DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 13 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14 and 20 have been amended, claims 1-13 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (US 2022/0384839; hereinafter “Miyata”), in view of Hildebrand, JR (US 2004/0187445; hereinafter “Hildebrand”).
Regarding claim 14, Miyata teaches a method of assembling a battery, the method comprising:
gripping a cell block (stacked body of battery cells 4 with spacers 5 and end plates 6, see Fig. 3; [0023]) by a first gripper (see Fig. 3 – left restraining jig 10; [0023]) and a second gripper (see Fig. 3 – right restraining jig 10; see [0023]) of a battery assembly machine (see Figs. 3-7);
transporting the cell block to a case (case 2, see Fig. 4; [0023]);
inserting the cell block into the case by a first predetermined distance (see [0024] and Fig. 5 – insertion results in variations in height among the plurality of battery cells 4), and releasing a grip of the first gripper (Miyata is silent to releasing the left restraining jig 10 but it would have been obvious to do so to release the stack of cells into the case);
after releasing the grip of the first gripper, inserting the cell block into the case by a second predetermined distance (see [0025]-[0033]); and
providing pressing force to the cell block through a pusher of the battery assembly machine (pusher equated to moving member 31 of the pressurizing jig 30, see [0025]-[0033]);
wherein each of the first gripper (see Fig. 3 – left restraining jig 10; [0023]) and the second gripper (see Fig. 3 – right restraining jig 10; see [0023]) is configured to hold opposing ends of the cell block (stacked body of battery cells 4 with spacers 5 and end plates 6, see Fig. 3; [0023]), wherein the first gripper and the second gripper contact different positions on each end of the cell block (see annotated Fig. 3 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
356
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyata is silent to after releasing the grip of the first gripper, releasing a grip of the second gripper.
Hildebrand teaches that gripping arms may be released in sequence, instead of substantially at the same time. For example, two of the gripping arms can release to first impart rotation upon the outer container, before the remaining gripping arms release the inner container. In other embodiments, rotation and translation of the inner container is achieved by sequential release of gripping arms from the corner regions of the container. Indeed, the release of the gripping arms can be coordinated such that any number of different rotational and translational movements can be exhibited by the selectively released container (see [0050]).
In view of Hildebrand’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Miyata to include after releasing the grip of the first gripper, releasing a grip of the second gripper, as taught by Hildebrand, because sequential release of arms can be used to induce rotation and translation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sabatino et al. (US 4,509,252; hereinafter “Sabatino”; listed in the IDS filed 16 May 2023).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand is silent to wherein the cell block is supplied from a cell block conveyor and the case is supplied from a case conveyor disposed adjacent to the cell block conveyor.
Sabatino teaches a method and apparatus for assembling battery components including a battery case 10 wherein a plurality of battery cell elements 34-39 are inserted into the spaces 26-31 (see abstract). Sabatino teaches an empty case 10 is brought on a conveyor 11 to a first insert station, and an element engagement, pickup, alignment and insert apparatus, generally designated 14, is provided at first insert station 12 for engaging and picking up intermediate cell elements from a conveyor, generally designated 19, and inserting them into the cells of the battery case. In the illustrated embodiment, the battery case, with the inserted intermediate cell elements, is then transferred by the conveyor 11 as a partial assembly 15 to a second insert station, generally designated 16, where the partially assembled battery case 15 is retained by means of a stop 17 for receiving a pair of terminal, or end, cell elements transferred thereto by a second engaging and pickup, alignment and insert apparatus, generally designated 18, receiving the end cell elements on a second feed conveyor, generally designated 20 (see 4:55-5:12).
In view of Sabatino’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand to include wherein the cell block is supplied from a cell block conveyor and the case is supplied from a case conveyor disposed adjacent to the cell block conveyor, as taught by Sabatino, because it is a known means for supplying an empty case and battery cells elements to be inserted into said case.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Turner (US 2020/0091542).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand is silent to the method further comprising:
obtaining, by a controller, detection information detected by a plurality of sensors provided in the battery assembly machine; and
controlling a location of the battery assembly machine based on the detection information.
Turner teaches obtaining, by a controller, detection information detected by a sensor (camera 57, see [0077]) provided in the battery assembly machine (apparatus 30, see [0064]) of a stack of battery plates 12, and controlling a location of the battery assembly machine based on the detection information (see [0025] and [0077] – based on the camera detection, the controller can automatically send a signal to a pivotable arm, which instructs the pivotable arm to move the work surface between a first substantially horizontal orientation and a second substantially vertical orientation).
In view of Turner’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand to include obtaining, by a controller, detection information detected by a sensor provided in the battery assembly machine, and controlling a location of the battery assembly machine based on the detection information, as taught by Turner, because it allows for automatic positioning of the battery assembly machine relative to the battery stack depending on the orientation of the battery stack to be worked upon.
Though the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner teaches a single sensor (Turner: camera 57, see [0077]) and is silent to a plurality of sensors, the use of a plurality of a cameras is merely a duplication of the single sensor, and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the use of a plurality of cameras would increase the data points captured to increase the accuracy of the system.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner is silent to the method further comprising:
after applying the pressing force by the pusher, measuring a vertical moving distance of the cell block by a vertical direction sensor among the plurality of sensors; and
determining, by the controller, whether the cell block is inserted into the case based on the measured vertical moving distance.
However, the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner teaches that before the pressing force by the pusher (Miyata: see [0025]-0033]), measuring a vertical moving distance of the cell block by a vertical direction sensor (distance measuring device 20, see [0025] and Fig. 5) among the plurality of sensors (Miyata: distance measuring device 20; Turner: plurality of cameras, see rejection for claim 16), and determining, by the controller, whether the cell block is inserted into the case based on the detection of the vertical direction sensor (Miyata: see [0025]-[0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to also perform this measuring a vertical moving distance of the cell block after applying the pressing force by the pusher in order to verify that all cells of the cell block were fully inserted to be in contact with the bottom surface of the case.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Baba et al. (JP 2020135954 A; hereinafter “Baba”; listed in the IDS filed 16 May 2023, and using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner teaches:
after conveying the cell block to the case, lowering the cell block towards the case by the battery assembly machine (Miyata: see Figs. 3-4 and [0023]) and a plurality of sensors (see rejection for claim 16 above).
The combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner is silent to wherein the method further comprises:
detecting a position between the cell block and the case by a vision sensor among the plurality of sensors; and
determining, by the controller, alignment between the case and the cell block being gripped based on the detection of the vision sensor.
Baba teaches detecting a position between the cell block and the case (bottom of plate 3, which is between the battery cell stack 2 and case 5, see Figs. 1-5) by a vision sensor (position measurement sensor 13, see [0029]-[0031]); and
determining, by the controller, alignment between the case and the cell block being gripped based on the detection of the vision sensor (see [0029]-[0036] and [0038]-[0045]). This allows for the case shift mechanism 12 to move the case 5 to a position corresponding to the shifted position of the battery cell stack if there is a misalignment prior to insertion of the battery cell stack 2 into case 5 (see [0029]-[0036] and [0038]-[0045]).
In view of Baba’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner to include detecting a position between the cell block and the case by a vision sensor among the plurality of sensors (see rejection for claim 16 above), and determining, by the controller, alignment between the case and the cell block being gripped based on the detection of the vision sensor, as taught by Baba, because it allows for moving the case to a position corresponding to the shifted position of the battery cell stack if there is a misalignment prior to insertion of the battery cell stack into the case (see [0029]-[0036] and [0038]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner teaches a plurality of sensors (see rejection for claim 16 above) but is silent to its method further comprising:
measuring a horizontal length of the cell block by a horizontal dimension sensor among the plurality of sensors; and
determining, by the controller, whether cells in the cell block are aligned in the horizontal direction based on the measured horizontal length.
Baba teaches measuring a horizontal length of the cell block (displacement amount σy-, see Fig. 3; [0032]-[0048]) by a horizontal dimension sensor (position measurement sensor 13, see [0029]-[0031]); and
determining, by the controller, whether cells in the cell block are aligned in the horizontal direction based on the measured horizontal length (see [0032]-[0048]). This allows for the case shift mechanism 12 to move the case 5 to a position corresponding to the shifted position of the battery cell stack if there is a misalignment in a horizontal y direction prior to insertion of the battery cell stack 2 into case 5 (see [0029]-[0036] and [0038]-[0048]).
In view of Baba’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner to include measuring a horizontal length of the cell block by a horizontal dimension sensor among the plurality of sensors (see rejection for claim 16 above), and determining, by the controller, whether cells in the cell block are aligned in the horizontal direction based on the measured horizontal length, as taught by Baba, because it allows for moving the case to a position corresponding to the shifted position of the battery cell stack if there is a misalignment in a horizontal direction prior to insertion of the battery cell stack into the case (see [0029]-[0036] and [0038]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner teaches a plurality of sensors (see rejection for claim 16 above) but is silent to the method further comprising:
measuring a longitudinal length of the cell block by a longitudinal dimension sensor among the plurality of sensors; and
determining, by the controller, whether cells in the cell block are aligned in a longitudinal direction based on the measured longitudinal length.
Baba teaches measuring a longitudinal length of the cell block (displacement amount σz, see Fig. 3; [0032]-[0048]) by a longitudinal dimension sensor (position measurement sensor 13, see [0029]-[0031]); and
determining, by the controller, whether cells in the cell block are aligned in the longitudinal direction based on the measured longitudinal length (see [0032]-[0045]). This allows for the case shift mechanism 12 to move the case 5 to a position corresponding to the shifted position of the battery cell stack if there is a misalignment in the longitudinal z direction prior to insertion of the battery cell stack 2 into case 5 (see [0029]-[0036] and [0038]-[0048]).
In view of Baba’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Miyata, Hildebrand, and Turner to include measuring a longitudinal length of the cell block by a longitudinal dimension sensor among the plurality of sensors (see rejection for claim 16 above), and determining, by the controller, whether cells in the cell block are aligned in the longitudinal direction based on the measured longitudinal length, as taught by Baba, because it allows for moving the case to a position corresponding to the shifted position of the battery cell stack if there is a misalignment in the longitudinal direction prior to insertion of the battery cell stack into the case (see [0029]-[0036] and [0038]-[0048]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Miyata and Hildebrand to arrive at amended claim 14. Applicant argues that there is no motivation to adopt such sequentially operating gripping arms in view of the manufacturing method of Miyata. In light of the objective of Miyata, which is to align cells having height differences within the case, no benefit would be gained even if Miyata were to adopt the sequentially operating gripping arms of Hildebrand. Furthermore, Applicants argue that neither Miyata nor Hildebrand discloses “each of the first gripper and the second gripper is configured to hold opposing ends of the cell block, wherein the first gripper and the second gripper contact different positions on each end of the cell block,” as recited in amended claim 14.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. The combination of Miyata and Hildebrand would result in sequential release of arms that can be used to induce rotation and translation. By being able to rotate and translate cells, the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand may be able to decrease the amount of work required to align the height of all the cells within the case, which would expedite the entire process overall. Furthermore, the combination of Miyata and Hildebrand teaches amended claim 14, including wherein each of the first gripper (see Fig. 3 – left restraining jig 10; [0023]) and the second gripper (see Fig. 3 – right restraining jig 10; see [0023]) is configured to hold opposing ends of the cell block (stacked body of battery cells 4 with spacers 5 and end plates 6, see Fig. 3; [0023]), wherein the first gripper and the second gripper contact different positions on each end of the cell block (see annotated Fig. 3 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
356
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 27 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
