DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The placement of the limitation “a simulation apparatus for secondary battery production” in the preambles of the independent claims suggests that the feature is optional and does not necessarily limit the scope of a claim (MPEP § 2106(II,C)). For example, a limitation in the preamble may be no more than a statement of intended use. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a simulation apparatus for secondary battery production” in the preamble is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Further, the recitation appears to be a statement of intended use, which suggests that the recited feature is optional and does not necessarily limit the scope of a claim. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The examiner will assume that the limitations in the preamble do not impart additional structural limitations which are not otherwise found in the claim language. As best understood by the examiner, the claims will be treated on the merits in this office action.
Further, the claim limitation “executing an apparatus operating unit comprising a mixer model apparatus related to secondary battery production” is indefinite. It is unclear from the above mentioned limitation if the "mixer model apparatus" represents a hardware apparatus or a software (virtual) module.
It is clear from the description ("the "facility operating unit," "apparatus operating unit," and "quality checking unit" are software programs included in the simulation apparatus" §61) that the claimed "apparatus operating unit” is a software program included in the simulation apparatus.
It is also clear from the description ("the "model apparatus" is a virtual apparatus that implements actual secondary battery production equipment into a 3D or 2D model" §62) that the claimed "mixer model apparatus" is a virtual apparatus, thus a software module.
The examiner will assume that a “mixer model apparatus” means a “virtual mixer model apparatus”. As best understood by the examiner, the claims will be treated on the merits in this office action.
The word “virtual” or “simulated” should be added before all occurrences of the "mixer model apparatus" in all claims for clarity.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by adding the word “virtual” or “simulated” before all occurrences of the "mixer model apparatus" and adding a reference to the “simulation apparatus for secondary battery production” in the body of the independent claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights