DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a conveying unit” in independent claim 11, “heating unit” in independent claim 11, and “a lamination unit” in independent claim 11.
Regarding the term “a conveying unit” in independent claim 11, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of a conveyor (per para. 0030 and fig. 1).
Regarding the term “a heating unit” in independent claim 11, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of a heater (per para. 0030)
Regarding the term “a lamination unit” in independent claim 11, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of at least one roller (per para. 0042 and fig. 1).
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 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “the initial stages being disposed in a region near an entrance of the heating portion in the movement direction and the late stages being disposed in a region near an exit of the heating portion in the movement direction” is indefinite. The term “near” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it clear how close the initial stage needs to be to the entrance of the heating portion to be considered “near an entrance of the heating portion”, nor how close the late stage needs to be to the exit of the heating portion to be considered “near an exit of the heating portion”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) teaches an electrode laminate heating unit (Figure 2), comprising:
a heating portion configured to heat an electrode laminate in a moving direction of the electrode laminate (Paragraph 63, joining heat 26 is provided with a heater such as to join portions of the first separator material 11A and the second separator material 13A around the electrodes 12; Paragraph 17, electrode 12 moves on the conveyor belt), the electrode laminate including an electrode and a separator (Figure 1, electrode laminate 10 has a structure comprising a separator and an electrode); and
a vision portion configured to measure a position change of the electrode in a region of the heating portion (Figure 2 Paragraph 64, joining head 26 joins portions of the separator material around the electrode at the fourth position T4; Paragraph 75, fourth camera 62 is positioned at the fourth position such as to determine the positional displacement amount in each region including the region around the joining head; Paragraph 96, cameras detect the displacement amount of the electrode to determine the positional displacement amount).
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 1, wherein
the vision portion includes a fore-end vision portion and a rear-end vision portion disposed to be spaced apart in a longitudinal dimension from each other (Figure 6 Paragraph 75, plurality of cameras spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal dimension), the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to a width dimension and the longitudinal dimension being parallel to a moving direction of the electrode laminate (Figure 2 Paragraph 53, conveyor belt 30 moves the material in a longitudinal direction wherein the direction is the same as the direction the cameras are spaced from each other).
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 1, wherein
the vision portion is configured to measure the position change of the electrode in at least one of a first initial stage (Figure 6 Paragraph 91, displacement amount of the electrode 12 is detected by the second camera 24) and a first late stages of the heating portion (Figure 2 Paragraph 64, joining head 26 joins portions of the separator material around the electrode at the fourth position T4; Paragraph 75, fourth camera 62 is positioned at the fourth position such as to determine the positional displacement amount in each region including the region around the joining head; thus the fourth camera 62 is positioned near the exit of the joining head 26), the initial stages being disposed in a region near an entrance of the heating portion in the movement direction (Figure 5 Paragraph 75, second camera 24 is provided at third position T3; Figure 2, position T3 is positioned just upstream of the entrance of the joining head 26) and the late stages being disposed in a region near an exit of the heating portion in the movement direction (Figure 5 Paragraph 75, fourth camera 62 is provided at the fourth position T4; Figure 2, fourth position is disposed just upstream of the exit of the joining head 26).
The Office further notes that positioning an upper and lower camera downstream of an exit of laminating section, including a presser, as to inspect the state of the tape laminated above and below the electrode is known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 42 of Oh (US 20060289453 A1).
See 112b rejection above.
Regarding claim 9, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 1, wherein
the vision portion comprises a camera (Figure 6 Paragraph 75, plurality of cameras forms the vision portion).
Regarding claim 10, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 1,
further comprising
a storage portion configured to collect position information of the electrode measured by the vision portion (Paragraph 89, storage unit 28 stores lateral positional displacement amounts of all the regions S1 to S21 on the conveyor belt when the electrodes are sequentially supplied onto the conveyor belt).
The Office further notes that collecting information regarding an electrode assembly and storing said information in a storage is well known in the art as evidenced by HAN (US 20190341658 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharpe (US 20190357324 A1) and Feaver (US 20110146064 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 1.
Fujiwake fails to teach:
the heating portion includes an accommodating region, the accommodating region being a hole or a groove in which the vision portion is configured to be disposed.
Sharpe (US 20190357324 A1) teaches a universal electronic oven heating functionality module, wherein:
the heating portion (Figure 11 Paragraph 56, heating functionality module 1100 with a casing bottom side element 1102) includes an accommodating region (Paragraph 56, aperture 1108 is aligned with sensor 1107), the accommodating region being a hole or a groove in which the vision portion is configured to be disposed (Figure 8 Paragraph 51, sensor 1107 is aligned with the aperture 1108 incorporated with the casing bottom side element 1102).
While Sharpe does not teach of forming battery laminates, Paragraph 60 of Sharpe teaches that the microwave module as specified can be installed in a large industrial oven such as those involving conveyor means for moving items continually through the oven. Furthermore, using microwave bonding as the form of thermal bonding for forming a battery laminate is known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 228 of Feaver (US 20110146064 A1). Thus, Sharpe can reasonably be considered to be in the same field of endeavor of a conveyor heating system applicable battery laminates.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwake with Sharpe and have a sensor be disposed within a hole or groove of the heating portion. This would have been done to additionally control the microwave energy source and energy steering elements based on data from the sensor (Sharpe Paragraphs 21 and 54).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YUHARA (JP 6481258 B2) and Oh (US 20060289453 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 3.
Fujiwake fails to teach:
the fore-end vision portion includes a first fore-end vision portion and a second fore-end vision portion disposed to be spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension and the rear-end vision portion includes a first rear-end vision portion and a second rear-end vision portion disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension.
YUHARA (JP 6481258 B2) teaches a separator bonding method for electric device, wherein:
the fore-end vision portion includes a first fore-end vision portion (Paragraphs 54-55, first separator transport unit 120 adjusts the timing of transporting the ceramic separator 41 based on the detection results of the position of each component by the first camera 151) and a second fore-end vision portion (Paragraph 55, second camera detects the position of the tapes and the second separator transport unit 130 adjusts the timing of transporting the ceramic separator 42 based on the detection results of the position of each component by the second camera 152) disposed to be spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension (Figure 6, first camera and second camera are spaced from each other laterally which is a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwake with YUHARA and have the fore-end vision portion comprise two cameras spaced apart from each other laterally. This would have been done such that the cameras can adjust the timing of the separators based on the detection results of each component (YUHARA Paragraphs 54-55).
Fujiwake modified with YUHARA fails to teach:
and the rear-end vision portion includes a first rear-end vision portion and a second rear-end vision portion disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension.
Oh (US 20060289453 A1) teaches an apparatus and method for laminating tape on an electrode of a battery, wherein:
and the rear-end vision portion includes a first rear-end vision portion and a second rear-end vision portion disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension (Paragraph 42, upper camera 145a examines whether the tape is laminated at an exact position and in an exact shape and a lower camera 145b examines the tape 15 laminated on the lower active material layer 12; Figure 3A, upper and lower cameras are spaced from each other in a lateral direction which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the conveyor).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwake with Oh and have a rear-end vision portion include a an upper and a lower camera. This would have been done to allow the operator to stop operation when the laminating state is imperfect (Oh Paragraph 55).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KOBAYASHI (US 20210245982 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 1, wherein
the electrode laminate comprises a first separator, a first electrode, a second separator and a second electrode configured to be stacked sequentially (Figure 8 Paragraph 102, electrode body is created by alternatively laminating an electrode laminate 10 and a second electrode 14 different in polarity; Paragraph 49, electrode laminate 10 has a structure comprising a first separator 11, an electrode 12, and a second separator 13; Figure 8, second electrode 14 is positioned on top of the rest of the electrode laminate)
Fujiwake fails to explicitly teach:
the vision portion being disposed on the second electrode
KOBAYASHI (US 20210245982 A1) teaches a stacking apparatus and stacking method, wherein:
the vision portion being disposed on the second electrode (Paragraph 46, detecting unit 46 detects the conditions of each of the sheets; Figure 7, detecting unit 46 detects the sheets from above which would detect the second electrode 14 positioned the top of the electrode laminate of Fujiwake)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwake with KOBAYASHI and have the detecting unit detect the electrode laminate from above and have its vision disposed on the second electrode. This would have been done identify laminates which exhibit a skew by an amount equal to or more than a predetermined amount and remove said defective sheet from the conveyance path (KOBAYASHI Paragraphs 38-39).
The Office further notes that laminating an electrode laminate comprising a first separator, a first electrode, a second separator and a second electrode configured to be stacked sequentially is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 3 of Lee (US 20190215944 A1)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) in view of Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20190215944 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 5.
Fujiwake fails to teach:
the heating portion comprises a first heating portion configured to face a surface of the second electrode and a second heating portion configured to face a surface of the first separator.
Lee (US 20190215944 A1) teaches a plasma generating apparatus for secondary battery and lamination system, wherein:
the heating portion comprises a first heating portion configured to face a surface of the second electrode and a second heating portion configured to face a surface of the first separator (Figure 3 Paragraphs 44-47, laminator 300 applies heat to allow the electrodes 11 and 13 to adhere to the separators 12 and 14 wherein the top heating portion of the laminator faces a second electrode 11 and a bottom heating portion of the laminator faces a bottom separator 14).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwake with Lee and have the laminator face a top electrode and a bottom separator. This would have been done to thermally fuse the electrodes and the separators to manufacture a radical unit sheet (Lee Paragraph 44).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meade (US 20060070530 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwake teaches the electrode laminate heating unit according to claim 1, wherein
the vision portion is configured to measure the position change of the electrode when a temperature of the heating portion fluctuates (Paragraphs 36-37, first separator material and second separator material can be joined together at a position where the influence of meandering is suppressed; Paragraph 35, a positional displacement amount in the lateral direction at the fourth position is obtained by a fourth pickup unit).
While Fujiwake does not explicitly teach that the position change is due to temperature of the heating portion fluctuating, and only states said detection is to suppress the meandering of the conveyor belt, it is well known in the art that uneven expansion of the wire mesh belt caused by a temperature gradient will cause the belt to drift out of alignment as evidenced by Paragraph 5 of Meade (US 20060070530 A1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a positional displacement amount is detected to, at least partially, offset the effects of the uneven effects of the heating portion on the conveyor belt and reduce the effects of the said belt meandering (Fujiwake Paragraph 99).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) in view of AHN (KR 20190131795 A).
Regarding claim 11, Fujiwake (US 20190252730 A1) teaches an electrode laminate lamination apparatus (Figure 2), comprising:
a conveying unit configured to convey an electrode laminate (Figure 2 Paragraph 53, conveyor belt 30 conveys the separator materials 11A and 11B, the electrode laminate including an electrode and a separator (Figure 1, electrode laminate 10 has a structure comprising a separator and an electrode);
a heating unit configured to heat the electrode laminate (Paragraph 63, joining heat 26 is provided with a heater such as to join portions of the first separator material 11A and the second separator material 13A around the electrodes 12); and
a lamination unit (Paragraph 26, a thermocompression bonding method that performs pressurization while heating the portions around the electrode)
wherein the heating unit includes a heating portion configured to heat the electrode laminate (Paragraph 63, joining heat 26 is provided with a heater such as to join portions of the first separator material 11A and the second separator material 13A around the electrodes 12), and a vision portion configured to measure a position change of the electrode in a region where the electrode laminate passes through the heating portion (Figure 2 Paragraph 64, joining head 26 joins portions of the separator material around the electrode at the fourth position T4; Paragraph 75, fourth camera 62 is positioned at the fourth position such as to determine the positional displacement amount in each region including the region around the joining head; Paragraph 96, cameras detect the displacement amount of the electrode to determine the positional displacement amount).
Fujiwake fails to explicitly teach:
a lamination unit configured to roll the electrode laminate,
AHN (KR 20190131795 A) teaches a lamination apparatus for electrode, wherein:
a lamination unit configured to roll the electrode laminate (Paragraph 40, electrodes of a certain size are continuously moved at intervals by passing between rollers which pressing the electrode substrate; Paragraph 49, heating is performed within the protection block to heat the electrode before passing through the roller)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwake with Lee and have a lamination unit roll the electrode laminate. This would have been done to apply appropriate pressure while the electrode substrate passes between them to bond the separator and the electrodes (AHN Paragraph 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights