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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to for informalities and inconsistencies in terminology. Claim 1 recites a "feeding unit"; however, the specification does not describe or identify a “feeding unit.” Instead, the specification refers to terms "feeding drum 12" and "feeding roller 12." It is unclear whether Applicant intended the claimed “feeding unit” to correspond to the “feeding drum 12,” “feeding roller 12,” or an entirely different structure. Appropriate correction may include amending the specification to provide clear support and consistent terminology for the claimed “feeding unit.”
Additionally, throughout the specification, the Applicant interchangeably uses the terms "feeding drum 12" and "feeding roller 12" to refer to the same element “12”, resulting in inconsistent reference character usage. While a 'drum' and a 'roller' can be synonymous, the Examiner recommends picking one term for element '12' and maintaining consistency with both the claimed subject matter and the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following instances lack proper introduction using an article (e.g., “a” or “an”):
Claims 1-12, line 1 recite the limitation “stacking method”
Claims 13-14, line 1 recite the limitation “Stacking unit (B)”
The limitation(s) above should be introduced with an appropriate article (e.g. “a stacking method”, “A stacking unit (B)”, etc.) so that when these elements are referred to in later claims it is clear that that the reference is to the respective portions of claims 1-14. 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 8-11 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 8, the limitation “picking up, from time to time, a standard electrochemical cell from the second storage unit” renders the scope of the claim unclear because the phrase “from time to time” does not define when or under what operating conditions the recited step is performed. In particular, the claim does not specify whether the step is performed according to a defined time interval, in response to a storage condition, in response to a system event, or based on another objective trigger within the claimed method. Accordingly, the claim fails to provide a clear operational boundary for when the step is initiated.
Further, the limitation “to prevent the complete filling of the second storage unit” renders the claim indefinite because it does not clearly define what constitutes “complete filling” of the second storage unit. For example, the claim does not specify whether “complete filling” is determined based on a numerical electrochemical cell count, a storage capacity threshold, a physical volume or occupancy condition, or another defined measurable parameter within the claimed method. Accordingly, the scope of claim 8 is not reasonably certain.
Accordingly, claims 9-10 are rejected by dependency because they depend on claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the step of "slowing down a feeding unit... to prevent the gripping head from receiving any standard electrochemical cell in the gripping station." However, the specification states that the feeding drums "must be suitably slowed down (or also stopped for an instant) so as 'to skip a turn' on page 16 lines 1-13; thus, the specification contradicts and broadens this limitation.
Since the specification presents these two functionally and physically distinct operations as alternatives (i.e. “stopping for an instant” or “suitably slowing down”), it renders the metes and bounds of "slowing down" unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine whether the claim covers physically bringing the feeding unit to a complete halt, or merely reducing its operational speed. Furthermore, neither the claim nor the specification provides any objective parameters, criteria, or physical boundaries (such as a time duration for the "instant" or a threshold speed reduction) to define when an action falls within the scope of "slowing down." As such, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, and 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 6-8, 11, 13, and 18 of co-pending Application No. 18/555,142 (Alongi). This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, Alongi (18/555,142) the disclosed method is met by the above limitations and the method claims recited in claim 18. In particular, Alongi (18/555,142) claims
Stacking method for forming a stack of electrochemical cells of an electric battery (claim 18 lines 1-2);
the stacking method comprises the steps of: cyclically advancing at least one gripping head suitable for receiving and retaining an electrochemical cell along a transfer path by means of a transfer conveyor (claim 18 lines 3-4);
feeding, at a gripping station which is arranged along the transfer path (P2), a single electrochemical cell to the gripping head (claim 18 lines 5-6);
and releasing, at a release station which is arranged along the transfer path downstream of the first gripping station, from the gripping head a single electrochemical cell into a forming container configured to receive in succession the single electrochemical cells which are arranged successively one on top of the other to form the stack (claim 18 lines 7-11);
wherein the stack comprises a plurality of standard electrochemical cells and a single terminal electrochemical cell which is arranged last on top of the stack and concludes the formation of the stack (claim 11);
the stacking method is characterized by the fact that it comprises the further steps of: previously storing at least one terminal electrochemical cell in a first storage unit (claim 11) arranged at a first exchange station located along the transfer path (claim 8);
advancing, when the stack being formed in the forming container has received all the standard electrochemical cells, the empty gripping head through the first exchange station to receive from the first storage unit a terminal electrochemical cell (claim 8);
and releasing, at the release station, from the gripping head, the terminal electrochemical cell into the forming container (claims 11, 13, and 18).
In particular, claim 8 Alongi (18/555,142) teaches a stacking unit with a first exchange station and a first storage unit suitable for temporarily storing an electrochemical cell in such a way that (1) the first gripping head carrying an electrochemical cell upon passing through the first exchange station may yield the electrochemical cell to the first storage unit or (2) the first empty gripping head upon passing through the first exchange station may pick up an electrochemical cell from the first storage unit. Claim 11 teaches the stacking unit includes a first storage unit used to store standard electrochemical cells and a second storage unit used to store terminal electrochemical cells that are arranged on top of a stack to close the electrochemical cell stack. Claim 18 teaches releasing, at a release station arranged along a first transfer path downstream of a first gripping station, from a first gripping head, a single electrochemical cell into a forming container configured to receive successive electrochemical cells arranged one on top of another to form a stack. Claim 13 teaches maintaining the forming container at the release station until completion of the stack.
However, Alongi (18/555,142) does not explicitly disclose limitation VIII above, specifically where the stacking method comprises the step of releasing a terminal electrochemical cell into the forming container.
Co-pending claims 8, 18, 11, and 13 of Alongi (18/555,142) collectively disclose and render obvious forming a stack by sequentially releasing electrochemical cells into the forming container to form a completed stack, including the use of terminal electrochemical cells at the top, stack-closing position. The identification of a “terminal electrochemical cell” in the instant claim merely denotes the position of an electrochemical cell within the disclosed stacking sequence and does not impart any structural or functional distinction over the electrochemical cells of the co-pending claims. As such, releasing the terminal electrochemical cell into the forming container would have been an obvious variation of the co-pending claims. Therefore, claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claims 8, 18, 11, and 13 of Alongi (18/555,142).
Regarding claim 6, discloses a stacking method comprising the further steps of:
checking the compliance of each electrochemical cell carried by the gripping head in at least one control station that is arranged along the transfer path upstream of the first exchange station (claim 6-7);
and rejecting a non-compliant electrochemical cell carried by the gripping head at a reject station that is arranged along the transfer path between the control station and the first exchange station (claim 6-7).
Regarding claim 6, while not explicit in the apparatus claims, Alongi (18/555,142) teaches concepts in claims 6-7 which are deemed to render obvious the subject matter of instant claim 6, in that they disclose a method of determining if an electrochemical cell is to be rejected and then to reject it (i.e. using a ‘control’ station as claimed for this determination process and a ‘rejection station’ as claimed for the rejection/discard step would have been obvious to one of skill in the art). Further, using grippers to physically move and remove the discarded cell from the production line would be an obvious mechanical modification.
Regarding claim 13, Alongi (18/555,142) discloses a stacking unit for forming a stack of electrochemical cells of an electric battery that implements a stacking method (stacking unit in claim 1 and stacking method in claims 8, 11,13, and 18 of Alongi (18/555,142) as discussed for instant claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Alongi (18/555,142) discloses a stacking unit for forming a stack of electrochemical cells of an electric battery (claim 1 lines 1-2), where the stacking unit comprises:
a forming container configured to receive in succession the single electrochemical cells which are arranged successively one on top of the other to form the stack (claim 1 lines 3-4);
at least one first gripping head configured to receive and retain an electrochemical cell; a transfer conveyor supporting the first gripping head for cyclically advancing the first gripping head along a first transfer path (claim 1 lines 5-8);
a gripping station, which is arranged along the first transfer path (P2) and is configured to feed a single electrochemical cell to the first gripping head (claim 1 lines 9-10);
and a release station, which is arranged along the first transfer path (P2) downstream of the first gripping station and is configured to release, from the first gripping head, a single electrochemical cell into the forming container (claim 1 lines 11-13);
and the stacking unit is characterized in that the transfer conveyor comprises a first drum which is rotatably mounted around a non-vertical first rotation axis so as to move the first gripping head along the first circularly shaped transfer path (claim 1 lines 14-16).
However, regarding limitation (V) above, Alongi (18/555,142) fails to explicitly claim that the first drum is rotatably mounted around a first rotation axis so as to move the first gripping head along the first circularly shaped transfer path, as recited in instant claim 14.
Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, the importance is the rotation axis and the circularly shaped transfer path, which is explicitly taught by Alongi (18/555,142) above. Whether the transfer path is horizontal, angled or vertical would appear to be all functionally equivalent paths to a skilled artisan, as they still provide for continuous, circularly shaped transfer paths. Therefore, the use of a vertical or non-vertical path are deemed functional equivalents in the field of suitable first rotation axis. It is also noted that Alongi (of the present application) does not require a ‘non-vertical’ first rotation axis as recited in the co-pending claim 1, so is therefore open to both a vertical or non-vertical rotation axis). In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 7, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is (571)272-8650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 5712707692. 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.R.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights