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 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, 4, 8, 9,10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Van Der Toorn 2002/0008345 A1.
Van Der Toorn discloses the claimed invention as recited in the claims has shown below:
1. A welding clamp, comprising: a plurality of clamping portions ; the plurality of clamping portions are [used] being arranged to match in size and shape (clamping portion matched in size and shape See Fig.1) and clamp a continuous peripehery of a (this is done when the workpiece is placed in the clamp See Fig.1) case of a battery cell, cell includes] including a body portion and a connecting portion 5A, 5C and 5D, 5F, [and] where the connecting portion and the body portion are detachably connected; wherein, a wear-resistant layer Par.0023 (Teflon noted the parts can be made solid) is connected to a surface of the connecting portion facing the case, and the wear-resistant layer is configured such that any surface of the connecting portion in contact with the case comprises the wear-resistant layer (See par.0021 discloses aluminum which is a metal that has a rear resistant layer) .
4. The welding clamp according to claim 1, wherein the material of the wear-resistant layer is one of Teflon, polybenzimidazole, polyamide-imide, polyimide and poly(ether-ether-ketone). Par.0023 Teflon
8. The welding clamp according to claim 1, wherein the body portion has a first surface facing the case, and the wear-resistant layer at least partially protrudes from the first surface. See Fig.1
9. The welding clamp according to claim 1, wherein the wear-resistant layer completely covers the surface of the connecting portion facing the case. See Fig.1
10. The welding clamp according to claim 1, wherein the body portion is provided with an accommodating portion for accommodating at least a part of the connecting portion. See Fig.1
11. The welding clamp according to claim 1, wherein the welding clamp includes four clamping portions, two of which fit and clamp the case along a first direction and the other two of which clamping portions fit and clamp the case along a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction. See elements 5A, 5C and 5D, 5F
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Toorn 2002/0008345 A1 in view of Kovacs et al 11,614,111.
Van Der Toorn discloses the claimed invention except for layer of Teflon between 0.1 mm and 0.5 mm.
Kovacs discloses spraying a Teflon layer on which is greater than zero having a thickness which is not set out however Van Der toorn discloses the whole invention can solid Teflon therefore between the two references the range is covered and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Van Der Toorn device to be within the range 0.1mm and 0.5mm as a matter of known choices from being solid to a layer as a matter choice which yields the predictable result of having a selected thickness. KSR
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Toorn 2002/0008345 A1 in view of Larsson et al 6967101.
Van Der Toorn discloses the claimed invention except for a bonding layer when using Teflon.
Larsson et al disclose Teflon Col.5, line 25 and the use of bonding layers col.8, lines 22-25 which is use fully in helping bond and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Van Der Toorn device to have a bonding layer to attach Teflon as opposed to having to do injection moulding yields the predictable result of forming a Teflon layer. KSR
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Van Der Toorn 2002/0008345 A1 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Canada CA 2009836 A1.
The modified Van Der Toorn does not discloses temperatue ranges and melting points form 180 to 200 Celius. (The maximum temperature of the coagulationliquid is that temperature at which the membrane orfiber is not adversely affected and below the boilingpoint of the coagulation fluid. The temperature is pre~erably between 0 and 200 degreeq Celsius, more) which shows this is known temperature and t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the the time the invention was filed to have modified the modified Van Der Toorn device by applying the knowledge of the known temperature of equal of less than 200 form making a Teflon layer as an known substitute to yield the predictable result of having a Teflon layer. KSR
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has amended the claim in order to place them in condition for allowance.
The applicant states there are matching shapes and sizes which the prior art shows evern spaced apart from each other. The clamp will surround whatever is placed inside so the limitation is covered. Metal has a rear resistance outer layer which is known in the art.
Therefore these limitations do not read over what is shown in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 January 14, 2026