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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention t o which the claims are directed. Appropriate correction is 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. Claim s 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “rotatably connected to the first output end around a first axis”. As an axis is generally recognized as an imaginary line about which a body rotates, it is unclear and indefinite as to how a structure is connected “around” an axis. Similar language is used for dependent claims in regards to other axis and points of connection. For the purposes of examination, the presence of a structural pivot point will define the connections around an axis. All claims dependent are also rejected for the same. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 -5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and /or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rebeaud ( US6378862 ) . Regarding claim 1, Rebeaud discloses a feeding device (Abstract) , comprising: a first linear driving structure (40) comprising a first output end ( longitudinal guide supported by movable bar, 44, 4 6 ) , the first output end being configured to reciprocate in a first direction (5: 49 -6:31) ; a second linear driving structure (50) comprising a second output end (54) , the second output end being configured to reciprocate in a second direction (5:48-5:64) ; a delivery structure (14) , one end of which is rotatably connected to the first output end around a first axis (central articulation pivot 48; 5:41-6:31) , the first axis being perpendicular to the first direction (Figs 1 and 2) ; and an adjusting structure (5 6, 66 ) to connect the other end of the delivery structure to the second output end (6:18-31) , such that the delivery structure is able to be driven by the second output end to rotate around the first axis (5:41-6:31; 8:11-25) . Regarding claim 2, Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting structure comprises a connector ( 58, 68) , one end of the connector is rotatably connected to the second output end around a second axis (5:41-6:31; 8:11-25) , and the other end of the connector is rotatably connected to the delivery structure around a third axis (opposing ends of the pivot) , the second axis being perpendicular to the second direction and parallel to the first axis, and the third axis being parallel to the second axis (pivot which can simultaneously advance or recede; 6:17-31) . Regarding claim 3, Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting structure comprises a connector (58, 68) , one end of the connector is rotatably connected to the second output end around a second axis (5:41-6:31; 8:11-25) , the second axis being perpendicular to the second direction and parallel to the first axis, and the other end of the connector is slidably connected to the delivery structure (movement within the respective guides; 6:18-31) . Regarding claim 4, Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting structure comprises a slider (longitudinal guide 46) , the slider is arranged on one of the delivery structure (14) and the second output end (5:53-64; 6:18-31) , the other of the delivery structure and the second output end is provided with a sliding groove ( transverse guides 56 COC and 66 CC ; 5:53-64) , and the slider is slidably fitted within the sliding groove and is rotatable around a second axis relative to the sliding groove, the second axis being perpendicular to the second direction and parallel to the first axis (pivots movable in longitudinal translation, transverse translation and askew; 5:53-64) . Regarding claim s 5 and 11 , Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 1, wherein the delivery structure comprises a first damper and a second damper (12, grippers; Fig 1) that cooperate with each other to clamp a material (5:34-48) . Regarding claim 10, Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 5, wherein the delivery structure further comprises a cylinder (30) for driving the first damper and the second damper to move close to or away from each other (6:51-7:9) . Regarding claim 12, Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 1, further comprising: a third linear driving structure (60) for driving the first linear driving structure and the second linear driving structure to move synchronously in a third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the first axis, and the third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction (5:41-6:31; 8:11-25) . Regarding claim 13, Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 12, further comprising: a first mount, the first linear driving structure and the second linear driving structure being fixed on the first mount, and the third linear driving structure being connected to the first mount (Figs 1 and 2; 5:41-6:31; 8:11-25) . Regarding claim 14, Rebeaud discloses t he feeding device according to claim 13, further comprising: a second mount, the first mount being slidably mounted on the second mount in the third direction, and the third linear driving structure being fixed on the second mount and connected to the first mount to drive the first mount to move relative to the second mount in the third direction (Figs 1 and 2; 5:41-6:31; 8:11-25) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claim s 6 -9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeaud as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 211879531U, machine translation) . The teachings of Rebeaud as disclosed above are herein incorporated. Regarding claim s 6 -8 , Rebeaud does not explicitly teach wherein the first damper and/or the second damper are/is provided with an elastic structure, and the elastic structure is configured to abut against the material. Wu teaches a production line for a material feed including that for batter y production [Abstract] where clamping and support blocks are elastically arranged to provide support for the material [0043, 0076, 0077, 0106] where the clamping block is placed within a semi-circular groove [0043] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the invention was effectively filed to apply an elastic arrangement to the grippers of Rebeaud because Wu recognizes that such an arrangement provide support for clamping when required. Regarding claim 9, Rebeaud and Wu do not explicitly teach a plurality of elastic structures are provided, and the plurality of elastic structures are arranged at intervals in a lengthwise direction of the first clamper. However, t he courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 . Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebeaud as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simonton (US 4417390A) . The teachings of Rebeaud as discussed above are herein incorporated. Regarding claim 15, Rebeaud discloses a device for material feed and positioning (Abstract) but does not explicitly teach a battery production apparatus, comprising: a rolling device for attaching an electrode plate to a separator . Simonton teaches a machine for enclosing battery plates within a pouch of sheet material where the sheet is positioned and sealed (Abstract) where rollers are engaged the stacked battery materials (inclusive of separators; 3:4-4:17 ; claim 16 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the invention was effectively filed to apply the feeder of Rebeaud within a battery production apparatus because Simonton recognizes that feeding mechanisms can be effective used in conjunction with rollers to produce stacked battery cells in a mechanized process. Contact/Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kwang S Han whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1552 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm . 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, Jonathan Horner can be reached at (571) 270-7358 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT Kwang Han Primary Examiner Art Unit 6221 /Kwang Han/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221