244554A -Machine Translation), hereinafter "Zang" in view of Lee et al. (US 20200127317 A1), hereinafter "Lee". Zang and Lee are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode stack assembly.
In regard to Claims 3-6, Zang et al. discloses the method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell of claim 1. While Zang et al. discloses wherein before the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are hot-pressed and composited on the diaphragm, a first electrode plate is conveyed to the first side of the diaphragm, a second electrode plate is conveyed to the second side of the diaphragm, and after the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are in place, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are hot-pressed and composited on the two sides of the diaphragm (Zang, Figure 3), it is silent as to a rotating table used to convey the materials.
While the desired result of conveying the first and second electrode plate to the hot pressing and compositing stage is achieved in Zang, the skilled artisan of Zang would be aware of other methods used in the field to achieve the same result, such as the rotating tables disclosed in Lee et al. which teaches a first and second electrode being rotationally conveyed on rotating tables (electrode feeders) to a preset position wherein a plurality of suction surfaces are used to fix the electrode plates in a negative pressure suction manner (vacuum) wherein the number of suction surfaces is not particularly limited and may reasonably be up to eight if the skilled artisan requires that many to achieve the benefits taught in Lee et al. which are that the electrode members are stably gripped or released for precise control (Lee, Abstract, [0123-0124, 0140-0142]). It is also well known to the skilled artisan that vacuum adsorption pads (suction surfaces) are capable of being independently controlled by negative pressure control devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a rotating table with suction surfaces to convey the first and second electrode plates as taught in Lee et al. to convey the electrode plates to the hot pressing stage as disclosed in Zang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Lee and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 7, Zang in view of Lee et al. discloses the method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell of claim 4. While Zang et al. discloses a feeding manipulator (kneading rollers) to convey the electrode plates from a material container (710, 720) to a position where it can be further processed(Zang, Figure 3, [41,52]), it is silent as to the electrode plate being positioned on an electrode plate positioning platform and being conveyed to a work station corresponding to the first suction surface and further lifting the first electrode plate in place, wherein the electrode plate lifted in place is suctioned and fixed by the suction surface. Although the desired result of accurately conveying the material to reduce the risk of sheet misalignment is achieved in Zang (Zang, Abstract, [3]), the skilled artisan would reasonably be aware of other methods to achieve the same result.
Lee et al. discloses the electrode plate being positioned on an electrode plate positioning platform and being conveyed to a work station corresponding to the first suction surface and further lifting the first electrode plate in place, wherein the electrode plate lifted in place is suctioned and fixed by the suction surface (Lee, Abstract, [0123-0124, 0140-0142], Figures 16-17) with the benefit of that configuration being electrode plate alignment (Lee, [0128-0130]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a suction surface and positioning platform to position and convey the electrode plate as taught in Lee et al. as the conveying means in Zang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Lee and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (CN 109244554A -Machine Translation), hereinafter "Zang" in view of Wu et al. (CN 205752408 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Wu". Zang and Wu are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode stack assembly.
In regard to Claim 8, Zang in view of Lee et al. discloses the method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell of claim 4. While Zang et al. discloses positioning the electrode plates through a continuous collision detection (CCDJ positioning device (Zang, [53]), and Lee discloses positioning platforms with alignment devices (Lee, [0140]), it is silent as to a four-station rotating positioning platforms needed to achieve the desired result of aligning the electrode plates before being transferred to the hot pressing station.
Wu et al. discloses a multi-station rotating positioning platform that positions the electrode plates through a continuous collision detection (CCDJ positioning device wherein the utility model can be integrated with insulating sheet punching, sheet feeding, sheet folding and putting into shell step, whole process is carried out automatically, without manual control, which saves labor cost; the production process is not performed continuously, compared with existing technology, greatly improved production efficiency (Wu, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the multi station rotating positioning platform with CCD positioning as taught in Wu et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Wu and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of the process for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (CN 109244554A -Machine Translation), hereinafter "Zang" in view of Kato et al. (JP5716701B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Kato". Zang and Kato are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode stack assembly.
In regard to Claims 11-12, Zang et al. discloses the method for manufacturing a thermal composite cell of claim 1. While Zang et al. discloses a first and second electrode plate which are hot-pressed and composited and alternately folded in a Z shape wherein the diaphragm is provided between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate, and after the folding is completed, in the step S4, the composite stack that is alternately folded in the Z shape is pressed and formed into the cell product by a pressing device (Zang, Claim 1, Figure 2 [58-59]), it is silent as to the use of folding thimbles to achieve the Z fold or pre-folding the diaphragm.
Kato et al. discloses high-speed lamination by forming a crease in advance before folding the laminate and continuously folding the laminate with a plurality of lifting pins (Kato, [8,10, 21]) with the benefits of improving the efficiency of the step of folding into a Z shape (Kato, [20]). Therefore, provide a crease at a position that aligns with a crease when folding into a Z shape in advance of winding the diaphragm and folding using a plurality of pins as taught in Kato et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kato and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725