Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to 112 Rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with regard to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, in response to applicant's argument that the claimed invention is meant to perform the claimed functions, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In other words, the specific functions described by the claims do not necessarily have to be described in the prior art. Applicant has failed to provide evidence that the prior art device would not be capable of performing the operations of the claims, which appear to be standard operating procedures for a stack aligning device such as that described by the prior art.
For example, moving the clamping member along the head frame in Hopwood is clearly shown in the figures and embraced by the prior art which teaches the gripping head are mounted on wheels 18 for traversing the frame 14.
In any event, due to the clarifying nature of the amendments, the rejection has been modified below to include the standard of obviousness in addition to anticipation (i.e. a 102/103 rejection is the basis below) such as for those limitations related to relative degrees of freedom such as rotation about the vertical axis. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2114 relating to Apparatus and Article claims – Functional Language: While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. >In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
MPEP 2115: "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1, 2 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hopwood (US Patent No. 5,459,922 of record).
In regard to claim 1, Hopwood teaches a battery plate alignment system comprising a battery plate stack aligner for use with a battery plate stack shuffler (loading apparatus 10) comprising a horizontal support surface (jig box 11, battery box 21 with spaces 40)) for a stack of battery plates (group 30), the stack aligner comprising: an elongate head frame (gripping head 26 mounted on wheels 18) located above the horizontal support surface; a pair of clamping members (gripping plates 27 and/or hook elements 28) mounted on the head frame so as to project below the head frame and define opposed clamping surfaces, wherein each clamping member is mounted on an actuator (pistons 32, 33) arranged to move the respective clamping member along the head frame; a rotary drive system arranged to rotate the head frame about the vertical axis (about piston 25, i.e. at least 180°) extending through the plane of the horizontal support surface; and a vertical drive system (pistons 25) arranged to move the head frame vertically with respect to the support surface (column 2 line 64 – column 4 line 52, figures 1-9).
The Examiner notes that the limitations “wherein, in use, the stack aligner is configured to: lower the head frame towards the support surface with the clamping members spaced apart so that the clamping members are positioned on either side of a stack of battery plates positioned to one side of the shuffler support surface; operate the actuators move the clamping members to clamp the stack between the clamping surfaces; operate the vertical drive system to lift the clamped stack from the horizontal support surface; operate the rotary drive system to rotate the head frame around the vertical axis in a first direction by 180°; operate the actuators to move the clamped stack along the head frame so that the clamped stack is over its original position; operate the vertical drive system to lower the clamped stack back onto the horizontal support surface; and operate the actuators to unclamp the stack” relate to functional language and the material worked upon by the apparatus (see MPEP 2114 and 2115 above) and the prior art is reasonably expected to be capable of performing the claimed manipulations of a battery plate as the prior art has a structure indistinguishable from the claimed structure. The Examiner notes that functional and material worked upon limitations have been italicized in this rejection in order to exemplify the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims.
In the alternative, the structure of the prior art is capable of performing the claimed functionality (such as rotation of at least about 180 degrees) in a manner which obviates the claimed structure and configured to limitations as additional degrees and/or amounts of freedom in the stack handler of the prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be capable of processing battery stacks into different orientations.
In regard to claim 2, “in use, the stack aligner is configured to rotate the head frame around the vertical axis in a second, opposite direction by 180° after the actuators unclamp the stack” relate to functional language and the material worked upon by the apparatus (see MPEP 2114 and 2115 above) and as prior art is reasonably expected to be capable of performing the claimed manipulations of a battery plate as the prior art has a structure indistinguishable from the claimed structure.
In regard to claim 7, the battery plate shuffler, comprises: a support surface (jig box 11, battery box 21 with spaces 40) for a stack of battery plates; and a series of opposed blocks spaced on opposite sides of the support surface and moveable to engage a stack of battery plates between the opposed blocks to shuffle the plates in the stack; wherein the direction of movement of the opposed blocks is at right angles to the direction of movement of the clamping members for clamping or unclamping the stack on the support surface (see structure of battery box cell layout in figure 1).
In regard to claim 8, further comprising a conveyor 20 arranged to transport stacks of battery plates 30 to the shuffler 10, wherein the conveyor has a transport surface that is parallel to and below the support surface of the shuffler (column 3 line 16-17, figure 2).
In regard to claim 9, further comprising an elevator (pistons, rods 35 etc.) to raise a stack of plates 30 from the transport surface of the conveyor for positioning on the shuffler support surface (column 3, figures 3-9).
In regard to claim 10, the support surface (including battery box 21 or jig box 11) is moveable between a first position in which the support surface is horizontal and located below the stack aligner and opposed blocks, and a second position in which the support surface is vertical adjacent a side of the conveyor (column 3, figures 3-9 – claim does not preclude manual movement).
In regard to claim 11, comprising a pair of clamp supports (other of hook elements 28 or gripping plate 27) on opposite sides of the support surface, wherein the clamp supports are configured to extend below a lower surface and above an upper surface of a stack on the conveyor (depending on the location of the gripping head 26 - column 4 lines 23-52, figure 4).
In regard to claim 12, the clamp supports 27,28 are configured to move away from the stack 30 when the stack is clamped by the clamping members of the stack aligner (column 4 lines 36-47).
In regard to claim 13, the support surface (battery box 21, jig box 11) is moveable between the first and second positions by rotation about an axis parallel to the direction of travel of the conveyor 20 (figures 2-7, column 3 lines 2-25 – claim does not preclude manual rotation).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopwood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0091542 of record).
In regard to claims 3-5, Hopwood teaches the battery plate alignment system as applied to claim 1 above but does not disclose a position sensor. However, Turner teaches a similar battery plate alignment system including a vertically movable gripper (clamping) head 58 with actuated gripper jaws 55a, 55b above a support surface (work surface 32) and the desirability to further include a position sensor 57 for sensing the orientation of the stack of battery plates 12 to initiate operation of the stack aligner, wherein the position sensor comprises a light sensor (imaging camera 57) positioned such that lugs (tabs 14a, 14b) on a stack of battery plates 12 will interrupt a light beam when the stack of plates needs to be aligned, the position sensor is located on a delivery conveyor (robot arm 52) for providing stacks of battery plates to the battery plate shuffler (pallet 20) because such allows for operation to be paused and corrected when misalignment occurs (paragraphs [0064-0082], figures 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include a light sensor on the conveyance devices in the system of Hopwood as such detection of misalignment for corrective action to be performed as taught by Turner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – Yuhara et al. (US Pub 2014/0027067 newly cited) teach a similar battery stack alignment apparatus and the desirability for clamping head rotation of at least 180 degrees (paragraph [0048]) relevant to the instant claims.
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights