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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/09/2024 has been acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 21 in Fig 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a supporting member configured to support…” in claim 1 line 2.
“a pressing-down mechanism… configured to press down…” in claim 1 line 3-4.
“a first limiting mechanism configured to limit…” in claim 3 line 2.
“a second limiting mechanism configured to limit…” in claim 6 line 2.
“a second limiting mechanism configured to limit…” in claim 10 line 1.
“a third limiting mechanism configured to limit…” in claim 11 line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0024258 to Sumiyama in view of US 2019/0319226 to Shikata.
As per claim 1, Sumiyama discloses an assembly device, comprising:
a supporting member (see lower die 26 in Fig 2) configured to support an housing of a battery (see battery case in Fig 1-2) of a battery cell (see battery 100 in Fig 1-2); and
a pressing-down mechanism (see upper die 28 in Fig 2) arranged above the supporting member, the pressing-down mechanism being configured to press down an end cap (see terminal plate 10 and sealing plate 3 in Fig 1-2) of the battery cell to enable the housing to fit with the end cap, so that the end cap closes off an opening of the housing (see Fig 1-2; see Para 0046 and 0078).
As per claim 1, Sumiyama discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but discloses that the support member supports the housing and the pressing down mechanism presses down the end cap which is swapped from the support member supporting the cap member and the pressing down mechanism pressing down the housing as claimed in claim 1.
Shikata discloses a similar assembly device comprising a supporting member (see attaching jig 72 in Fig 13-15) that supports an end cap (see lid 30 in Fig 6-7 and 13-15) of a battery cell (see battery 10 in Fig 1 and assembly 10A in Fig 7) and a pressing-down mechanism (see supporting member 75D with pressing portions 75A-C and case holding jig 62 in Fig 13-15) arranged above the supporting member, the pressing-down mechanism being configured to press a housing (battery case 20, Fig 5-7 and 13-15) of the battery cell to enable the housing to fit with the end cap, so that the end cap closes off an opening of the housing (Para 0085 and 0088), wherein the orientation of the housing pointing its opening downward towards the end cap allows for the suppression of metallic foreign objects from penetrating the battery case which can cause short circuits and battery failure (see Para 0005-0006, 0008, and 0066).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the disclosure of Sumiyama so as support the end cap with the supporting member and use the pressing down mechanism arranged above the supporting member to press down the housing to fit with the end cap as taught by Shikata. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is generally within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to re-arrange or swap parts, i.e. swapping the orientation of the housing and end cap and associated structures/shapes of the structures so that the structures can work on the housing and end cap in the same way just reversed, in order to suit a particular application of the invention; therefore it would be a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art to swap the shape of the structures (i.e. the supporting member and the pressing down mechanism) of Sumiyama so that the supporting member supports the end cap and the pressing down mechanism presses down the housing to fit with the end cap as taught by Shikata; the obvious advantages being that the housing being orientated with its opening facing downwards would suppress metallic foreign objects from penetrating the battery case, thereby preventing short circuits resultant battery failure (see Para 0005-0006, 0008, and 0066).
As per claim 2, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sumiyama discloses that the press down mechanism (28) that interacts with the end cap (10/3) is recessed to accommodate an electrode terminal (see protrusion 10a in Fig 1-2); and Shikata further discloses that the supporting member comprises a supporting face configured to support the end cap (see support face of the attaching jig 72 provided between the recessed portions 72C-D that directly supports the lid 30 and also stepped portion 72E which also supports the lid 30 in Fig 13-15) and a recessed portion (see first and second recessed portions 72C-D in Fig 13-15) recessed from the supporting face in a direction away from the pressing-down mechanism, the recessed portion being configured to avoid an electrode terminal (see electrode terminals 17 and 18 in Fig 13-15) at the end cap (see Fig 13-15; Para 0084).
As per claim 3, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sumiyama further discloses a first limiting mechanism (see guide 27 in Fig 2) configured to limit the end cap in a first direction (left-right in Fig 2) perpendicular to a pressing down direction (up-down in Fig 2) of the pressing-down mechanism (see Fig 2); and Shikata further discloses a first limiting mechanism (see stepped portion 72E of attaching jig 72 in Fig 13-15) configured to limit the end cap in a first direction (left-right in Fig 13A) perpendicular to a pressing down direction (up-down in Fig 13A) of the pressing-down mechanism.
As per claim 4, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Sumiyama discloses that the first limiting mechanism comprises two first limiting members (see left side of guide 27 and right side of guide 27 in Fig 2, wherein each side of the guide contacts a different side of the end cap and/or housing), and a first limiting gap (see gap provided between the left and right sides of the guide 27 that accommodate the terminal plate 10 and sealing plate 3) for accommodating the end cap is formed between the two first limiting members in the first direction (see Fig 2); and Shikata further discloses that the first limiting mechanism comprises two first limiting members (see left side stepped portion 72E and right side stepped portion 72E in Fig 13-15), and a first limiting gap (see gap positioned between the stepped portions 72E that accommodates the lid 30 therebetween so that the lid 30 can be supported by the support portion provided between the recesses 72C-D) for accommodating the end cap is formed between the two first limiting members in the first direction (see Fig 13-15).
As per claim 5, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Sumiyama further discloses that the press down mechanism (28) that interacts with the end cap (10/3) at least partially extends into the first limiting gap to press down on the end cap (see Fig 2 that shows the upper die extends into the gap provided between the left and rights sides of the guide 27); and Shikata further discloses that the supporting member at least partially extends into the first limiting gap to support the end cap (see Fig 13-15 that shows that the supporting portion of the attaching jig 72 provided between the recesses 72C-D at least partially extends into the gap between the stepped portions 72E to support the lid 30).
As per claim 6, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Shikata further discloses a second limiting mechanism (see moving jigs 64B-D and fixing jig 62A of pressing jig 64 and second holding jig 67 of the case holding jig 62 in Fig 12-15) configured to limit the housing in the first direction (left-right direction in Fig 13A), wherein the second limiting mechanism comprises two second limiting members (see fixing jigs 64C-D and the left side and the right side of second holding jig 67 in Fig 12-15), the two second limiting members are respectively arranged on the two first limiting members (see Fig 14 that shows the fixing jigs 64C-D, as well as the second holding jig 67, are arranged on the stepped portions 72E), and a second limiting gap for accommodating the housing is formed between the two second limiting members in the first direction (see gap between the fixing jigs 64C-D and the gap between the left side and the right side of the second holding jig 67 each configured to accommodate the battery case 20 as shown in Fig 12-15).
As per claim 9, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Shikata discloses that the second limiting mechanism (pressing jig 64 and second holding jig 67) can comprise high hardness metallic materials when the second limiting mechanism is configured to deform the battery case inwards (Para 0071) or can comprise non-metallic resin materials if the second limiting mechanism is simply used for positioning the battery case (Para 0075), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose between metallic and non-metallic materials for the second limiting members based on the particular application of the invention needing deformation of the housing or not; wherein an obvious advantage of using non-metallic materials being that the softer non-metallic materials used for simple positioning would not deform or mar the housing.
As per claim 10, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Shikata further discloses a second limiting mechanism (see moving jigs 64C-D of pressing jig 64 and second holding jig 67 of the case holding jig 62 in Fig 12-15) configured to limit the housing in the first direction (left-right direction in Fig 13A) perpendicular to the pressing down direction (up-down direction in Fig 13A).
As per claim 11, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shikata further discloses a third limiting mechanism (see second holding jig 67 and first holding jig 66 of the case holding jig 62 in Fig 13-15) configured to limit the housing in a second direction (left-right direction or in-out of the page in Fig 13A) perpendicular to a pressing down direction (up-down direction in Fig 13A) of the pressing down mechanism.
As per claim 12, Sumiyama and Shikata disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Shikata further discloses that the third limiting mechanism comprises two third limiting members spaced apart in the second direction (see second holding jig 67 and first holding jig 66, wherein each of these jigs is spaced apart in a direction perpendicular to the pressing direction which can be interpreted to be the second direction), and a surface of each of the two third limiting members that faces the housing is provided with a second groove configured for the housing to be engaged in (see inclined surfaces 66a of first holding jig 66 and inclined surfaces 67a of second holding jig 67 in Fig 13-15 configured to engaging the battery case 20 during insertion of the battery case 20 into the case holding jig 62; Para 0077-0078).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 is directed towards an assembly device dependent upon claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7, specifically, the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitations in combination with the other limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7:
an assembly device comprising: a supporting member (10) that supports an end cap (230) of a battery call, a pressing-down mechanism (20) arranged above the supporting member and configured to press down a housing (220) of the battery cell to fit the housing with the end cap so as to close off an opening of the housing, a first limiting mechanism (50) comprising two first limiting members (51) with a first limiting gap (52) for accommodating the end cap between the first limiting members that limits the end cap in a first direction perpendicular to a pressing down direction of the pressing-down mechanism, and a second limiting mechanism (60) comprising two second limiting members (61) arranged in first grooves (512) of the two first limiting members and with a second limiting gap (62) for limiting the housing in the first direction.
None of the prior art discloses or renders obvious the details regarding the first limiting mechanism and the second mechanism, specifically a first limiting mechanism with two first limiting members that limit the cap within a first gap between the first limiting members in a first direction perpendicular to a press down direction and a second limiting mechanism with two second limiting members provided in grooves of the first limiting members that limit the housing within a second gap between the second limiting members in the first direction. The closest prior art are the following:
US 2019/0319226 to Shikata discloses a similar assembly device comprising an attaching jig 72 that holds an assembly of a battery case 20 and a lid 30 in a horizontal direction, and a case holding jig that cooperates with a downwardly moving pressing jig 75 such that a first holding jig 66 and a second holding jig 67 each with multiple members grip and position the battery case in horizontal directions and a pressing jig 64 with multiple members 64A-D presses and deforms the battery case onto the lid so as to close a gap therebetween. This reference does not disclose the limitations of the first limiting mechanism and the second limiting mechanism as claimed.
US 2015/0024258 to Sumiyama, US 2013/0330601, JP 2006-522458, JP 5060642, DE 60107205, and KR 20210145565 disclose pressing devices and methods for assembling an end cap to a housing of a battery cell, but also do not disclose the limitations of the first limiting mechanism and the second limiting mechanism as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D. Anderson, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0157. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 7 AM and 1 PM Arizona time.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong, can be reached at (571) 272-0993.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/JOSHUA D ANDERSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729