PRE-STACKING APPARATUS AND BATTERY PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
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) submitted on 1/18/2024, 11/25/2024, and 5/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “battery cells”, “the first drive member is connected between the main body and the mounting seat”, “the pushing member is movably disposed on the mounting seat along the arrangement direction of the battery cells”, and “at least two pre-stacking positions” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-10 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 1 and 9 disclose a “pre-stacking position” and a “pressurization position”. How are these two limitations different from one another? The drawings simply point to two locations on the support member but they do not seem different from each other. Further, in regards to the “pressurization position”, what is being pressurized?
Claim 7 discloses the limitation “rollably disposed”. The term “rollably” is not an actual word in the English language.
Claims 2-6 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claim 1.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109585901 A) and further in view of Gao et al. (CN 113054260 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Wang et al. teach a pre-stacking apparatus (Figs. 1-3, paragraph0012disclose an automatic pre-assembly device.), comprising:
a mounting seat (Figs. 1-3 disclose an indexing turntable, element 1.), wherein the mounting seat is provided with a pre-stacking position (Fig. 1 discloses a battery cell loading and stacking station, element 2.) and a pressurization position (Fig. 1, element 5 discloses an unloading station.);
a tray, disposed on the mounting seat, wherein the tray is configured to bear at least two battery cells, and the battery cells are arranged along a thickness direction of the battery cells (Fig. 1, paragraph 0014 discloses a battery stacking bracket, element 6, arranged on the turntable, element 1. Fig. 3 shows the battery cells being arranged in a thickness direction.);
and a pushing assembly (Fig. 1, element 8), movably disposed in the pressurization position along the arrangement direction of the battery cells (Paragraphs 0006, 0015, 0020; Fig. 1) and configured to push the battery cells on the tray in the pressurization position to attach to each other (Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs 0005-0008; 0012-0024.
However, Wang et al. do not teach a first clamping assembly, disposed on the tray and configured to clamp the battery cells on the tray; a second clamping assembly, disposed in the pressurization position and configured to be capable of being apart from the first clamping assembly along a height direction of the battery cells when the tray has moved from the pre-stacking position to the pressurization position, and to clamp the battery cells on the tray.
Gao et al. teach a first clamping assembly (Fig. 5 discloses an extrusion plate, element 504), disposed on the tray and configured to clamp the battery cells on the tray (Fig. 5 discloses the extrusion plate, element 504, is disposed on a module stacking tray, element 503.); a second clamping assembly, disposed in the pressurization position (Fig. 1, paragraph 0050 discloses a first pressing assembly, element 100.) and configured to be capable of being apart from the first clamping assembly along a height direction of the battery cells when the tray has moved from the pre-stacking position to the pressurization position, and to clamp the battery cells on the tray (Paragraph 0050 discloses the first pressing assembly includes a plurality of press rollers, element 101, that can be raised and lowered, thus configured to be movably arranged along the height direction of the battery cells on the mounting seat, element 501 in fig. 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang with the cell clamping mechanism of Gao to ensure flatness of the top.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang and Gao et al. teach the pre-stacking apparatus according to claim 1. Further, Gao et al. teach wherein the first clamping assembly and the second clamping assembly each comprise a first clamping member and a second clamping member that are respectively disposed on two sides of the tray along a width direction of the battery cells, at least one of the first clamping member and the second clamping member being movably disposed along the width direction of the battery cells (See annotated Figs. 3 and 5 below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Gao
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Gao
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang with the cell clamping mechanism of Gao to ensure flatness of the top.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Gao et al. teach the pre-stacking apparatus according to claim 3. Further, Wang et al. teach wherein the second clamping assembly further comprises a main body (Fig. 1, paragraph 0016 discloses a clamping plate, element 11.) and a first drive member (Fig. 1, paragraph 0016 discloses a clamping cylinder, element 9.), wherein the first drive member is connected between the main body and the mounting seat and wherein the first clamping member and the second clamping member in the second clamping assembly are disposed on the main body (Fig. 3, paragraph 0016 discloses the use of clamping blocks, element 10.).
However, Wang et al. do not disclose they are configured to drive the main body to move along the height direction of the battery cells.
Gao et al. teach a battery module shaping and pressing mechanisms comprising a first driving member (Paragraph 0051 discloses a first air cylinder.) to drive the main body to move along the height direction of the battery cells (Paragraphs 0055-0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang with the cell clamping mechanism of Gao to ensure flatness of the top.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang and Gao et al. teach the pre-stacking apparatus according to claim 4. Further, Gao et al. teach a limiting assembly (Fig. 1, paragraph 0050 discloses a bottom of first pressing assembly, element 100.) arranged on the main body (Fig. 6 discloses a first support frame, element 102) and located between the first clamping member and the second clamping member (Paragraph 0050 discloses a pressing plate, element 201.). Gao further discloses the limiting assembly is used to press the battery cells on the tray along the height direction of the battery cells (Paragraph 0055; fig 6).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include limiting device to stacking device of Wang as the limiting assembly “compresses the top surface of battery module” to “effectively ensure the key dimensions of the battery module” as taught by Gao above (para 55, 62).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang and Gao et al. teach the pre-stacking apparatus according to claim 5. Further, Gao et al. teach the limiting assembly (Paragraph 50, “bottom of first pressing assembly” 100) comprises a adjustment member (Paragraph 51, “the first spring 110”, fig 6) and a pressing member (Paragraph 51, “press rollers 101”; fig 6), the adjustment member is telescopically connected between the main body and the pressing member along the height direction of the battery cells (fig 6), and the pressing member is used to press the battery cells on the tray along the height direction of the battery cells (Paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include limiting device comprising adjustment member and a pressing member to stacking device of Wang as the limiting assembly comprising adjustment member and a pressing member “compresses the top surface of battery module” to “effectively ensure the key dimensions of the battery module” as taught by Gao above (para 55, 62).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang and Gao et al. teach the pre-stacking apparatus according to claim 6. Further, Gao et al. teach the pressing member comprises a connecting portion and a rolling portion (See annotated figure 6 below), the connecting portion is connected to the adjustment member, and the rolling portion is rollably arranged on the connecting portion along the thickness direction of the battery cells to be rollably pressed against the battery cells on the tray along the height direction of the battery cells (fig 6).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the artto include pressing member comprising connecting portion and rolling portion to stacking device of Wang as the connecting portion and the rolling portion in the pressing member “compresses the top surface of battery module” to “effectively ensure the key dimensions of the battery module” as taught by Gao above (para 55, 62).
PNG
media_image5.png
476
667
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Gao
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang and Gao et al. teach the pre-stacking apparatus according to claim 6. Further, Wang et al. teach discloses the pushing assembly comprises an abutting member (Paragraph 15, “stopper”) and a pushing member (Paragraph 15, “push cylinder 8”), the abutting member is arranged on the tray (Paragraph 15; fig 1). The stopper restrains the movement of the stack, while the push cylinder drives the stopper to “perform the pushing and retracting movement” (Paragraph 15). As stated in claim 1, the pushing member is movably arranged on the mounting seat along the thickness direction of the battery cells. The abutting member and the pushing member are necessarily arranged on two sides of the tray along the thickness direction of the battery cells; and the pushing member is configured to be able to push the battery cells on the tray along the thickness direction of the battery cells against the abutting member.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses battery processing equipment (fig 1) comprising the pre-stacking device according to claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/501,662 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in claims 1-15 of ‘662 encompass all of the limitations recited in claims 1-10 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 June 23rd, 2026
Prosecution Insights