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 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 and claim 13 line 2.
“a pressing-down mechanism… configured to press down…” in claim 1 line 3-4 and claim 13 line 3-4.
“a first limiting mechanism configured to limit…” in claim 3 line 2 and claim 13 line 6.
“a second limiting mechanism configured to limit…” in claim 6 line 2 and claim 13 line 11.
“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 DE 60107205 to Piantoni (translation provided by examiner) and 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 a 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) while the housing remains stationary such that the housing fits with the end cap and 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. However, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an appropriate orientation of the workpieces within an apparatus to suit a particular application of the invention, and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to re-arrange or swap the positions of the end cap and the housing within the assembly device with the reasonable expectation that the swapped positions/orientations of the end cap and housing would not prevent the end cap from closing off the opening in the housing as claimed.
Further, Piantoni discloses a similar assembly device comprising a supporting member (see lower punch 20 in Fig 2 and 6-7) that supports an end cap (see second metal housing part/lid 31 in Fig 6) of a battery cell (see electrochemical cell 9 in Fig 7) and a pressing-down mechanism (see upper punch 8 in Fig 2 and 6-7) arranged above the supporting member, the pressing-down mechanism being configured to press down a wall of the housing (see first metal housing part/cup 30 in Fig 6-7; wherein the wall is the top wall of the first metal housing part 30 pressed directly by the upper punch) of the battery cell toward the end cap while the end cap remains stationary such that the housing fits with the end cap, and the end cap closes off an opening of the housing, the opening of the housing facing downward , and the wall of the housing being opposite the opening (see Fig 6-7 in which the upper punch 8 descends according to the array shown in Fig 7 while the lower punch 20 remains stationary to push the first metal housing part 30 towards the second metal housing part 31 to close off the opening in the first metal part arranged opposite the wall in which the upper punch 8 contacts; see translation Page 6).
Furthermore, 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 while the housing remains stationary, 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 such that the end cap is supported with the supporting member and the housing is positioned above the end cap with its opening facing downward and a wall opposite the opening of the housing is pressed by the pressing-down mechanism to close off the opening of the housing as taught by Piantoni and Shikata respectively. 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 orientation of the end cap and the housing and/or the shapes/orientations of 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 Piantoni and 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 (Shikata: Para 0005-0006, 0008, and 0066).
As per claim 2, Sumiyama, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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, Piantoni, 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.
A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 7-8 was provided in the office action dated 02/17/2026.
Claim 13 contains the exact same claim limitations as previous claim 7, and therefore is allowable for the same reasons.
Claim 13 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0024258 to Sumiyama in view of US 2019/0319226 to Shikata have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments made to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of DE 60107205 to Piantoni (see above 103 rejection for specific details).
It is noted by the examiner the applicant’s arguments regarding the 112f interpretation of the claims is not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues that the 112f limitations interpreted by the examiner when read in light of the specification connote sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However that is not relevant for a 112f interpretation of claim language; rather the examiner is required to interpret the claim language under a 112f interpretation when the language invokes a 112f interpretation based on the three-prong test described above in the claim interpretation section. Therefore because the outlined limitations include a substitute for “means” which is modified by functional language without being modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, the outlined limitations must be interpreted under 112f. It is also noted, that interpreting limitations under 112f is not a rejection or objection to the claim language, rather a different way of interpreting the limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Thursday between 6 AM and 10 AM 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
Prosecution Insights