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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a pressure relief valve communicate with the outside” in line 2 of the claim should read “a pressure relief valve to communicate with the outside”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an end cover mechanism” in claim 4, “a conveying mechanism” in claim 5, and “a material delivery mechanism” in claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In regard to this application, the limitation “an end cover mechanism” has been interpreted to mean any covering structure that differentiates the outside of the pressure vessel from the inside of the pressure vessel as defined in paragraph [0013] of the current application. The limitation “a conveying mechanism” has been interpreted to mean any structure capable of moving the target workpiece into and out of the pressure vessel as defined. The limitation “a material delivery mechanism” has been interpreted to mean any structure capable of moving the target workpiece proximate to the opening of the pressure vessel including a base and transfer holder structure as defined in paragraph [0015] of the current application.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao (CN 1786629 A).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a pressure vessel apparatus (seal pressure vessel, paragraph [0004]), comprising: a plurality of cavities (two or more freezing chambers, paragraph [0007]), each of the cavities being configured to hold a workpiece inside (Figure 1 shelves “4” of items “5” arranged in cylindrical body “2”); and a control valve connected between at least two of the cavities to control internal communication and non-communication between the cavities connected to the control valve (each chamber is connected to the other by pipes with valves, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches a pressurization valve configured to communicate with an air source; wherein at least one of the cavities communicates with the pressurization valve (pipe connects outlet of the air compressor to the two chambers and pipe connecting the inlet of the chamber has a valve, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches a pressure relief valve to communicate with the outside; wherein at least one of the cavities communicates with the pressure relief valve (pipe connects inlet of the air compressor to the two chambers and pipe connecting the outlet of the chamber has a valve, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches an end cover mechanism (compartment with a door, paragraph [0014]); wherein: at least one end of each of the cavities in a preset direction is provided with an opening (cylindrical body and elliptical end caps at both ends. One end cap is welded to the body and the other is a door, paragraph [0012]); and the end cover mechanism is configured to control the opening to open or close (door is closed, paragraph [0012], and door is opened to retrieve items, paragraph [0007]).
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.
Claims 5-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Jiang (CN 114524259 A).
Regarding claim 5, Gao teaches all aspects of the current invention except a conveying mechanism, the conveying mechanism being at least partially located in at least one of the cavities and configured to drive the workpiece to be fed or discharged via the opening. However, Jiang teaches a conveying mechanism, the conveying mechanism being at least partially located in at least one of the cavities and configured to drive the workpiece to be fed or discharged via the opening (loading and unloading device is located between the pressure vessel and the external equipment, paragraph [n0025], and object can be picked up and placed into the loading structure of the pressure vessel, paragraph [n0029]).
Gao and Jiang are considered to be analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of pressure processing vessels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pressure vessel taught by Gao with the conveying mechanism taught by Jiang because Jiang teaches such a structure makes the vessel particularly suitable for loading and unloading vehicles carrying batteries (paragraph [n0024]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gao and Jiang teaches wherein the conveying mechanism is provided with a limiting part, the limiting part being configured to limit the workpiece in the preset direction (the moving slider causes the stop block to move downward relative to the fixed seat until the stop block releases and blocks the object carried by the support plate, paragraph [n0045], Jiang).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gao and Jiang teaches wherein: the conveying mechanism comprises a first driver (rotation driver, paragraph [n0040], Jiang), a driving member (rotating end of the rotation driver is connected to the first bevel gear, paragraph [n0040], Jiang), a driven member (first bevel gear is used to mesh with the second bevel gear, paragraph [n0040], Jiang), and a conveying member (second bevel gear drives all rollers to rotate, paragraph [n0040], Jiang), wherein the driving member and the driven member are space apart along the preset direction (Figure 2 first bevel gear “17” in material handling device “1” and Figure 3 second bevel gear “356” in pressure vessel “31”, Jiang); the conveying member loops around the driving member and the driven member; and the first driver is configured to drive the driving member to rotate (rotary driver is activated to drive the first and second bevel gear to drive all rollers to rotate and move the objects, paragraph [n0042], Jiang).
Regarding claim 8, Gao teaches wherein the end cover mechanism comprises: an end cover (cylindrical body and elliptical end caps at both ends. One end cap is welded to the body and the other is a door, paragraph [0012]), but does not teach a second driver in driving connection with the end cover and configured to drive the end cover to close the opening or move away from the opening; and a locking structure, wherein the end cover closes the opening, the locking structure is configured to lock or unlock the end cover and the cavity. However, Jiang teaches a second driver in driving connection with the end cover and configured to drive the end cover to close the opening or move away from the opening (an opening and closing drive mechanism used to drive the pressure cap to open or close the opening of the pressure tank, paragraph [n0006]); and a locking structure (rotating locking ring locks the pressure cover, paragraph [n0027]), wherein the end cover closes the opening, the locking structure is configured to lock or unlock the end cover and the cavity (when the opening and closing drive mechanism drives the pressure cover to close, the locking drive mechanism drives the locking ring to rotate, paragraph [n0027]).
Gao and Jiang are analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pressure vessel taught by Gao with the closing drive and locking mechanism taught by Jiang because Jiang teaches the additional drive mechanism advantageously allows for the realization of automated object transfer (paragraph [n0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Gao teaches all aspects of the current invention except a material delivery mechanism; wherein: one side of each opening is corresponding provided with the material delivery mechanism; and the material delivery mechanism is configured to deliver a to-be-processed workpiece to the opening or deliver a processed workpiece out of the opening. However, Jiang teaches a material delivery mechanism; wherein: one side of each opening is corresponding provided with the material delivery mechanism (loading and unloading robotic arm selectively extends to one side of the frame, paragraph [n0025]); and the material delivery mechanism is configured to deliver a to-be-processed workpiece to the opening or deliver a processed workpiece out of the opening (robotic arm picks up objects on the support plate and places them on external equipment or transfers objects on external equipment into the pressure vessel, paragraph [n0025]).
Gao and Jiang are analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pressure vessel taught by Gao with the loading and unloading robotic arm taught by Jiang because Jiang teaches the robotic arm advantageously can stably pick up and place objects, has a wide range of application, good versatility, and strong practicability (paragraph [n0029]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gao and Jiang teaches wherein the material delivery mechanism comprises a base (material handling device includes a base, paragraph [n0005], Jiang) and a transfer holder (material handling device includes a frame and support plate, paragraph [n0005], Jiang), one end of the base extending to the opening (Figure 1 material handling device “1” adjacent to pressure cover “32”, Jiang), and the transfer holder being slidably disposed on the base and configured to carry the workpiece (outer frame is slidably connected to the base, paragraph [n0034], and material handling device to transfer multiple objects at one time, paragraph [n0038], Jiang).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gao and Jiang teaches wherein the cavities are spaced apart side by side (Figure 2 vessels “3” are placed side by side, Jiang), and two opposite ends of each of the cavities in the preset direction are both provided with the opening (cylindrical body and elliptical end caps at both ends. One end cap is welded to the body and the other is a door, paragraph [0012], Gao), wherein the preset direction is the horizontal direction (Figure 2 door “7” is on horizontal axis of chamber “6”, Gao).
Regarding claim 13, Gao teaches all aspects of the current invention except a battery manufacturing system, comprising the pressure vessel apparatus according to claim 1. However, Jiang teaches a battery manufacturing system, comprising the pressure vessel apparatus according to claim 1 (invention for performing high pressure treatment of batteries, paragraph [n0024], and production of batteries products require pressure treatment, paragraph [n0002]).
Gao and Jiang are analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to use the pressure vessel taught by Gao in a battery manufacturing system as taught by Jiang because Jiang teaches the pressure treatment of batteries advantageously ensures qualified products are produced (paragraph [n0002]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao and Jiang in view of Duan (CN 105508602 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gao and Jiang teaches all aspects of the current invention including the locking structure comprises a third driver (locking drive mechanism, paragraph [n0026], Jiang) and a lock ring (rotating locking ring locks the pressure cover, paragraph [n0027], Jiang), wherein the lock ring sleeves a periphery of the opening (Figure 1 lock ring “33” around opening of pressure vessel “31”), and the third driver is configured to drive the lock ring or the end cover to rotate about an axis thereof (locking drive mechanism used to drive the locking ring to rotate, paragraph [n0026], Jiang), but does not teach a first protrusion provided on an inner wall of the lock ring, and a second protrusion provided on the end cover, when the end cover closes the opening, the second protrusion is located on one side of the first protrusion facing toward the cavity; and so that the first protrusion and the second protrusion are misaligned or face toward each other in the preset direction. However, Duan teaches a first protrusion provided on an inner wall of the lock ring (Figure 4 right connecting teeth “211”), and a second protrusion provided on the end cover (Figure 3 left connecting teeth “221”), when the end cover closes the opening, the second protrusion is located on one side of the first protrusion facing toward the cavity(Figure 1 left inner edge “22” faces right inner edge “21”); and so that the first protrusion and the second protrusion are misaligned or face toward each other in the preset direction (when locking ring rotates is can position the left and right connecting teeth to achieve axial stop engagement, paragraph [0024]).
Gao, Jiang, and Duan are considered to be analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of pressure vessels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pressure vessel as taught by Gao and Jiang with the locking mechanism taught by Duan because Duan teaches such a locking structure improves the disassembly and assembly efficiency of pressure vessels (paragraph [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights