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 .
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “an actuator” in three places. It is unclear if these are separate actuators or the same.
Claim 2 recites “the impression” at the end of the claim. It is unclear if this is intending to recite another positive recitation of the impression, a typo, or a referring to another impression.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Clamping mechanism in Claim 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, or 13: (A) the limitation uses the generic term “mechanism”; (B) the mechanism has the function of clamping; (C) Claim 7 recites a magnet to apply a magnetic attraction, while the remaining claims do not contain sufficient structure to perform the claimed clamping. The limitation in Claims 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on ¶0031 to include ”at least one magnet, at least one mechanical locking mechanism, at least one clamp, at least one clasp, at least one robotic manipulator, at least one clutch, at least one buckle, at least one strap, at least one fastener” or functional equivalents.
Alignment mechanism in Claim 8 or 9: (A) the limitation uses the generic term “mechanism”; (B) the mechanism has the function of aligning; (C) the claims do not contain sufficient structure to perform the claimed actions. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on ¶0065 as “a pin, a locator, a slot, a groove, a key or keyway” or functional equivalent.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20150171450A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1).
Claim 1
Yamamoto teaches apparatus, comprising: a first member (41) to support a first side of an electrode stack (The bottom side in Figure 2 is interpreted as the “first side” as claimed.), the electrode stack comprising a solid-state electrolyte layer (10) and an electrode layer (20 and 22); and a second member (42) to support a second side of the electrode stack (The top side in Figure 2 is interpreted as the “second side” as claimed.), at least one of the first member and the second member to apply a pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer (¶0025 and ¶0037 teaches the second member (holding member, 42) presses on the multi-layer body (50) in the jig (40).), as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (¶0030)
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first member and the second member includes an actuator region configured to engage an actuator as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator.
However, Hoessle teaches an actuator region configured to engage an actuator as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (Figures 3-4 teach a robot gripper that has a plurality of gripping parts (20 and 23) that interact with regions of the workpiece (26), that is a battery component (¶0077), during gripping.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a gripping device for battery components to grip the sides and top of the battery component of Hoessle with the transportation method of Yamamoto in order to use a device that contacts the upper side of the component to hold it in a predefined position (Hoessle ¶0109) and allow for correct positioning of the unit at the component (Hoessle ¶0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known technique of using a gripping device for battery components to grip the sides and top of the battery component of Hoessle with the transportation method of Yamamoto because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the first and second member of Yamamoto will be moved to the pressing apparatus using a manipulator/actuator that grips regions of the first and second member.
Claim 6
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a clamping mechanism (Hoessle, Figures 3-4 teach a clamp (20) that contacts the top surface of the battery member (26).) to secure the first member with the second member with the electrode stack between the first member and the second member, the clamping mechanism to apply the pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (The contact between the clamp (20) of Hoessle with the second member (42) in the combined invention presented in the rejection of Claim 1 performs the claimed intended use of the clamping mechanism.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20150171450A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Han (KR102459650B1)(text citations are from the machine translation).
Claim 2
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and second members are gripped by an actuator at specific regions.
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle does not explicitly disclose that the actuator region is an impression formed in the at least one of the first member and the second member.
However, Han teaches a robot manipulator/actuator that grips a workpiece at an actuator region that is an impression formed in a member. (Figure 8 teaches the workpiece has a stepped region (723) that interacts with the gripper (600) fingers (610, 620) during operation. See Lines 301-306.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known technique having a recess in the workpiece that coincides with a portion of the gripper from Han with the transportation method of Yamamoto in view of Hoessle in order to use a technique that allows for the workpiece to be stably held (See Han Line 321)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known technique having a recess in the workpiece that coincides with a portion of the gripper from Han with the transportation method of Yamamoto in view of Hoessle because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the first and second member of Yamamoto will have recesses/stepped areas that coincide with an area of the actuator such that they can be stably held during transport.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20150171450A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Yang (CN113675454A)(text citations are from the machine translation).
Claim 3
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the first member defining a cavity (Yamamoto Figure 2 shows the first member (41) has a cavity.), the first member to support the first side of the electrode stack with the electrode stack within the cavity (Yamamoto Figure 3 shows the stack (50) within the cavity of the first member (41).); and wherein the multi-layer body is heated in the first member (Yamamoto ¶0038).
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle does not explicitly disclose the first member including a thermally insulative material to retain heat within the cavity.
However, Yang teaches the first member including a thermally insulative material to retain heat within the cavity. (Figure 4 teaches a battery assembling die that has a first member (1) and a second member (2). The first member has a cavity (4). Lines 167-168 teach thermal insulation material associated with the first member (1) cavity (4).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known thermal insulating material of Yang to the first member cavity of Yamamoto in view of Hoessle in order to achieve a better thermal insulation effect. (See Yang Line 167)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known thermal insulating material of Yang to the first member cavity of Yamamoto in view of Hoessle because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20150171450A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1).
This rejection relies on a different interpretation of “first member” in Yamamoto and will be referred to as the second Yamamoto rejection when referring to this rejection for dependent claims.
Claim 1
Yamamoto teaches apparatus, comprising: a first member (43) to support a first side of an electrode stack (The bottom side in Figure 2 is interpreted as the “first side” as claimed.), the electrode stack comprising a solid-state electrolyte layer (10) and an electrode layer (20 and 22); and a second member (42) to support a second side of the electrode stack (The top side in Figure 2 is interpreted as the “second side” as claimed.), at least one of the first member and the second member to apply a pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer (¶0025 and ¶0037 teaches the second member (holding member, 42) presses on the multi-layer body (50) in the jig (40).) as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (¶0030)
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first member and the second member includes an actuator region configured to engage an actuator as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator.
However, Hoessle teaches an actuator region configured to engage an actuator as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (Figures 3-4 teach a robot gripper that has a plurality of gripping parts (20 and 23) that interact with regions of the workpiece (26), that is a battery component (¶0077), during gripping.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a gripping device for battery components to grip the sides and top of the battery component of Hoessle with the transportation method of Yamamoto in order to use a device that contacts the upper side of the component to hold it in a predefined position (Hoessle ¶0109) and allow for correct positioning of the unit at the component (Hoessle ¶0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known technique of using a gripping device for battery components to grip the sides and top of the battery component of Hoessle with the transportation method of Yamamoto because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the first and second member of Yamamoto will be moved to the pressing apparatus using a manipulator/actuator that grips regions of the second member.
Claim 4
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a third member defining a cavity (Figures 2-3 teach a third member (41) that has a cavity.), the first member to support the first side of the electrode stack with the first member and the electrode stack positioned within the cavity. (Figure 3 shows the first member (43) supports the bottom/first side of the stack (50) within the cavity of the third member (41).)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20150171450A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Yang (CN113675454A)(text citations are from the machine translation).
This rejection is based on the second rejection of Claim 1 using Yamamoto.
Claim 5
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a third member defining a cavity (Yamamoto Figures 2-3 teach a third member (41) that has a cavity.), the first member to support the first side of the electrode stack with the first member and the electrode stack positioned within the cavity. (Yamamoto Figure 3 shows the first member (43) supports the bottom/first side of the stack (50) within the cavity of the third member (41).)
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the third member including a thermally insulative material to retain heat within the cavity.
However, Yang teaches a member including a thermally insulative material to retain heat within the cavity. (Figure 4 teaches a battery assembling die that has a member (1) and a second member (2). The member has a cavity (4). Lines 167-168 teach thermal insulation material associated with the first member (1) cavity (4).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known thermal insulating material of Yang to the third member cavity of Yamamoto in order to achieve a better thermal insulation effect. (See Yang Line 167)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known thermal insulating material of Yang to the third member cavity of Yamamoto because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (US20170352923A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1).
Claim 1
Iwano teaches an apparatus (Figure 10), comprising: a first member (lower part of jig (50))to support a first side of an electrode stack (Figure 11 shows the lower surface (50a) of the cavity of the jig (50) supports the bottom side (interpreted as the first side) of the stack (6).), the electrode stack comprising a solid-state electrolyte layer (5) and an electrode layer (2, 3); and a second member (Figure 10 shows a top cover (50b) that is a second member.) to support a second side of the electrode stack (Figure 11 shows the top cover (50b) supports the top side (interpreted as the second side) of the stack (6).), at least one of the first member and the second member to apply a pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer. (¶0117 teaches the surfaces of the battery stack (6) are pressed using the cover member (50b) and the lower surface (50a).)
Iwano does not explicitly disclose as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator, wherein at least one of the first member and the second member includes an actuator region configured to engage an actuator as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. Iwano does disclose a transfer means for moving the jig (¶0105).
However, Hoessle teaches moving a battery member using an actuator (Figure 3-4) and an actuator region configured to engage an actuator as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (Figures 3-4 teach a robot gripper that has a plurality of gripping parts (20 and 23) that interact with regions of the workpiece (26), that is a battery component (¶0077), during gripping.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a gripping device for battery components to grip the sides and top of the battery component of Hoessle with the transportation method of Iwano in order to use a device that contacts the upper side of the component to hold it in a predefined position (Hoessle ¶0109) and allow for correct positioning of the unit at the component (Hoessle ¶0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known technique of using a gripping device for battery components to grip the sides and top of the battery component of Hoessle with the transportation method of Iwano because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the first and second member of Iwano will be moved to the pressing apparatus using a manipulator/actuator that grips regions of the second member.
Claim 11
Iwano in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a clamping mechanism (Applicant’s specification ¶0031 states that the clamping mechanism can be at least one fastener. Iwano, Figure 10 teaches at least one fastener (50e) that is used to join the second (50b) and first (50d) members and clamp the battery stack therebetween (See Figure 11).) including a first portion to contact a first region of the first member (Iwano Figure 11 shows a first portion (the shank of the fastener) contacts a first region (the recess) in the first member (50d).) and a second portion to contact a second region of the second member (Iwano Figure 11 shows a second portion (the head of the fastener) contacts a second region (the top surface) of the second member (50b).), the clamping mechanism to secure the first member with the second member with the electrode stack between the first member and the second member (Iwano Figure 11), the clamping mechanism to apply a clamping force to the first region of the first member and the second region of the second member to create the pressure applied to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer (Iwano ¶0117 teaches that teaches that the fixing members (50e) are used to couple together the first (50d) and second (50b) members and that the surfaces of the first (50d) and second (50b) members press on the stacked battery (6).) as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (Iwano ¶0105 teaches the movement of the jig (105) using a transfer means. Hoessle teaches the use of an actuator to move a battery component in Figures 3-4.)
Claim 12
Iwano in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a clamping mechanism (Applicant’s specification ¶0031 states that the clamping mechanism can be at least one fastener. Iwano, Figure 10 teaches at least one fastener (50e) that is used to join the second (50b) and first (50d) members and clamp the battery stack therebetween (See Figure 11).)to secure the first member with the second member with the electrode stack between the first member and the second member(Figure 11), the clamping mechanism to apply the pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer (Iwano ¶0117 teaches that teaches that the fixing members (50e) are used to couple together the first (50d) and second (50b) members and that the surfaces of the first (50d) and second (50b) members press on the stacked battery (6).) as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator (Iwano ¶0105 teaches the movement of the jig (105) using a transfer means. Hoessle teaches the use of an actuator to move a battery component in Figures 3-4.) and a third member defining a cavity to receive the first member and the second member with the first member supporting the first side of the electrode stack and the second member supporting the second side of the electrode stack. (Iwano Figure 8 teaches a chamber (101) that has a cavity where the jigs (called item 105 in this figure) and the battery (6) stack are located.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (US20170352923A1) and Hoessle (US20220297311A1), as applied in Claim 1, in view of Hajichristou (US20100032403A1), further in view of/as evidenced by Suk (KR20170118322A)(text citations are from the machine translation).
Claim 7
Iwano in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a clamping mechanism to secure the first member with the second member with the electrode stack between the first member and the second member (Iwano Figure 10 teaches fixing members (50 e) that are used to couple the upper cover member (50b) and the stage (50d) to apply pressure to the stack (6). See ¶0117.) the clamping mechanism to apply the pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer (Iwano Figure 10 teaches fixing members (50 e) that are used to couple the upper cover member (50b) and the stage (50d) to apply pressure to the stack (6). See ¶0117.) as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (Iwano ¶0105 teaches the movement of the jig (105) using a transfer means. Hoessle teaches the use of an actuator to move a battery component in Figures 3-4.)
Iwano in view of Hoessle does not disclose the clamping mechanism including a plurality of magnets to create a magnetic attraction with at least one of the first member and the second member, the magnetic attraction to apply the pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer and wherein the plurality of magnet are positioned to radially surround the electrode stack.
However, Hajichristou teaches a plurality of magnets (9, 10, 21) to create a magnetic attraction with at least one of the first member (3) and the second member (2), the magnetic attraction to apply the pressure to the members and maintain alignment of the members (¶0047 teaches the magnets pull the lid towards the body.); and wherein the plurality of magnet are positioned to radially surround the interior of the body. (Figure 2)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known magnetic fastening of Hajichristou for the fasteners of Iwano in view of Hoessle in order to provide automatic locking of the members (Hajichristou ¶0050 or ¶0064). Suk is also presented as evidence for the use of magnets for parts of a battery jig system with the motivation for swapping magnets for fasteners including more easily assembly parts and reassemble quicker (See Suk ¶0018 or ¶0101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known magnetic fastening of Hajichristou for the fasteners of Iwano in view of Hoessle because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The predictable result is the fasteners of Iwano will be replaced by magnetic coupling members.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20150171450A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Sakamoto (JP2011070911A)(text citations are from the machine translation).
Claim 8
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a clamping mechanism to secure the first member with the second member (Hoessle, Figures 3-4 teach a clamp (20) that contacts the top surface of the battery member (26).) with the electrode stack between the first member and the second member, the clamping mechanism to apply the pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (The contact between the clamp (20) of Hoessle with the second member (42) in the combined invention presented in the rejection of Claim 1 performs the claimed intended use of the clamping mechanism.)
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle does not explicitly disclose an alignment mechanism to align the first member with a surface of a heat press, the heat press to apply a second pressure to the electrode stack with the first member supporting the first side of the electrode stack.
However, Sakamoto teaches an alignment mechanism to align the first member with a surface of a heat press (Figure 2 teaches a protrusion (212) that is a pin that fits into a through hole (221) or recess in a lower member (22) that supports the first member (21) in the heat press (See Figure 1).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known pin and hole alignment mechanism of Sakamoto to the first member and heat press of Yamamoto in order to more easily determine the positions of portions (the first member and press in the case of Yamamoto) in relation to one another. (See Sakamoto Lines 194-195)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known known pin and hole alignment mechanism of Sakamoto to the first member and heat press of Yamamoto because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the structures in Yamamoto that need to be aligned, which are, but not limited to, the positioning member (41) and the lower mold (64) of the heat press, will use a pin and slot mechanism to aid in alignment.
Claim 9
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a clamping mechanism to secure the first member with the second member (Hoessle, Figures 3-4 teach a clamp (20) that contacts the top surface of the battery member (26).) with the electrode stack between the first member and the second member, the clamping mechanism to apply the pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (The contact between the clamp (20) of Hoessle with the second member (42) in the combined invention presented in the rejection of Claim 1 performs the claimed intended use of the clamping mechanism.); a first surface of a heat press (Yamamoto, Item 64) with the first member supporting the first surface of the electrode stack (Yamamoto Figure 4); the second member to engage with a second surface of the heat press (Yamamoto Figure 4, Item 42 engages with the top mold (62) of the heat press (60).), the heat press to apply a second pressure to the electrode stack with the first member, the electrode stack, and the second member positioned between the first surface and the second surface of the heat press. (Yamamoto ¶0032)
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle does not explicitly disclose an alignment mechanism to align the first member with a surface of a heat press.
However, Sakamoto teaches an alignment mechanism to align the first member with a surface of a heat press (Figure 2 teaches a protrusion (212) that is a pin that fits into a through hole (221) or recess in a lower member (22) that supports the first member (21) in the heat press (See Figure 1).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known pin and hole alignment mechanism of Sakamoto to the first member and heat press of Yamamoto in order to more easily determine the positions of portions (the first member and press in the case of Yamamoto) in relation to one another. (See Sakamoto Lines 194-195)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known known pin and hole alignment mechanism of Sakamoto to the first member and heat press of Yamamoto because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the structures in Yamamoto that need to be aligned, which are, but not limited to, the positioning member (41) and the lower mold (64) of the heat press, will use a pin and slot mechanism to aid in alignment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (US20170352923A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Hwang (US20160256963A1) and Suk (KR20170118322A)(text citations are from the machine translation).
Claim 10
Iwano in view of Hoessle teaches apparatus of claim 1, comprising: the first member including a first portion of a clamping mechanism (Iwano Figure 10 shows that the first member has recesses that is a first side of a clamping mechanism.) to interact with at least one second portion of a clamping mechanism of the second member (Iwano Figure 10 shows a fastener (50e) that passes through the second member (50b) and cooperates with the recess of the first member.), the interaction between the at least one first portions of a clamping mechanism and the at least one second portion of a clamping mechanism to create the pressure applied to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer (Iwano ¶0117 teaches that once the fixing members (50e) are installed, the upper cover member and lower bottom surface press the battery (6) stack.) as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (Iwano ¶0105 teaches the movement of the jig (105) using a transfer means. Hoessle teaches the use of an actuator to move a battery component in Figures 3-4.)
Iwano does not explicitly disclose the first member including at least one first magnet to interact with at least one second magnet of the second member.
However, Hwang teaches a jig for use in battery manufacturing (See ¶0008 and Figure 1, Items 200 and 300) with the first member (200) including at least one first magnet (Figure 4, Item 240) to interact with at least one second magnet (Figure 5A, Item 340) of the second member. (300)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known magnetic fastening of Hwang for the fasteners of Iwano based on the teachings of Suk, which teaches that magnetic attraction is used in order to more easily assembly parts and reassemble quicker (See Suk ¶0018 or ¶0101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known magnetic fastening of Hwang for the fasteners of Iwano because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The predictable result is the fasteners of Iwano will be replaced by magnetic coupling members to join the two jig halves.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20150171450A1) in view of Hoessle (US20220297311A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Kim (US20180183088A1).
Claim 13
Yamamoto in view of Hoessle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a clamping mechanism to secure the first member with the second member (Hoessle, Figures 3-4 teach a clamp (20) that contacts the top surface of the battery member (26).) with the electrode stack between the first member and the second member, the clamping mechanism to apply the pressure to the electrode stack to maintain alignment of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the electrode layer as the first member, the second member, and the electrode stack are moved from a first location to a second location by an actuator. (The contact between the clamp (20) of Hoessle with the second member (42) in the combined invention presented in the rejection of Claim 1 performs the claimed intended use of the clamping mechanism.); a third member defining a cavity to receive the first member and the second member (Yamamoto Figure 4 teaches a third member (60) that has a cavity (between items 62 and 64) to receive the first (41) and second (42) members.) with the first member supporting the first side of the electrode stack and the second member supporting the second side of the electrode stack (Yamamoto Figure 4 shows the two members (41 and 42) support opposite sides of the stack (50).).
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the third member including a thermally insulative material to retain heat within the cavity.
However, Kim teaches a heat press for battery manufacturing that includes a thermally insulative material to retain heat within the cavity. (Figures 3-4 teach a heat press (102) that has thermally insulative material (150, 152) lining the two sides of the cavity (in between items 110 and 120).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known heat insulation of Kim to the heat press of Yamamoto in order to significantly reduce external heat discharge from the heating units (See Kim, ¶0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known known heat insulation of Kim to the heat press of Yamamoto because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the heat press in Yamamoto will have heat insulative material to reduce heat discharge to the external environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made using:
Hoessle to teach the newly added limitations regarding the actuator.
Han to teach the newly added limitations of Claim 2.
Hajichristou to teach the newly added limitations regarding the location of the magnets in Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20210257648A1
2019-10-01
Figure 7 teaches a robot arm/manipulator/actuator that moves a battery workpiece from one location to another. The battery workpiece has specific locations where the gripper of the actuator contacts the workpiece.
US20130285365A1
2008-05-30
Figure 2 teaches a connection method between two components (202, 203) using magnets (206, 216) located radially around the central opening.
US20180147730A1
2016-05-16
Figure 2 teaches a gripping method where a slot (25) in the workpiece is interacted with by the gripper (32) to hold the workpiece.
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726