DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1 and 10 are currently amended; claims 16-17 are withdrawn; plus, claims 18-20 are newly added.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn, as a result of the May 12, 2026 filing.
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn, as a result of the amendment to said claim.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-15 is withdrawn, as a result of the amendment to claim 1, from which the other claims depend.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-15 over Park is withdrawn, as a result of the amendment to claim 1, from which the other claims depend.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR 2013/0000617).
Regarding newly added independent claim 18, Park teaches an electrode stacking system comprising a Selectively Compliance Arm for Robotic Assembly (e.g. item 314 hereinafter “SCARA”) robot and an alignment camera (e.g. item 380) are used to precisely supply a plurality of positive electrodes (e.g. items 120) and negative electrodes (e.g. items 110) to a separator (e.g. item 130) on a lamination table at high speed, thereby enabling high-speed and automation of an electrode supply,
wherein said separator (e.g. item 330) is supplied from a rotating roll (e.g. item 360) onto a stage (e.g. item 302);
a first magazine (e.g. item 311a) is provided on one side of said stage (e.g. item 302) and having a plurality of first electrodes (e.g. item 310a) mounted thereon;
a second magazine (e.g. item 311b) provided on one side of the stage (e.g. item 302) and spaced apart from said first magazine (e.g. item 311a) and having a plurality of second electrodes (e.g. item 310b) mounted thereon;
said SCARA robot (e.g. item 314) provided on top of said first and second magazines (e.g. items 311a, 311b) and sequentially supplying said plurality of first and second electrodes (e.g. items 310a, 310b) onto said separator (e.g. item 330) supplied onto said stage (e.g. item 302);
wherein said SCARA robot includes a pickup member (e.g. item 316) that sequentially picks up said first and second electrodes (e.g. items 310a, 310b) from said first and second magazines (e.g. items 311a, 311b) by vacuum adsorption, and then sequentially transports them to said separator (e.g. item 330) on said stage (e.g. item 302)
(e.g. ¶¶ 0001-02, 19-34, 38, 41 plus e.g. Figure 3a), reading on “device for picking up electrodes,” said device comprising
said SCARA robot (e.g. item 314) sequentially supplies said plurality of first and second electrodes (e.g. items 310a, 310b) from said first magazine (e.g. item 311a) and said second magazine (e.g. item 311b), respectively onto said separator (e.g. item 330),
wherein said SCARA robot includes said pickup member (e.g. item 316) that sequentially picks up said first and second electrodes (e.g. items 310a, 310b) from said first and second magazines (e.g. items 311a, 311b) by vacuum adsorption, and then sequentially transports them to said separator (e.g. item 330)
(e.g. supra), wherein
said separator (e.g. item 330) and/or said stage (e.g. item 302) corresponding with the claimed “tray;”
said SCARA robot (e.g. item 314) corresponding with the claimed “variable jig;”
a first location of said first magazine corresponding with the claimed “first position;” and,
a second location of said second magazine corresponding with the claimed “second position,”
reading on “a tray configured to support a first-type electrode and a second-type electrode that are alternately stacked thereon;” “a variable jig configured to move between a first position and a second position;” and, the variable jig is configured to (i) pick up the first-type electrode at the first position and to (ii) pick up the second-type electrode at the second position,” but does not expressly teach the limitation “the first-type electrode includes a first mark, and the second- type electrode includes a second mark different from the first mark.”
However, said electrodes are positive and negative, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to visually mark the positive and negative electrodes’ tabs using marks that are different from one another, such as (+) and (-) respectively, so that said electrodes may be visually inspected for proper stacking order.
As a result, said pickup member (e.g. item 316) of said SCARA robot sequentially picking up said negative electrodes—marked with e.g. “(-)” from said first magazine; plus, said positive electrodes—marked with e.g. “(+)”—from said second magazine reading on said limitation, as claimed.
Claims 1-15 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed invention of independent claim 1, from which the other claims depend, specifically the newly added limitation further defining the variable jig. For illustrative purposes, see e.g. Figure 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Newly added claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed inventions of dependent claims 19-20, including the limitations of independent claim 18. For illustrative purposes, see e.g. Figure 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges the following.
New independent claim 18 recites, in part, “a tray configured to support a first-type electrode and a second-type electrode that are alternately stacked thereon, wherein the first-type electrode includes a first mark, and the second-type electrode includes a second mark different from the first mark.” For reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, the cited reference fails to describe or otherwise render obvious at least of these features of new independent claim 18. Moreover, these features are similar to those of allowable claim 10.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that new independent claim 18 and its dependent claims are in condition for allowance.
(Remarks, at e.g. 8:1-9:1, emphasis in the original.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan et al (US 2025/0174696); and,
Kim (US 2021/0265650).
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 YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights