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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 9-13
remain pending in the application. The claim objection from the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/30/2025 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a energy cell” is included as part of claim 1, which should instead state “an energy cell”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Claims 12 and 13 recite the limitation "the clamping vise". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 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, 3, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Emmanouil Volakakis (EP 3450122 A1 - hereinafter Volakakis) in view of Xin Liu
(CN 113363608 A - hereinafter Liu) and Patrick Franze (US 20130186246 A1 – hereinafter
Franze.
Regarding claim 1, Volakakis teaches a system for disassembling a case of an energy
storage device (energy cell) (Fig. 1, Battery 2), the system comprising: an energy cell securement
device (Fig. 1, Positioning Device 60) and a carriage (Fig. 12, Moving Means 40); and a cutting
tool (Fig. 8, Blade 5); wherein the energy cell securement device is configured to secure an
energy cell with a portion of a case of the energy cell being exposed (Fig. 1, an outer portion of
Battery 2 is exposed when in Positioning Device 60); wherein the energy cell securement device
and the cutting tool are arranged such that the portion of the case is able to contact the cutting
tool (the case is cut by the tool, therefore it is able to contact the tool); and wherein the carriage
is configured to convey the energy cell in relation to the cutting tool such that the cutting tool is
positioned to cleave the portion of the case of the energy cell ([0032]).
Volakakis fails to teach that the energy cell securement device is arranged on the
carriage, and that it is conveyed by the carriage along with the energy cell. Volakakis also fails to
teach that the energy cell securement device fixedly secures the energy cell.
However, Liu teaches a system for disassembling a case of an energy storage device
wherein an energy cell securement device (Fig. 5, device comprised of Sliding Connecting Plate
63 and Sliding Plate 68) is arranged on and conveyed by a carriage (Fig. 5, Pushing Rod 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the energy cell securement device of Volakakis to be arranged on and therefore conveyed by the carriage as taught by Liu. Doing so is beneficial as it prevents
unwanted movement of the battery throughout the disassembly process (Liu; page 4, para 14).
The combination of Volakakis and Liu fails to teach wherein the energy cell is fixedly
secured by the energy cell securement device, and wherein the energy cell securement device includes an adjustable clamping device having opposed sides that define a battery-shaped space, and that are moveable to exert a compressive force on the energy cell.
However, Franze teaches a system for disassembling a cylindrically shaped object
wherein an energy cell securement device fixedly secures the cylindrically shaped object with the use of an adjustable clamping device having opposed sides that define a battery-shaped space, and that are moveable to exert a compressive force on the energy cell (Fig. 5, Item 24 is fixedly secured by First Clamping Assembly 16 and Second Clamping Assembly 18;
[0005], which includes opposed sides defining a generally battery-shaped space and are movable to exert a compressive force on the workpiece [0015]-[0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the energy cell securement device of the combination of Volakakis
and Liu to include the features of claim 1 above as taught by Franze. Doing so is beneficial as
it allows to the energy cell securement device to maintain a desired force in the energy cell
during the cutting process (Franze, [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze above already teach
the system of claim 1, wherein the carriage is configured to translate the energy cell securement
device such that the cutting tool is positioned to cleave a longitudinal slit into the case of the
energy cell (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze fails to teach
that the cutting tool comprises a wedge shaped chisel.
However, Franze further teaches a cutting tool which comprises a wedge shaped chisel
(Fig. 4, Blade 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutting tool of the existing combination of Volakakis, Liu, and
Franze to be a wedge shaped chisel as taught by Franze. A change in form or shape is generally
recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of
unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 11, Volakakis further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the
cutting tool is a fixed saw blade (Fig. 7, Blade 5; [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, the existing combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze fails to
teach the system of claim 1, wherein the compressive force of a clamping device fixedly secures the energy cell in a desired position.
However, Franze further teaches an energy cell securement device (Fig. 1, First
Clamping Assembly 16 and Second Clamping Assembly 18) which comprises a clamping vise
(Fig. 5, Head 42 and Seat 44) that is used to fixedly secure a workpiece in a desired position ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the existing combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze to include
the features of claim 12 above as taught by Franze. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the energy
cell securement device to selectively hold the energy cell (Franze, [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, existing combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze already teaches
the system of claim 1, wherein a clamping vise includes opposed moveable jaws (a clamping
vise inherently is comprised of opposed moveable jaws).
The existing combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze fails to teach wherein faces of
the opposed moveable jaws are semi-cylindrically shaped.
However, Franze further teaches a semi-cylindrically (Fig. 5, the bottom surface of Head
62 and the top surface of Seat 68 are curved and generally semi-cylindrically shaped) shaped
opposed moveable jaws.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the existing combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze to include
the features of claim 13 above as taught by Franze. A change in form or shape is generally
recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of
unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmanouil
Volakakis (EP 3450122 A1 - hereinafter Volakakis) in view of Xin Liu (CN 113363608 A -
hereinafter Liu) and Patrick Franze (US 20130186246 A1 – hereinafter Franze as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atsushi Mizusawa (US 9160043 B2 - hereinafter
Mizusawa).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze above already teach
the system of claim 1, wherein the carriage is configured to convey the energy cell securement
device such that the cutting tool is positioned to cleave the portion of the case of the energy cell
(See the rejection of claim 1 above).
The combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze fails to explicitly teach that the cleaving
action does not interfere with an internal portion of the energy cell.
However, Mizusawa teaches a system for dissembling a case of an energy cell where the
cleaving action does not interfere with an internal portion of the energy cell (Col 4, lines 42-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze such that the cleaving action does not interfere with an internal portion of the energy cell as taught by
Mizusawa. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for the core of the battery in its entirety to be
extracted for recycling purposes (Mizusawa; Col 1, lines 47-55).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Emmanouil Volakakis (EP 3450122 A1 - hereinafter Volakakis) in view of Xin Liu (CN
113363608 A - hereinafter Liu) and Patrick Franze (US 20130186246 A1 – hereinafter
Franze as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Troy Thorson et al. (US
20110005084 A1 - hereinafter Thorson).
Regarding claim 4, Volakakis further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the
carriage is arranged on a table (Fig. 1, Base 4), wherein the table includes a base (Fig. 1, Wall
46). The combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze already teaches wherein the carriage is
translatable on the base to translate the energy cell securement device (See the rejection of claim
1 above).
The combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze fails to teach that the table includes a
worm gear, the carriage being translatable in response to rotation of the worm gear.
However, Thorson teaches a system for dissembling a cylindrically shaped object which
uses a worm gear (Fig. 17, Worm Screw 680 and Advancing Gear 685), the rotation of which
causes the translation of a carriage (Fig. 17, Cutting Wheel Carriage 610).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze such that the table
includes a worm gear, and the carriage is translatable in response to the rotation of said worm
gear as taught by Thorson. Doing so would have required only the simple substitution of the
existing drive system of Volakakis (Volakakis; Hydrodynamic Actuator 41) with the worm gear of Thorson, and the substitution would lead to the predictable result of the carriage translating in
the same manner in response to the rotation of the worm gear rather than the hydrodynamic
actuator. It is known in the art that both and worm gear and a hydrodynamic actuator can be used
to translate an item attached at the working end.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze already teaches the
system of claim 4, wherein the carriage is translatable to translate the energy cell securement
device in response to the rotation of the worm gear such that the cutting tool is positioned to
cleave the portion of the case of the energy cell (See the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above).
Volakakis further teaches that a longitudinal slit is what is cleaved in the portion of the slit (Fig.
12, the battery is cut in half, thereby creating a longitudinal slit in the case), and that the carriage
is translatable on the base (Fig. 1, Rod 42 of the Moving Means 40 slides through Wall 46).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmanouil
Volakakis (EP 3450122 A1 - hereinafter Volakakis) in view of Xin Liu (CN 113363608 A -
hereinafter Liu) and Patrick Franze (US 20130186246 A1 – hereinafter Franze as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi-yong Shen et al. (CN 110026407 A – hereinafter
Shen).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze fails to teach the
system of claim 1, wherein the cutting tool comprises a snipping tool.
However, Shen teaches as system for disassembling the case of an energy cell wherein
the cutting tool comprises a snipping tool (Fig. 4, Cutting Piece 2011 comprised of Fig. 5,
Internal Blade 20113 and Sleeve Frame 20114; examiner interprets that a snipping tool is one
with opposing sharp edges which can move closer and farther from one another to perform a
cut).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Volakakis, Liu, and Franze to include the
elements of claim 10 above as taught by Shen. Doing so would have required only the simple
substitution of the existing cutting tool with a snipping cutting tool as taught by Shen, and the
substitution would lead to the predictable result of the case of the energy cell being cleaved from
opposing sides rather than by a singular blade as taught by Volakakis. It is known in the art that
both a single blade and two spaced apart and moveable blades are capable of cleaving a portion
of an energy cell and its case.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that Volakakis cannot be modified to teach an adjustable clamping device having opposed sides that define a battery shaped space, and that are moveable to exert a compressive force on the energy cell since the device of Volakakis functions by allowing the battery to travel relative to its resting place. However, the inclusion of such an adjustable clamp would not prevent the movement of the battery, as the clamp could simply be adjusted to release any compressive force once the time comes for the battery to be pushed by Rod 42 of Volakakis. Therefore, the modification would not prevent the device of Volakakis from functioning as intended. Applicant also contends that Franze does not teach an adjustable clamping device having opposed sides that define a battery shaped space, and that are moveable to exert a compressive force on the energy cell. However, this structure and function is demonstrated to be found in Franze in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights