DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination, wherein claims 3 and 16-17 are withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I.A in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
The election requirement between Species I.A-B is no longer maintained since Species I.A is free from art, as noted infra. As a result, claim 3 is examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in Figure 4, reference character “320” has been used to designate both the first jig and second jig. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because it should indicate the variable jig is further provided with a tray, or equivalent, since the tray (e.g. item 100) is a component separate from the previously claimed variable jig (e.g. item 300). Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships include the following.
The first-type electrode and second-type electrode are alternatingly stacked together, alternating between the first-type and second-type, within a same tray, such that the arrangement results in the instant inventive concept of physically preventing a simultaneous pickup of multiple electrodes, instead of the intended one electrode, from a tray, without vibration.
See instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0006-09, 42-49, and 54-61 plus e.g. claim 10.
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 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR 2013/0000617).
Regarding independent claim 1, 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);
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)
(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 SCARA robot corresponding with the claimed “variable jig,”
a first location of said first magazine corresponding with the claimed “first position,”
a second location of said second magazine corresponding with the claimed “second position,”
reading on “a variable jig movable between a first position and a second position, wherein the variable jig is configured to (i) pick up a first-type electrode…at the first position and to (ii) pick up a second-type electrode…at the second position…,” but does not expressly teach said first-type electrode having a “first mark at the first position” or the second-type electrode having a “second mark at the second position.”
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.
Further, the limitations “first position” and “second position” are interpreted to refer to the entire surface area of each of the first and second magazine where said electrodes are located, as claimed, further noting the claimed “variable jig movable between a first position and a second position” (emphasis added).
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 “the variable jig is configured to (i) pick up a first-type electrode having a first mark at the first position and to (ii) pick up a second-type electrode comprising a second mark at the second position, and wherein the first mark is different from the second mark,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the electrode stacking system of claim 1, wherein said SCARA robot (e.g. item 314) sequentially supplying 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) (e.g. supra), reading on “the first-type electrode and the second-type electrode are electrodes having a different polarity.”
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the electrode stacking system of claim 1, wherein said positive and negative electrodes’ tabs includes said marks that are different from one another, such as (+) and (-) respectively (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “the first mark and the second mark are notches formed at different positions such that the first mark and the second mark do not overlap with each other when the first-type electrode and the second-type electrode are overlapped.”
However, it would have been obvious to etch the “(+)” and “(-)” markings as notches on the respective positive and negative electrodes’ tabs since doing so would be permanent and are easy to see, reading on “notches.”
Further, it would have been obvious to align said positive electrode tabs with one another and align said negative electrode tabs with one another, but so positive and negative tabs do not overlap when said electrodes are stacked together, in order to permit easy electrical connection between adjacent positive electrode tabs and easy electrical connection between adjacent negative electrode tabs, while avoiding the risk of short-circuiting the batteries, reading on “the first mark and the second mark are notches formed at different positions such that the first mark and the second mark do not overlap with each other when the first-type electrode and the second-type electrode are overlapped,” as claimed.
Claims 5-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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 5, 9-10, and 12, from which the other claims depend, including the limitations of independent claim 1 in conjunction with each of those of said dependent claims.
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).
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