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 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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lamination apparatuses" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection may be overcome by defining “a lamination apparatus” prior to the limitation or by changing the terminology to read “the stacking apparatuses”. For the purpose of examination of the claim, “lamination apparatus” has been interpreted to be synonymous with “stacking apparatus” and not as a distinct apparatus.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et al (US 20200144089 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
351
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung teaches a stacking apparatus (unit cell alignment apparatus 100/200; Paragraph [0077]) which is to be disposed downstream of a conveyer that conveys a plurality of electrode bodies (unit cell 300; Paragraph [0078]) and stacks the electrode bodies, the stacking apparatus comprising: a mounting plate (base member 110; Paragraph [0077]) disposed obliquely with respect to a conveyance direction in which the electrode bodies are conveyed by the conveyer, and on which the electrode bodies are stacked (FIG. 5 shows the unit cell alignment apparatus 200 positioned obliquely to the conveyor and receiving conveyed unit cells 300 in a stacked formation); a first wall section that is erected on the mounting plate and extends along the conveyance direction of the electrode bodies (second guide member 130/230; Paragraph [0081]); a second wall section that is erected on the mounting plate, intersects the first wall section, and is provided on one end side of the first wall section in the conveyance direction of the electrode bodies (first guide member 120/220; Paragraph [0081]); a fall prevention section that is provided on the second wall section or on a wall section other than the second wall section, and prevents the electrode bodies from falling from the mounting plate (first guide member 120/220 and second guide member 130/230 act as fall prevention sections to prevent unit cells 300 from falling), wherein the mounting plate is inclined downward as a distance from the conveyer increases in the conveyance direction of the electrode bodies, and inclined downward toward the first wall section in a direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction of the electrode bodies. The inclination adjustment member 140/240 attached to the base member 110/210 comprises a support part 141, tilting part 142, and rotary part 144, allowing for the base member 110/210 to be inclined downward in the direction of conveyance and in the direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction (Paragraphs [0080-0087]).
Regarding Claim 4,
As disclosed in Paragraph [0025] of the instant application, the current collector foils are joined to tab leads of the positive and negative electrodes. Jung teaches the stacking apparatus according to claim 1 and further teaches the first guide member 120/220 and second guide member 130/230 may contain a plurality of discontinuous unit members which may be arranged to accommodate tabs of the unit cell 300 (Paragraph [0055]; FIG. 7).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung.
Regarding Claim 2,
Jung teaches the stacking apparatus according to Claim 1, including an inclination adjustment member 140/240 capable of rotating and tilting the base member 110/210, but is silent on the specific inclination angles of the base member 110/210 in relation to the conveyance direction of the unit cells 300 and the direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction of the unit cells 300. However, as seen in FIG. 4, Jung does teach embodiments wherein multiple inclination adjustment members (here listed as 241, 242, 243, and 244) may be attached to the base member 210. Further, with just varying the height of these inclination adjustment members (241-244), the base member 210 can be moved in a resulting direction (Paragraphs [0099-0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the height, degree of rotation, and degree of tilt of the inclination adjustment members (241-244) taught by Jung in
PNG
media_image2.png
497
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
order to achieve inclination angles of between 10° and 25° in the conveyance direction and 10° and 20° perpendicular to the conveyance direction of the electrode bodies as part of routine optimization.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Sakurai et al (WO 2017073677 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Jung teaches the stacking apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent on inclusion of a cushioning member on the first guide member 120/220. However, Sakurai teaches a buffer material 35 and a cushioning material mounted to the collision wall portions 24/25 of the stacking unit 21 to reduce the impact on the positive electrodes 11 and negative electrodes 9 as they are moved into the stacking unit 21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first guide member 120/220 of Jung to include a cushioning material as taught by Sakurai in order to reduce impact to the electrodes and help prevent the electrodes from becoming damaged.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Chen et al (CN 211045614 U).
Regarding Claim 5,
Jung teaches the stacking apparatus according to claim 1. Additionally, Jung teaches an embodiment of the unit cell 300 comprised sequentially of a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode, and a separator, with mention that the unit cell 300 is not limited to this embodiment and may comprise various combinations of these features (Paragraph [0078]). Jung is silent on the use of copper to form the current collectors of the positive and negative electrodes. However, Chen teaches both a positive electrode current collector and a negative electrode current collector comprising copper along with various other metals . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use copper electrodes as part of the routine optimization process.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Cox (GB 2539050 A).
Regarding Claim 6,
Jung teaches the stacking apparatus according to Claim 1 and a production line that conveys (unit cell transfer apparatus 400; FIG. 5), but is silent on inclusion of multiple apparatuses and the ability to switch between them after a predetermined number of unit cells 300 have been stacked. However, Cox teaches a battery stacking apparatus which drops a predefined number of plates onto a first stacking platform 224, then begins stacking plates onto a second stacking platform 324 after the
PNG
media_image3.png
783
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
predefined number of plates is reached. As seen in FIG. 5A-5D, plates are conveyed in a direction P until reaching a first stop 210 and are stacked onto a first stacking platform 224 until a predefined number of plates have been stacked. The stacked plates 4 are then lowered to a transfer conveyor and the first stop 210 is rotated to allow plates to be conveyed to the second stop 310 for stacking on the second stacking platform 324. In this way, the rate of production can be increased as alignment checks are performed on a completed stack 4 of plates while the next stack is being assembled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stacking system of Jung to include multiple stacking apparatuses for the purpose of increasing the rate of production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights