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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 09/22/2023, claims 16-30 are pending, claims 16-30 are under examination, and claims 1-15 are cancelled.
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 20, 24 and 28 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.
claim 20 is rejected as it recites the phrase "in particular" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 24 is rejected as it recites the limitation “a partial region of the edge of the first electrode element” in lines 2-3. The limitation “a partial region” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it does not define the boundary of the edge of the first electrode element that directly comes into contact with the alignment element. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as the alignment element is capable of contacting the first electrode element not in full contact. Furthermore, the limitation “the edge” renders the scope of the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis defining what boundary of the first electrode element is claimed as the edge. Claim 18 does mention an edge of the first electrode element, but claim 24 is not dependent on claim 18, so it is unclear if the edges are of the same boundary or of a newly defined boundary.
Claim 28 is rejected as it recites the limitation “a further movable alignment element which is arranged on the other side of the rotation axis with respect to a center of rotation axis” in lines 2-3. The limitation “the other side of the rotation axis” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it does not define where the “sides” of the axis is/are. A rotation axis itself does not conventionally have “sides” in the same way a plane or object has. As such, the limitation is unclear because it is ambiguous whether the feature is interpreted as:
The opposites sides of the 360-degree direction of an axis
The opposites sides (poles) of the axis
A combination of interpretations 1 & 2
Also, the limitation “with respect to a center of the rotation axis” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it does not define the center of the “rotation axis”. The limitation is unclear because it is ambiguous whether the feature is interpreted as:
The entire axis of rotation
A specific point in the axis of rotation, located within or outside the claimed device
As such, it is not clear how the claimed limitation is intended to be interpreted. Furthermore, without the clearly defined location of the two limitations noted above, the location of the limitation “a further movable alignment element” is therefore undefined and unclear where within the claimed device it is then located. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been examined, as best understood, to encompass any of the multiple potential reasonable combinations of interpretations noted above.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-20, 24-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohm et al (W.O. Patent Application Publication 2020212316 A1) hereinafter Bohm.
Regarding claim 16, Bohm discloses a method (Title: Method and Device for Producing an Electrode Stack) for producing an electrode stack (electrode stack, p. 2, ll. 13) with flat electrode elements (electrode, p. 3, ll. 3; anodes 6 & cathodes 8, p. 3, ll. 3), in which the following steps are carried out:
PNG
media_image1.png
508
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a) providing a first electrode element (electrode, p. 3, ll. 3; anodes/cathodes, p. 3, ll. 3);
b) inserting (as depicted in FIG. 1) the first electrode element into an intermediate space (receptacles 14, p. 7, ll. 18) which is formed by stacking fingers (arms 16, p. 7, ll. 20) of at least one stacking wheel (stacking wheel 12, p. 7, ll. 17) which rotates about a rotation axis (axis of rotation D, p. 7, ll. 17);
c) transporting the first electrode element with the stacking wheel (p. 7, ll. 42-44, “due to the further rotation of the stacking wheel 12, the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8, are transferred from the respective receptacle 14 and into a stacking compartment 24”; FIG. 1 depicts the stacking wheel moving electrodes from a conveying device 34 to the compartment 24);
d) removing the first electrode element from the intermediate space (p. 7, ll. 42-44 and FIG. 1, as described above, discloses the transferring and removing of the electrode from the receptacle 14);
e) arranging the first electrode element in a stacking position (p. 8, ll. 1-2, “to align the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8 in alignment with another for the stacking compartment 24; FIG. 1 depicts the stacking position within compartment 24);
f) providing a second electrode element (electrode, p. 3, ll. 3; anodes/cathodes, p. 3, ll. 3);
g) inserting (as depicted in FIG. 1) the second electrode element into a further intermediate space (receptacles 14, p. 7, ll. 18) which is different from the intermediate space and is formed by stacking fingers (arms 16, p. 7, ll. 20) of the stacking wheel (stacking wheel 12, p. 7, ll. 17);
h) removing the second electrode element from the further intermediate space (p. 7, ll. 42-44 and FIG. 1, as described above, discloses the transferring and removing of the electrode from the receptacle 14); and
i) arranging the second electrode element in the stacking position and producing the electrode stack (p. 8, ll. 1-2, “to align the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8 in alignment with another for the stacking compartment 24; FIG. 1 depicts the stacking position within compartment 24),
wherein at least the first electrode element is moved to a lateral target position by at least one movable alignment element (wall 18, p. 7, ll. 28-32; “wall 18 prevents undefined adjustment of the anodes 6 or the cathodes 8 in one direction along the axis of rotation D during the rotation of the stacking wheel 12”; FIGS. 2a & 2b depicts wall 18 on each side of the stacking wheel 12 and rotates with said stacking wheel 12 to properly align the plurality of electrode layers).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Bohm further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the alignment element moves the second electrode element simultaneously with the first electrode element to the lateral target position (wall 18, p. 7, ll. 28-32, FIGS. 2a & 2b depict wall 18 stretching along the entire length of stacking wheel 12 being able to align a plurality of electrodes).
Regarding claim 18, Bohm further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein at least the first electrode element is pressed to the lateral target position by the alignment element on an edge of the first electrode element extending radially to the rotation axis (FIGS. 2a & 2b depict wall 18 on each side of the stacking wheel 12 such that it pushes two edges of the electrodes, namely the anodes 6 and cathodes 8, for alignment).
Regarding claim 19, Bohm further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the movement of at least the first electrode element to the lateral target position is carried out while the first electrode element is transported in the intermediate space (p. 7, ll. 28-32, “the wall 18 prevents undefined adjustment of the anodes 6 or the cathodes 8 in one direction along the axis of rotation D during the rotation of the stacking wheel 12 in the course of the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8 being received in the receptacles 14”).
Regarding claim 20, Bohm further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein at least the first electrode element is additionally moved, in particular pressed, to the lateral target position by a further movable alignment element (slide 26, p. 8, ll. 1-2; FIG. 1 depicts the stacking compartment 24 has a slide 26 which slides back and forth to align a plurality of electrodes), wherein the further alignment element acts against a direction of action of the alignment element (the further alignment element acts against the alignment element by preventing shift/deviation of electrodes in a secondary specific alignment that were already compensated with a first specific alignment by the alignment element).
Regarding claim 24, Bohm further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein at least the first electrode element is contacted by the alignment element only in a partial region of the edge of the first electrode element extending radially to the rotation axis (annotated FIG. 2b depicts the portion of the electrode which is extending radially is in contact with the walls 18).
PNG
media_image3.png
301
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Bohm discloses a stacking device (Title: Method and Device for Producing an Electrode Stack) which is designed to produce an electrode stack (electrode stack, p. 2, ll. 13) with flat electrode elements (electrode, p. 3, ll. 3; anodes 6 & cathodes 8, p. 3, ll. 3) having:
a provision unit which is designed to provide an electrode element (conveying device 34 for conveying the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8, p. 8, ll. 21);
at least one stacking wheel (stacking wheel 12, p. 7, ll. 17) having a rotation axis (axis of rotation D, p. 7, ll. 17) and multiple stacking fingers (arms 16, p. 7, ll. 20) arranged radially to the rotation axis (as depicted in FIG. 1),
wherein the stacking fingers form multiple intermediate spaces (receptacles 14, p. 7, ll. 18) which are each designed to receive an electrode element for transport (p. 7, ll. 42-44, “due to the further rotation of the stacking wheel 12, the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8, are transferred from the respective receptacle 14 and into a stacking compartment 24”; FIG. 1 depicts the stacking wheel moving electrodes from a conveying device 34 to the compartment 24); and
a stacking position which is designed for the arrangement of the electrode stack (p. 8, ll. 1-2, “to align the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8 in alignment with another for the stacking compartment 24; FIG. 1 depicts the stacking position within compartment 24),
wherein the stacking device has a movable alignment element (wall 18, p. 7, ll. 28-32) which is designed to move the electrode elements to a lateral target position (p. 7, ll. 28-32; “wall 18 prevents undefined adjustment of the anodes 6 or the cathodes 8 in one direction along the axis of rotation D during the rotation of the stacking wheel 12”; FIGS. 2a & 2b depicts wall 18 on each side of the stacking wheel 12 and rotates with said stacking wheel 12 to properly align the plurality of electrode layers).
Regarding claim 28, Bohm further discloses the stacking device according to claim 25, wherein the stacking device has a further movable alignment element (slide 26, p. 8, ll. 1-2) which is arranged on the other side of the rotation axis with respect to a center of the rotation axis (FIG. 1 depicts the slide 26 located on a side of the axis of rotation D).
Regarding claim 29, Bohm further discloses the stacking device according to claim 25, wherein the alignment element has a curvature extending in the direction of the rotation direction of the stacking wheel (FIG. 1 depicts the wall 18 having a rounded feature that extends outwardly at the end of the body to properly guide the electrode into the receptacles 14).
Regarding claim 30, Bohm further discloses the stacking device according to claim 25, wherein the stacking device has an additional movable alignment element which is arranged after the alignment element with respect to a rotation direction of the stacking wheel (p. 7, ll. 42-44, “due to the further rotation of the stacking wheel 12, the anodes 6 and the cathodes 8, are transferred from the respective receptacle 14 and into a stacking compartment 24”; FIG. 1 depicts the stacking wheel using the receptacle 14 and walls 18 to guide the plurality of electrodes from a conveying device 34 to then be arranged/aligned in compartment 24 by slide 26).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 21-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm, and further in view of Liu et al (E.P. Patent Application Publication 2623449 A1) hereinafter Liu and Scheb et al (W.O. Patent Application Publication 2020216758 A) hereinafter Scheb.
Regarding claim 21, Bohm further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the alignment element is moved (wall 18, p. 7, ll. 28-32).
However, Bohn fails to disclose the method wherein the alignment element is moved axially to the rotation axis at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 10 Hz.
Liu discloses a device and method (Title: Sheet-Type Medium Stacking and Guiding Device, as well as Control System and Method Based on the Same) wherein the alignment element (left limit plate 14 & right limit plate 19, p. 6, ll. 33) is moved axially to the rotation axis (p. 6, ll. 36-38, “the screw shaft 17 is driven by a screw driving motor 25 so as to drive the left limit plate 14 and the right limit plate 19 to move towards each other or move away from each other along the guiding shaft 18”) to the stacking wheel (stacking wheel 303, p. 6, ll. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
385
633
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While Bohm discloses the use of walls on the stacking wheel to properly align the electrodes into stacking position in the axial direction, Liu further teaches that the walls can be modified to allow for movement and adjusted by using an adjustable support screw and shaft that is directly adjacent to the stacking wheel. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the adjustable technique applied to the pair of limiting plates of Liu and implement them as a replacement to the stacking wheel’s walls of Bohm to allow for adjustability of multiple intermediate spaces when manufacturing an electrode stack of various size and shapes.
However, both Bohm and Liu fail to disclose the alignment element moving at a frequency between 0.5 and 10 Hz. Even though they do not directly disclose such a frequency of motion of the alignment element, Liu teaches movement/oscillation of the alignment component to constantly align the individual/plurality of sheets (p. 7, ll. 28-32, “when the tidying motor 12 drives the eccentric wheel 103 to rotate, the eccentric wheel 13 drives the rear plate 5 and the front plate assembly connected to the rear plate 5 to slide on the rear plate guiding shaft 7 in a left-right direction. The reciprocating slide of the front plate assembly in the left-right direction can achieve the function for flapping banknotes”; Liu also discloses that this left and right motion creates a “tidying range”).
Furthermore, a POSITA would have found it obvious to employ a motor/actuator to impart disclosed motion for generating controlled movement in the machinery. In this case, allow for back-and-forth motion to align each individual/plurality of sheets. As for the frequency of said controlled movement, a POSITA in automated stacking and handling machinery would have recognized that modification of the frequency would have been determined based on the overall efficiency, namely the rotational speed of the stacking wheel and feeding device, to achieve coordination of alignment with successive sheets. Thus, the combination of Bohm and Liu, along with the mechanical works of machinery, would have achieved routine optimization, allowing for flexibility in manufacturing speed and efficiency.
In the case that Bohm and Liu fail to teach an alignment element moving at a frequency to align a plurality of sheets, Scheb discloses a stacking device (Title: Device and Method for Producing a Cell Stack) wherein an alignment element (movement plate 18 and/or positioning units 14, p. 12, ll. 20-26) is moved at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 10 Hz (p. 12, ll. 8-26, Scheb discloses the use of an actuator 37, in particular a vibration motor, to create the vibration that uses elements 18 and 14 to align the individual cell assemblies and layers to the middle of the positioning jaws).
PNG
media_image5.png
485
659
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Although Scheb does not expressively disclose a particular vibration frequency, Scheb does however teach the use of a vibration motor to align a plurality of sheets. A vibration motor necessarily operates at a vibration frequency, wherein frequency directly affects the characteristics of the vibration imparted to the sheets from the motor. Thus, during the alignment process, frequency is a result effective variable. A POSITA would have recognized that by varying the frequency changes of the vibrational behavior, it therefore would have adjusted alignment performance. Selecting a particular frequency would have amounted to routine optimization.
Regarding claim 22, Bohm in view of Liu and Scheb disclose the method according to claim 16 as detailed above, wherein the alignment element vibrates axially to the rotation axis at a frequency of more than 50 Hz. (Regarding the reason to combine references and why a POSITA would understand such modification to achieve a specific frequency of the motion/vibration of an alignment element, refer to the rejection of claim 21, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 22 in the manner of utilizing a left-right, vibrating motor to align a plurality of sheets).
Regarding claim 23, Bohm in view of Liu and Scheb disclose the method according to claim 16 as detailed above, and Liu further discloses the stacking machine wherein the alignment element is moved by an unbalance drive unit (screw drive motor 25, p. 6, ll. 36). (Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to rejection of claim 21, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 23 in the manner of utilizing a left-right, vibrating motor to align a plurality of sheets).
Regarding claim 26, Bohm in view of Liu and Scheb disclose the stacking device according to claim 25 as detailed above, and Liu further discloses the stacking machine wherein the alignment element is arranged at a distance from the stacking wheel in the axial direction with respect to the rotation axis (FIG. 1 depicts limiting plates 14 & 19 located at a distance away from the stacking wheel that are guided to adjust the spacing for sheets). (Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to rejection of claim 21, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 26 in the manner of utilizing a left-right, vibrating motor to align a plurality of sheets).
Regarding claim 27, Bohm in view of Liu and Scheb disclose the stacking device according to claim 25 as detailed above, and Liu further discloses the stacking machine wherein the alignment element (limiting plates 14 & 19) is fastened only on a fastening side (left fixing plate 15 & right fixing plate 21, p. 6, ll. 24-28) of the alignment element (FIG. 5 depicts limiting plates 14 & 19 fastened only on their respective sides via the fixing plates 15 & 21, respectively). (Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to rejection of claim 21, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 27 in the manner of utilizing a left-right, vibrating motor to align a plurality of sheets with adjustable walls).
PNG
media_image6.png
385
865
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights