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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,3-4,14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujian (CN114083561).
Re claim 1, Fujian teaches a feeding device (see figures), used for picking and placing a protective part 20 / foam and a workpiece 9 accommodated in the protective part, and comprising: a base 1; a first picking mechanism 2, arranged on the base and used for picking and placing the workpiece 9; and a second picking mechanism 5, arranged on the base and used for picking and placing the protective part 20 / foam.
Fujian teaches (figures 1,8) the base 1 comprises numerous fixed plates that are perpendicular as well as parallel to each other. The first and second picking mechanisms are at least indirectly connected as claimed. Fujian does not appear to label all the features, making the exact connections not as clear as would be preferred. However, duplication & rearrangement of parts as well as making things integral, adjustable, separable & continuous are known to be obvious modifications in the art (MPEP 2144; n re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); n re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954); In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Fujian as claimed to strengthen the frame and facilitate the construction & assembly needs of a given situation.
Re claim 3, Fujian teaches the first picking mechanism comprises at least two first picking and clamping jaws 2,24, all the first picking and clamping jaws are distributed side by side in a first direction and have an adjustable distance in the first direction, and the first direction is a width direction of the workpiece.
Re claim 4, Fujian teaches the first picking mechanism further comprises a first driving part 4 and an adjusting part 3, and the adjusting part is movably connected with the first picking and clamping jaws; and the first driving part is used for driving the adjusting part to move, and driving the first picking and clamping jaws to move in the first direction.
Re claim 14, Fujian teaches (figures 1,2,8) the second picking mechanism 5 comprises second picking and clamping jaws, the first picking mechanism is respectively provided with at least one second picking and clamping jaw 5 on both sides in the first direction, and the distance between all the second picking and clamping jaws in the first direction is adjustable.
Re claim 15, Fujian teaches (figures 1,2,8) the second picking mechanism further comprises a second driving part (figures 1,2,8), each second picking and clamping jaw is correspondingly provided with one second driving part, and the second driving parts are used for driving the second picking and clamping jaws to move in the first direction.
Re claim 16, Fujian teaches (abstract, [0001]) battery manufacturing system, comprising the feeding device according to claim 1.
Claims 5-9,11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujian (CN114083561) in view of Fujian (called Fujian2 hereafter) (CN113734778A).
Re claim 5, Fujian teaches the adjusting part 3 driven 4 & having sliding grooves, wheels (figures 4,5) but not with individual sliding grooves in the second direction, etc. as claimed. However, these features are already known in the art, as shown for example by Fujian2 which teaches a feeder (see figures 1,4,9-11,etc.) for adjustably gripping spaced workpieces 8, with grippers 41, inclined slots 511 etc. is known. It would have been obvious to have modified Fujian as claimed in order to allow greater adjustability & support capabilities for gripping varied spaced & located items.
Re claim 6, Fujian as already modified teaches all the sliding grooves are in a straight, arc, wavy or zigzag shape.
Re claim 7, Fujian as already modified teaches the first picking mechanism further comprises a first guide rail fixed on the base, the first guide rail extends in the first direction, the guide wheel is arranged on the same side of each first picking and clamping jaw, and the side of each first picking and clamping jaw facing away from the guide wheel is slidably connected to the first guide rail.
Re claim 8, Fujian as already modified teaches the feeding device further comprises an auxiliary picking mechanism 8 arranged on the base, and when the first picking mechanism picks and places the workpiece, the auxiliary picking mechanism can switch between a pressing state of pressing the protective part and a holding state of holding a bottom side of the workpiece.
Re claim 9, Fujian (figures 1,9) as already modified teaches the auxiliary picking mechanism 8 comprises a moving platform and at least two probe rods 83, each probe rod is connected with the moving platform and can move along with the moving platform, all the probe rods are distributed side by side in a third direction intersecting the first direction, and the third direction is a length direction of the workpiece.
Re claim 11, Fujian (figures 1,9) shows all the probe rods appear to be of at least one of a cylindrical structure and a prismatic structure, but Fujian does not explicitly state the shape. However, changes in shape is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Fujian to be shaped as claimed in order to use such a known shape that is more easily manufactured than uncommon and non-uniform shapes as well as to make it aesthetically pleasing.
Re claim 12, Fujian (figures 1,9) as already modified teaches in the first direction, a dimension of the probe rods is greater than or equal to a dimension of the protective part.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations of claim 2, now put into claim 1, make claim 1 and thus all remaining claims allowable. Applicant argues that it would be hindsight to modify Fujian to have the amended claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
One of ordinary skill would understand the usefulness of strengthening connections and reconfiguring to strengthen as well as rearrange with obvious modifications to fit the space, location needs & space limitations of varied situations, etc. Also as shown in the figures the second picking mechanism 5 as shown in figure 8 has a 3D (can be considered horizontal & vertical extending) plate connection to base 1 (unnumbered, extending from 52) and [0130,0131] states that are fixed to the frame & that appear to be the same as claimed. The first picking mechanism 3 as shown in figures 1-6, etc. also has a 3D (can be considered horizontal & vertical extending & perpendicular to those of the second picking mechanism) plate connection to base 1 (unnumbered but are shown in the figures) and [0092] states the first picking mechanism’s drive mechanism 4 is fixed to the frame & thus appears to be the same as claimed. Minor differences, if any / and to avoid potential arguments & speed the case as there are many shown but unnumbered items in the figures, as shown above would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify as claimed.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 MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights