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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“device, in” in line 2 should read “device in”.
“comprising:” in line 4 should read “the transport device comprising:”.
“to move” in line 7 should read “to be moved”.
“toward” in line 8 should read “to”.
“moving, and” in line 9 should read “moving; and”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“both sides” in line 4 should read “opposite sides” (because it was not previously recited that the body has two sides).
“from the” in line 4 should read “from a”.
“seated.” in line 7 should read “seated thereon.”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: “toward” in line 5 should read “to”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: “at the lower” in line 5 should read “at lower”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“upon” in line 2 should read “in”.
“of the top of” in line 3 should read “above”.
“from the top side of” in line 4 should read “above”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: “upon” in line 2 should read “in”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: “upon” in line 3 should read “in”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“notifying pad” in line 5 should read “notifying a need for pad”.
“when the abrasion” in line 5 should read “when abrasion”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: “controls the operation” in line 2 should read “controls operation”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: “to move” in line 17 should read “to be moved”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“both sides” in line 4 should read “opposite sides” (because it was not previously recited that the body has two sides).
“from the” in line 4 should read “from a”.
“seated, and” in line 7 should read “seated thereon, and”.
“toward” in line 10 should read “to”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: “at the lower” in line 4 should read “at lower”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“notifying pad” in line 5 should read “notifying a need for pad”.
“when the abrasion” in line 5 should read “when abrasion”.
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 2-7 and 11-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electrode" in the middle of line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “an electrode”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the support plate" in line 4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the pair of support plates mentioned in claim 2 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “one of the support plates” and as if “the support plate” in line 5 instead reads “the one of the support plates”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first packaging bag portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “portions of the first packaging bag”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the protruding portion" twice in lines 3-5. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the protruding portions first mentioned in claim 2 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the protruding portions” in both instances the limitation appears in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the support plate" in line 4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the pair of support plates first mentioned in claim 2 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the support plates”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the support plate." in line 3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the pair of support plates first mentioned in claim 2 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the support plates.”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the support plate" twice in lines 4 and 5. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the pair of support plates first mentioned in claim 2 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the one of the support plates” in both instances the limitation appears in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the electrode roll side" in the middle of line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a side of the electrode roll”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electrode" in the middle of line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “an electrode”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the support plate" in line 9. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the pair of support plates mentioned in claim 2 the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “one of the support plates” and as if “the support plate” in line 10 instead reads “the one of the support plates”.
Claims 3-7 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 2.
Claims 12-15 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 8-10 are allowed.
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitations of claim 1 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 1:
“a packaging bag arrangement part provided to move together with the seating part by the moving part” and
“a control part configured to perform a seating mode for controlling the moving part to move the seating part so that the electrode roll is seated in the seating groove, and a transport mode for transporting the seating part, on which the electrode roll is seated, to a secondary packaging location”.
The prior art reference considered by the examiner to come closest to teaching the limitations of claim 1 is Smith et al. (US 2017/0021952), hereinafter Smith.
Smith teaches a transport device (10) comprising:
a seating part (77 in Figure 8) having a seating groove (the groove at the center of the upper run of 77 shown in Figure 8);
a moving part (50 and 52 in Figure 8) connected to the seating part (77) for moving the seating part (77) (Paragraph 0040);
a packaging bag arrangement part (190 and 192 collectively in Figures 1-5) provided to move together with the seating part (77) by separate drives (Paragraphs 0045 and 0040), and for closely attaching a first packaging bag (144 in Figures 10-12) toward a roll (24’ in Figures 10-12) seated on the seating groove (the groove at the center of the upper run of 77 shown in Figure 8) when moving (apparent when Figures 10-12 are viewed in relation to one another).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Thus, the recitations “for an electrode double packaging device, in which an unpackaged electrode roll is primarily packaged in a first packaging bag, and the primarily packaged electrode roll is secondarily packaged in a second packaging bag” and “for seating the primarily packaged electrode roll” of claim 1 does not differentiate the claimed transport device and seating groove from the transport device and seating groove of Smith. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
However, Smith, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious the combination of limitations shown in quotation marks above.
Regarding claims 2-10, they are allowed solely because they depend from claim 1 which is allowed as explained above.
Regarding independent claim 11, it is drawn to an electrode double packaging device comprising a transport device (the “second transport device” first mentioned in line 10 of claim 11) as recited in claim 1, and is therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-15, they are allowed solely because they depend from claim 1 which is allowed as explained above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731