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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites “a cutter machine…” that is unclear since the preamble of claim 1 is the “stacking apparatus”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the stacking apparatus by itself, without the cutter machine. Thus, the preamble is unclear or it is unclear whether the cutter machine is positively limitation or not.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe et al (US 2020/0354166 A1) hereinafter Abe.
Regarding claim 1, Abe shows a system (Figure 7) including a stacking apparatus (Figures 2 and 9) of a sheet-shaped workpiece (1), the stacking apparatus comprising:
a pick-and-place machine (80) that picks up a sheet-shaped workpiece (1) cut out from a sheet material to hold the workpiece (see sheet-shaped electrodes 1 are inherently cut out from a large sheet and see Para. 147 “a sheet-shaped electrode 1 transferred onto a conveyor plate 20 to for example cut the tab or insulate the end parts…”) and moves the workpiece in a lifted state to stacking position (see Figure 2, the sheet-shaped electrode 1 is on a lift state to a lower conveyor plate 20 to a stacking jig 40) and then places down the workpiece onto the stacking position to stack sequentially (Figure 2);
a detector (102, Figure 2) that is provided in the pick-and-place machine and detects a position of the workpiece in the lifted state by the pick-and-place machine (see Para. 120 “a camera 102 attached to the rail 81 … to be able to capture an image of a sheet-shaped electrode 1 transferred from the transfer plate 71 to the holder 84” and Para. 123 “…the position of the sheet-shaped electrode 1 is corrected so that the offset angle θ becomes zero.” ); and
a controller (E, Para. 120) that calculates a position shift of the workpiece (see Paras. 123-124) based on the position of the workpiece detected by the detector and controls the pick-and-place machine to adjust, based on the calculated position shift, a holding position of a workpiece when being picked up by the pick-and- place machine in a future operation (Para. 125 and Para. 126 “it is possible to place the sheet-shaped electrode 1 on the conveyor plate 20 in the state where the position of the sheet-shaped electrode 1 picked up and held on the holder 84 is corrected to the reference position shown by the one-dot chain line. That is, at the placement position, the sheet-shaped electrode 1 can be placed at a suitable position on the conveyor plate of the electrode conveyance device C”).
Regarding claims 2-3, Abe shows a place position compensator (12, Figure 2 and see discussion of the controller E above) that compensates placement of the workpiece down onto the stacking position by the pick-and-place machine (see the discussion in claim 1 above), wherein the place position compensator is the controller (see above), and wherein the controller controls the pick-and-place machine to compensate placement of the workpiece down onto the stacking position based on the calculated position shift (see the discussion in claim 1 above and see Paras. 125-126).
Regarding claims 4-5, Abe shows that the place position compensator is a position alignment jig (see the mover 12 is moved on top of stacking jig 40, Figure 2) that is provided at the stacking position and accommodates a tab formed commonly in the workpiece (see two end tabs of the sheet-shaped electrode 1 aligned on the stacking jig 40) to be stacked and
the detector (102) detects a tab formed in the workpiece to be stacked (see the tab discussion above and see Para. 135 “the camera 102 is used to capture an image of the other end side of the sheet-shaped electrode 1 in the longitudinal direction” ); and
wherein the controller calculates the position shift of the workpiece based on a position of the tab detected by the detector (see the discussion in claim 1 above and Para. 135).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view Cho (US 2011/0048210).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Abe shows the system (see Figure 7) including the stacking apparatus (see claims 1-5 above) and a cutter machine (see Figure 7) for cutting a foil 2, not the for cutting the workpiece.
Cho shows a cutter machine (Figures 5A, 5B) for cutting electrode plate or sheet (34), wherein the cutter machine includes a cutting die (33) and a roller press (32) to cut out a workpiece (individual pieces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the inherent cutter machine of Abe to have a cutting machine, as taught by Cho, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose of cutting electrode sheet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 6 of the 112b rejection, it remains the same since the preamble of claim 1 is directed to the stacking apparatus, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the stacking apparatus by itself. However, claim 6 recites to include “a cutter machine” that makes confusing and it is unclear how to give the scope of the preamble. Examiner suggests to change the preamble “a stacking apparatus” to a system.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/23/2026