DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 8/22/2023 and 10/7/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-12 are pending with claims 9-12 being withdrawn from further consideration.
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, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 10/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/7/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. (JP 2016187013A, original and translation provided and in IDS of 8/22/2023), hereinafter UEDA.
Regarding claim 1, UEDA teaches: A battery module manufacturing apparatus (UEDA teaches a battery module manufacturing apparatus [0001; Fig. 2]) comprising: a pressing jig (UEDA teaches a pressing jig (20) [0013; 0031-0032; Fig. 2].); and a base jig located under the pressing jig (UEDA teaches a base jig (30) [0041; Fig. 2].), wherein the base jig comprises a temperature convertor capable of switching between a heating function and a cooling function (UEDA teaches the base jig (30) has a heating and cooling mechanism (15) to control the temperature and is capable of switching between heating and cooling [0014; 0016-0017; 0025; Fig. 2].).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (JP 2016187013A), hereinafter UEDA, in view of Covington et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0106799), hereinafter COVINGTON.
Regarding claim 2, UEDA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including the temperature convertor heats and cools the battery module at an upper end of the base [0014; 0016-0017; 0025; Fig. 2], but is silent as to: wherein the temperature convertor comprises a thermoelectric device. In the same field of endeavor, bonding apparatus, COVINGTON teaches thermoelectric modules (620) capable of heating and cooling the platens (602, 604) [0096; Fig. 16]. COVINGTON shows the thermoelectric modules (626) are at an upper end of the base jig (606) [Fig. 16]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify UEDA by substituting the heating and cooling mechanism with a thermoelectric device, as suggested by COVINGTON, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 3, COVINGTON further teaches: wherein the thermoelectric device is a Peltier element (COVINGTON teaches the thermoelectric modules can be Peltier modules [0096; Fig. 16].).
Regarding claim 4, UEDA teaches: wherein a thermal pad is located at an upper end of the thermoelectric device (UEDA teaches a thermal pad (18) is located at an upper end of the heating and cooling mechanism (15) [0018; Fig. 2].).
Regarding claim 5, UEDA teaches: wherein a cooler is located at a lower end of the thermoelectric device (UEDA teaches the heating and cooling mechanism is also at a lower end [Fig. 2].).
Regarding claim 5, COVINGTON further teaches: wherein a cooler is located at a lower end of the thermoelectric device (COVINGTON teaches a cooler (626) is located at a lower end of the thermoelectric device (620) [0096; Fig. 16].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify UEDA, by having a cooler located at a lower end of the thermoelectric device, as suggested by COVINGTON, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 8, UEDA teaches: wherein a temperature sensor electrically connected to a controller is located at the temperature convertor (UEDA teaches a temperature control unit [0008]. UEDA teaches the mounting plate (14) is the heating and cooling control unit and the heating and cooling mechanism (15) is controlled by a temperature sensor [0014; 0018].), and wherein the controller controls a temperature of the temperature convertor using received temperature data (UEDA teaches the control unit (14) controls the output of the heating and cooling mechanism (15) based on the temperature sensor [0018].). UEDA does not explicitly teach: wherein the controller controls a temperature of the temperature convertor using received temperature data. In the same field of endeavor, bonding apparatus, COVINGTON teaches the system controller (630) receives signals from the temperature sensors (632, 634) to facilitate temperature control, preferably using a feedback loop [0096]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify UEDA, by having the controller adjust the temperature from the data from the temperature sensor, as suggested by COVINGTON, in order to have precise control of the device layer’s cooling and heating [0096].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (JP 2016187013A), hereinafter UEDA, and Covington et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0106799), hereinafter COVINGTON, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vogt (U.S. 5,399,223), hereinafter VOGT.
Regarding claim 6, UEDA and COVINGTON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cooler comprises a cooling fin. In the same field of endeavor, laminating, VOGT teaches a cooler comprises a cooling fins [Col. 7, lines 24-28]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify UEDA and COVINGTON, by having a cooler (21) comprise a cooling fin (21b), as suggested by VOGT, as it’s a known option in the art [Col. 7, lines 24-25]. See also KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 7, COVINGTON further teaches: wherein the cooler comprises one or more cooling fans located at a lower end of the cooling fin (COVINGTON teaches the cooler (626) comprises fans [0096; Fig. 16]). In the alternative, VOGT teaches the cooling block (21a) may additionally be cooled by the air flow of a cooling fan [Col. 8, lines 40-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify UEDA and COVINGTON, by having a cooler comprise an additional cooling fan, as suggested by VOGT, as it’s a known option in the art [Col. 7, lines 24-25]. See also KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748