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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recited limitation “a rodlike part” is not characterized with additional structural detail in the claims or specification and is given only minimal visual representation in the drawings (reference character 42 in Fig. 2D, 3A-D, 6E-H, and 7A). Furthermore, the disclosure does not define the extent to which elements may be considered “rodlike,” for example it is unclear if the limitation “rodlike” includes shapes other than a rod, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. For the purposes of applying prior art, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation, such that the limitation “a rodlike part” is interpreted as any structure suitably capable of connecting to the pair of supporting parts and extending/retracting along a single direction, optionally when installed to a guide member (reference character 50, [0051] of instant specification).
Claims 2 and 3 are rendered indefinite by incorporation of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5 is rendered indefinite by recitation of the “rodlike part” as in claim 1 (see above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita (JP 2011-210529 A), wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Fujita teaches a positioning member having a thickness provided so as to surround the housing portion of the laminate (reference character 13, Fig. 1, [0021]; corresponding to a gripping jig) and that the positioning member is provided with a plurality of holes (reference character 16, Fig. 1, [0023]; corresponding to the second penetration region). Just as Fujita’s positioning member has a U-shape capable of gripping a frame body by being positioned around the periphery of said frame body, so does the applicant’s gripping jig, which is exemplified by, but not limited to, a rectangular shape. Furthermore, just as Fujita’s positioning member is provided with a plurality of holes through which the position correcting jig may be extended, so too does the applicant’s gripping jig possess the second penetration region through which the position correcting jig is extended. Thus, it is the examiner’s position that Fujita’s positioning member is capable of performing the same function as the instantly claimed gripping jig in the method for producing a power storage module according to the instant claim 1.
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et. al. (JP 2020-053236 A), hereinafter "Maeda," in view of Kamiya et. al. (JP 2018-174079 A), hereinafter "Kamiya," wherein English machine translations are used and cited herein.
Maeda teaches an operation device capable of gripping and moving the nest/insert, for example as a robot arm equipped with a chuck (reference character 85, [0052], [0069]; corresponding to a position correcting jig…the jig including…the rodlike part).
Maeda does not teach a pair of supporting parts.
Kamiya, however, teaches a gripper including a pair of chucks movable in the thickness direction of the insert that is capable of clamping the end portion of the insert that extends outside the frame and moving the insert (reference character 90, [0054]; corresponding to the position correcting jig…including the pair of supporting parts).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kamiya’s gripper including a pair of chucks for Maeda’s single chuck because Kamiya teaches the gripper including a pair of chucks is capable of and is used for gripping and moving nests/inserts (Kamiya [0054]). Just as the modified operation device of Maeda in view of Kamiya possesses a robot arm equipped with a gripper including a pair of chucks capable of clamping/gripping inserts, so does the applicant’s position correcting jig possess a rodlike part equipped with a pair of supporting parts between which an insert is fixed. Thus, it is the examiner’s position that the modified operation device of Maeda in view of Kamiya is capable of performing the same function as the instantly claimed position correcting jig in the method for producing a power storage module according to the instant claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method as claimed. Maeda in view of Park et al. (KR 20210043247 A), hereinafter “Park,” is considered to be the closest prior art, wherein English machine translations are used and cited herein.
Maeda teaches:
A manufacturing method of a power storage module ([0005]; corresponding to a method for producing a power storage module);
A step of preparing a plurality of bipolar electrodes and a step of stacking the plurality of bipolar electrodes (Fig. 9, [0006]; corresponding to a preparing step of preparing a layered member);
The plurality of bipolar electrodes on which the primary sealing body is formed along a first direction and a primary sealing body provided on the plurality of stacked bipolar electrodes (reference character 81, Fig. 9; reference character 82, Fig. 11; [0006]; corresponding to the layered member includes an electrode layered body including a plurality of electrode layered in a first direction, a seal member surrounding the electrode layered body when viewed from the first direction);
the insert is disposed from the outside of the frame body to the inside of the frame in which the bipolar electrode is located (reference characters 81-82, Fig. 9, 11; [0042]; corresponding to a nest that extends from a side surface of the seal member to outside the seal member);
a space between the insert forming region of the outer peripheral surface and the insert holding portion is filled with a plastic that is to become the second sealing portion ([0070], Fig. 12; corresponding to the frame body arranging step is a step of arranging the frame body in a side surface of the layered member by bonding the seal member and the frame body in a state the nest is inserted in a first penetration region in the frame body).
Maeda does not teach a frame body arranging step of arranging a frame body in a side surface of the layered member, nor a facing arranging step of arranging an outside edge part of the nest in the layered member and the frame body in the frame body bonding jig to face to each other interposing a space.
However, Park teaches a secondary battery cell alignment method ([0017]) comprising:
a step of separating a cell in an upward direction from the upper surface of a cell mounting portion to make the cell non-contact with the upper surface of the cell mounting portion; and
a step of aligning the cell to a reference position.
The alignment steps of Park provided a means of aligning the cell and the cell mounting portion while the two elements interposed a space, thus reducing friction between the surface of the cell and the cell mounting portion and improving alignment accuracy prior to further operations. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the alignment step of Park to the method of Maeda, using the position of the frame body as the reference position for the frame body arranging step and the position of the penetration region of the frame body bonding jig as the reference position of the facing arranging step, in order to predictably improve the alignment accuracy of the respective elements prior to subsequent processing.
However, Maeda in view of Park does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious:
a jig preparing step of preparing a frame body bonding jig including the frame body, and a gripping jig that grips the frame body and that includes a second penetration region corresponding to the first penetration region, as well as preparing a position correcting jig including a pair of supporting parts and a rodlike part connected to the pair of supporting parts;
a position adjusting step of adjusting height position of the outside edge part of the nest by inserting the supporting parts and the rodlike part in the position correcting jig from the second penetration region side toward the first penetration region side in the frame body bonding jig, and putting the nest between the pair of supporting parts from the first direction so as to be fixed; and
a bonding step of bonding the seal member and the frame body by moving the frame body bonding jig to the layered member side while fixing the nest by the pair of supporting parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/A.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights