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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1, 3, and 5–15 are pending.
Claims 2 and 4 are canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0282871 A1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 February 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office Action on 28 January 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The numbers, letters, and/or reference characters of FIGS. 4 and 5 are not at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 0.32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See 37 CFR 1.84 (p)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections of claims 1–10.
Claim Interpretation
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 is:
An edge folding mechanism in claim 1.
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.
The structure of the edge folding mechanism is considered to be a connecting plate and two edge folding assemblies.
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.
The claim limitation "defining mechanism" and "a driving unit" are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claims recite sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicants' amendments have overcome the rejections of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1, 3, and 5–15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the block" in lines 4–5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office recommends the limitation "the push block."
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extension direction of the first sliding rail" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office recommends the limitation "an extension direction of the first sliding rail."
Claim 3 recites the limitation "an extension direction of the first sliding rail." Claim 1, which claim 3 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "the extension direction of the first sliding rail" and provides antecedent basis for the term "extension direction of the first sliding rail." Claim 3 does not include a term, such as "the" or "said," indicating "extension direction of the first sliding rail" is further limiting or referencing "extension direction of the first sliding rail" recited in claim 1. It is unclear if "an extension direction of the first sliding rail" recited in claim 3 is further limiting or referencing "the extension direction of the first sliding rail" recited in claim 1.
Claims 5–9 are directly or indirectly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claims 5–9 are also 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein the defining mechanism further comprises a second restraint block disposed on the restraint base." Claim 1, which claim 10 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "the defining mechanism comprises a restraint base and at least one restraint block." It is unclear if "a second restraint block" recited in claim 10 is further limiting "at least one restraint block" recited in claim 1. If "a second restraint block" recited in claim 10 is further limiting "at least one restraint block" recited in claim 1, the number of restraint blocks required by claim 10 is one. However if "a second restraint block" recited in claim 10 is not further limiting "at least one restraint block" recited in claim 1, the number of restraint blocks required by claim 10 is two. Therefore, the number of restraint blocks required by claim 10 is unclear.
Claims 11–15 are directly or indirectly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 11–15 are also 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, and 5–15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Lu et al. (CN 210653750 U, hereinafter Lu).
Lu discloses a device for wrapping an insulating film (150) around a battery cell (140), the device (FIG. 1, [0024]) comprising a push mechanism (10, [0024]; 110, [0024]; 40, [0024]), wherein the push mechanism (110, 40) comprises a substrate (10) for holding a battery cell (140, [0024]) and a push assembly (40) disposed on the substrate (110, [0024]), the push assembly (40) comprises a push block (40, [0024]), a defining mechanism (30), wherein the defining mechanism (30, 50) is disposed on a side of the substrate (10, [0024]), and the defining mechanism (30, 50) comprises a restraint base (30) and at least one restraint block (50) configured to limit movement of the battery cell (140) on the substrate (10, [0024]); an edge folding mechanism (40), wherein the edge folding mechanism (40) is disposed opposite the push mechanism (110), and the edge folding mechanism (110) is configured to fold an edge of an insulating film (150) wrapped around the battery cell (140, [0024]); and a driving unit (110), wherein the driving unit (110) is configured to drive the edge folding mechanism (40) to fold the edge of the insulating film (150) wrapped around the battery cell (140) and drive the push block (40) to slide along the extension direction of the first sliding rail (80) to push the battery cell (140) on the substrate (10, [0024]).
Lu does not disclose, teach, or suggest the following distinguishing feature:
A device for wrapping an insulating film around a battery cell, the device comprising a push block being provided with a restraint groove, and a first sliding rail; and a cam assembly comprising a cam fitting with the restraint groove, the cam sliding along an extension direction of the restraint groove and fitting with the restraint groove to limit a position of the push block.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue replacement drawing sheets including FIGS. 4 and 5 have been submitted. No replacement drawing sheets have been submitted. The response to the Office Action includes twelve pages with a cover letter accounting for the first page, amendment to the specification accounting for the second page, amendments to the claims accounting for the third to sixth pages, and the remarks accounting for the seventh to twelfth pages. All twelve pages are included. Therefore, replacement drawing sheets including FIGS. 4 and 5 have not been submitted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 5–15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights