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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claim 1-7) in the reply filed on 7/2/26 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse dated 7/2/26
(Not that Group IV directed to claims 10-16 is confirmed. It was a typographical error that only claims 14-16 listed in unelected Group IV). Therefore, the unelected invention II-IV includes claims 8-16.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-7 as follows:
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claims drawn to a method operatively associated with a defect rejection device, therefore the following changes is/are suggested to the present preamble lines 1-3:
-- A control method operatively associated with a defect rejection device for defect rejection of battery electrode plates, the method comprising steps of:”--
Further, lines 2-3 of the preamble are also rewritten in the body of base claim 1, as the following to reflect method claim format:
--providing the defect rejection device includes a drive mechanism, a defective electrode plate detection mechanism, and a defect rejection mechanism;”--
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 1-7 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.
The recites of “a defect rejection device comprising a drive mechanism, a defective electrode plate detection mechanism, and a defect rejection mechanism”(see preamble lines 2-3) which made scope of the claim unclear since above directed to “a device structure” which assist the method and should be rewritten to positively method limitation as suggested under section of “claim objection” (see above).
Also, a second occurrence of transition term “comprising “in the preamble also made scope of the claim unclear in that it is unclear if the claim directed to the method or the device? in formulate the rejection on the merits the examiner presumes claims directed to the method and claims will be rejected accordingly and reasonably.
“during a transmission process” (claim 1, line 4) is not understood, appears to be incomplete since no transmission step has been cited prior to this. It is suggested a step of: “transporting the battery electrode plates from supplying source to . . .”, for clarity of the method claim formats.
Also, the phrase “during a transmission process” should be updated to reflect changes as suggested above, the use of –” wherein during the transporting “--.
The phrase: “obtaining a second distance that the defective electrode plate moves as driven by the drive mechanism, during a transmission process” (claim 1, lines 9-11) is not understood since it is not known as to how the obtaining can be practiced without “measuring of a second distance”. Please be more specific.
Also, whether the recites of:” during a transmission process” (claim 1, lines 10) as same as that in line 4 of claim 1?
Furthermore, claim 1 entirely is unclear and confusing in that it is not known as to exactly what method applicant intends to claim, claim 1 as present formats appears to directed to the arrangement and operation of “the detect rejection device” entity which does not further limit the method as claimed because no positive method limitation related to the method through out claim 1.
The terms or phrase such as “a preset condition” (claim 1, line 15) is vague and indefinite in that it is not known as to exactly what being referring as “a preset condition”. Please be more specific as to what is/are considered to be “the preset condition” in proper method claim formats so that with other features that enable this present condition to be satisfied.
“The phrases: "stack of the defect detection device" (see claim 2, lines 3-4) is vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, since this feature is not part of the preceding claim 1, has no antecedent basis in them and neither its scope/ function nor the intended limitations therefrom are clear. Analogous objections are valid for claim 3, which refer to a "quantity of elements in the stack".
The phrases: "quantity of elements in the stack is less than zero" used in claim 3 is vague and unclear in that it is not known as to what the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, which made scope of claim 3 unclear.
dependent claim 4 do not appear to contain any additional features which, in combination with the features of the claims to which they refers, The feature "scanning period" (existing in claim 4, lines 3-9) has no antecedent basis in the preceding claims, not to mention that this features is anyway not regarded as having any synergistic effect when combined with the preceding claims.
Claims 5-7 also directed to the features of the “a defect rejection device” entity and it functionally (see lines 1-3 of claims 5-7), respectively. Further, no connection between the body of claims 5-7, since the body of the above claims has no antecedent basis in the preceding claims, not to mention that these features are anyway not regarded as having any synergistic effect when combined with the preceding claims.
Claims 2-7 should be rewritten to reflect the controlling method rather than the arranging of the detective electrode plate and function which are not limiting the method as claimed.
“wherein: recording the first distance of the defective electrode plate comprises: “(claim 2, lines 1-2) is unclear and confusing since it is not further limiting the method as claimed.
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) 1-7 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al (US 20210245982).
Kobayashi et al discloses the claimed control method for defect rejection of battery electrode plates, applicable to a defect rejection device comprising a drive mechanism, a defective electrode plate detection mechanism, and a defect rejection mechanism, the method comprising:
during a transmission process of a battery electrode plate to the defect rejection mechanism as driven by the drive mechanism, upon the defective electrode plate detection mechanism detecting that the battery electrode plate is a defective electrode plate, recording a first distance of the defective electrode plate, which is a distance from the defective electrode plate to the defect rejection mechanism (see Fig. 1-12 and discussion in ¶¶ [0022-0123] for the teaching of the method associated with the apparatus/device to detect and rejection of defect battery electrode plates (21-22);
regarding to recitation of :” obtaining a second distance that the defective electrode plate moves as driven by the drive mechanism, during a transmission process of the defective electrode plate from the defective electrode plate detection mechanism to the defect rejection mechanism; updating the first distance of the defective electrode plate based on the second distance; and controlling the defect rejection mechanism to reject the defective electrode plate, under a condition that the updated first distance of the defective electrode plate satisfies a preset condition” directed to the arranging and operation of the “defect rejection device” not inventive method thus, the subject-matter of claim 1 is therefore not inventive when departing from the applied prior art to Kobayashi et al. The skilled person would utilize the Kobayashi et al teachings of the control method for defect rejection of battery electrode plates as discussed above in order to defect rejection of battery electrode plates without exercising any inventive skills.
Therefore, the subject matter of claims 2-7do not further limit the method as set forth in base claim 1, when depart from the Kobayashi et al (refer to Figs. 1-12 and discussion in ¶¶ [0022-0123] of the Kobayashi et al), respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights