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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims received on October 31st, 2025 have been entered. Claim 15 has been amended. Objections to the specification, drawings, and claims filed on October 1st, 2025 have been withdrawn. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections filed on October 1st, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 17, that the mandrel for manufacturing an electrode assembly of a cylindrical secondary battery is non-analogous and thus renders the prior art reference of Yoo (WO 2022/031037) as irrelevant. While the examiner understands the difference in inventions, the examiner notes that it has been held that the determination that c reference is from a non-analogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor's endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174. In this case, Yoo provides a mandrel for holding elongated flat materials (in this instance a battery membrane) having protrusions and grooves which connected together to provide a strengthened connection between the two mandrel pieces and the flat material. Similarly, the applicant’s invention provides first and second half-ovel which also comprises a cavity and a tab to provide proper securing means (see applicant’s ¶¶40 & 42).
The applicant further argues that both Saito (US Pat No. 3,802,641) and Yoo fail to disclose an oval wedge member configured to fit in a hollow cavity and a tab and cavity for securing a webbing. The examiner emphasizes that Saito discloses a shaft 4 (corresponding to an oval wedge member) being inserted into take-up sleeve 3 (corresponding to a hollow cavity), see figure 2 and column 2, lines 6-15. Further, Yoo teaches a first and second mandrel member 110, 120 (corresponding to first and second half-oval sections) having their respective protrusions 131 and grooves 133 (corresponding to a hollow cavity and a tab), see figure 2 and page 2, paragraph 42. The examiner emphasizes that the claims neither identify any problem solved by selecting an “oval” wedge member, nor do they recite any functional result that depends on an “oval” shape. Thus, the limitation of the “oval” wedge represents a mere design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an oval shape (among other known shapes) for routine reasons such as proper fitting into shaft, limiting wedge rotation, or ease of manufacturability with a reasonable expectation of the same performance. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV) (B) and In re Dailey.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3,802,641 A) in view of Yoo (WO 2022/031037 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Saito discloses a lockout shaft comprising a cylindrical body comprising a slot longitudinally extending from a first end of the cylindrical body to a second end of the cylindrical body, the slot configured to receive webbing (Figs. 2-3, take-up sleeve 3 having slots extending from the ends where the webbing 27 passes through), a wedge member configured to fit in a hollow cavity of the cylindrical body, the wedge member comprising half-oval first and second sections (Figs. 2 & 5, depicting rotative shaft 4, 24), and first and second ratchet gears configured to enclose each end of the cylindrical body (Figs. 1-2, ratchet wheels 5 and 6), but fails to disclose the wedge being of oval shape and wherein the half-oval sections comprise a cavity and a tab.
Regarding the oval wedge, it should be known that Saito only discloses a cylindrical shape and it us understood a cylindrical shape could comprise of oval shape faces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated oval shaped wedges to provide a greater surface area acting on the webbing for a greater gripping force.
Regarding the cavity and tab of the half-oval sections, Yoo teaches a half-oval first section comprising a cavity in a flat portion of the half oval first section (Fig. 6, first mandrel member 110) and a half-oval second section comprising an outward-extending tab in a flat portion of the half-oval second section, the tab and cavity configured to secure the webbing between the first section and the second section (Fig. 6, second mandrel member 120). Both Saito and Yoo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotating shafts with material clamping means. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a groove and a tab to the two oval-halves in order to provide an improved griping means.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 19, Saito discloses wherein the webbing is wrapped around the oval wedge member such that a holding strength is at least equal to a strength of the webbing itself when the webbing is wrapped back onto and over itself (Col. 2, Ln. 36-49 describes the force used to wrap the webbing and how the rotative shaft remains clinging to said webbing).
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 20, Saito discloses wherein the ratchet gear stops crushing or biting of the webbing within the cylindrical body slot (Col. 2, Ln. 50-59 describes how the webbing 18 is guided within the take-up sleeve).
Regarding claim 17, Saito discloses a method of securing webbing in a lockout shaft, comprising inserting webbing into an oval wedge member, the oval wedge member comprising inserting the oval wedge member into a cylindrical body, the cylindrical body comprising a slot longitudinally extending from a first end of the cylindrical body to a second end of the cylindrical body, the slot configured to receive the webbing (Col. 2, Ln. 26-41); and enclosing at least one end of the cylindrical body with a ratchet gear, but fails to discloses the half-oval sections having a gap and tab. However, Yoo teaches a half-oval first section comprising a cavity in a flat portion of the half oval first section and a half-oval second section comprising an outward-extending tab in a flat portion of the half-oval second section, the tab and cavity configured to secure the webbing between the first section and the second section (Fig. 6, first and second mandrel members 110, 120). Rationales to have modified/combined are above and are reincorporated.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3,802,641 A), in view of Yoo (WO 2022/031037 A1), and in further view of Wright (US 8,370,997 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Saito fails to disclose the cylindrical body having a bore and comprising a pin for retaining the ratchet gears. However, Wright teaches further comprising: at least one bore adjacent to the first end; and at least one bore adjacent to the second end, each of the two bores configured to accept a securing pin to maintain the first and second ratchet gears in position on the cylindrical body (Figs 1 & 5, attachment device 19 corresponding to a pin, and void 20 corresponding to a bore). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a bore and pin to the tensioning device to provide a means for securing the rotating components from dethatching via pins for ease of maintenance.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3,802,641 A), in view of Yoo (WO 2022/031037 A1), and in further view of Vallance (US 4,629,136 A).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 11-12, Saito fails to disclose attachment means of the half-oval sections. However, Vallance teaches further comprising an attachment means for securing the half-oval first section to the half-oval second section by means of at least one of a clamp (Figs. 3C-E, clips 48 corresponding to clamps). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a clamping attachment means to the half-oval first and second sections to provide a means for secure connection preventing the two elements from detaching from one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5, 13, and 18 are allowable because they include the limitation of a lockout shaft comprising specifically an oval cap configured to maintain the oval wedge member, in combination with the other elements recited in claims 5, 13, and 18 respectively. Dependent claims 6 and 14 are also distinguished from the prior art as they further limit claims 5 and 13 in a way that is not taught or suggested by the prior art.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619