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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “necking piece” and “press-fit piece” in claim 1; first driving assembly in claim 5; second driving assembly in claim 9; and third driving assembly in claim 10.
Regarding necking piece, the phrase includes a generic placeholder (“necking piece”) modified by functional language (“coordinate with the inner mold to form a necked portion”) and not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as necking piece 20 which is described as a hob or roller (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0073]) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding press-fit piece, the phrase includes a generic placeholder (“press-fit piece”) modified by functional language (“coordinate with the necking piece to press and flatten the flanged portion”) and not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as press-fit piece 30 which is described as a press structure of various shapes (Para. [0074]; Figs. 4-5) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding first driving assembly, the phrase includes a generic placeholder (“first driving assembly”) modified by functional language (“configured to drive the press-fit piece”) and not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as a linear cylinder, screw rod, or single-axis manipulator (Para. [0091]) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding second driving assembly, the phrase includes a generic placeholder (“second driving assembly”) modified by functional language (“configured to drive the necking piece”) and not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as a linear cylinder, screw rod, or single-axis manipulator (Para. [0107]) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding third driving assembly, the phrase includes a generic placeholder (“third driving assembly”) modified by functional language (“configured to drive the necking roller to revolve around the inner mold”) and not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as a rotating driving assembly such as a turntable driven by a motor or a ring gear (Para. [0109]) and equivalents thereof.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, these claims recite components that are each configured to “coordinate” with other components which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for the pieces to “coordinate,” i.e., the pieces work together to form a feature or merely work in sequence during the process. For the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the pieces are configured to both operate during the forming process. Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,606,207 to Slade.
Regarding claim 15, Slade teaches a necking and flanging apparatus (Fig. 1; Abstract), comprising:
an inner mold 20 (Fig. 1; Col. 8, Lns. 17-51);
a necking piece 50, disposed around the inner mold 20, wherein the necking piece 50 is movable along a radial direction of the inner mold 20, and the necking piece 50 is configured to coordinate with the inner mold 20 to form a necked portion on a housing (Figs. 1-7; Col. 8, Ln. 63 through Col. 9, Ln. 14; the carrier 50 includes roll 46 that is moveable in the radial direction to form the necked portion); and
a press-fit piece 42, disposed around the inner mold 20, wherein the press-fit piece 42 is slidably connected to the inner mold 20 through a guide rail assembly and is movable along an axial direction of the inner mold (Figs. 1-7; Col. 8, Lns. 52-62; it is noted that the guide rail assembly is not required to be attached to any component or include any particular components, thus the rail like structure connected to cam 72 and press-fit piece 42 is interpreted as the guide rail assembly because it guides the movement of the press-fit piece 42 as it is connected to the inner mold 20 via the mold 20 being positioned within the center of the press-fit piece 42), and the press-fit piece 42 is configured to move along the axial direction of the inner mold 20 toward the necking piece 50 to press a flanged portion of the housing against the necking piece 50 and flatten the flanged portion of the housing (Figs. 1-7; Col. 8, Lns. 52-62).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slade.
Regarding claim 1, Slade teaches a necking and flanging apparatus (Abstract), comprising:
an inner mold 20 (Fig. 1; Col. 8, Lns. 17-51);
a necking piece 50, disposed around the inner mold 20, wherein the necking piece 50 is movable along a radial direction of the inner mold 20, and the necking piece 50 is configured to coordinate with the inner mold 20 to form a necked portion on a housing (Figs. 1-7; Col. 8, Ln. 63 through Col. 9, Ln. 14; the carrier 50 includes roll 46 that is moveable in the radial direction to form the necked portion); and
a press-fit piece 42, disposed around the inner mold 20, wherein the press-fit piece 42 is movable along an axial direction of the inner mold 20, and the press-fit piece 42 is configured to move along the axial direction of the inner mold toward the necking piece 50 to press a flanged portion of the housing against the necking piece and flatten the flanged portion of the housing (Figs. 1-7; Col. 8, Lns. 52-62).
Slade fails to explicitly teach wherein the press-fit piece includes a plurality of press-fit portions, the plurality of press- fit portions being spaced out around a circumferential direction of the inner mold, and each press-fit portion being independently movable along the axial direction of the inner mold.
However, as discussed in MPEP 2144.04(V)(C), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the unitary press-fit portion of the apparatus in Slade be a plurality of separate pieces so that each of the pieces individually may be repaired or replaced due to wear or failure rather than having to replace the entire press-fit piece. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Further, as the press-fit piece still functions to move down towards the necking piece during forming operations, each of the press-fit portions would be independently movable along the axial direction of the inner mold, i.e., each press-fit piece moves along the axial direction of the inner mold.
Regarding claim 2, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the press-fit piece 42 is ring-shaped, and the press-fit piece is sleeved on the inner mold 20 (Fig. 1; Col. 8, Lns. 52-62; piece 42 is a ring sleeved around the mold 20).
Regarding claim 3, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 2 (Fig. 1), wherein:
outer peripheral surfaces of the inner mold comprise a first outer peripheral surface 22, a second outer peripheral surface 30, and a transition surface 34 (Figs. 1, 2 and 4; Col. 8, Lns. 17-51);
a diameter of the first outer peripheral 22 surface is larger than a diameter of the second outer peripheral surface 30 (Fig. 1);
the transition surface 34 connects the first outer peripheral surface 22 and the second outer peripheral surface 30 (Fig. 1);
the necking piece 50 is further configured to radially press the housing to abut on the second outer peripheral surface 30 to form the necked portion (Fig. 2; the necking piece 50 includes roller 46 that interacts with the chuck 30 to form the neck); and
the press-fit piece 42 is sleeved on the first outer peripheral surface 22 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the press-fit piece 42 is slidably connected to the inner mold 20 along the axial direction of the inner mold 20 (Figs. 1-2; Col. 8, Lns. 52-62; the ring 42 is slidable relative to the mold 20 and it is connected to the mold via its placement around and movement relative to the mold).
Regarding claim 5, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), further comprising: a first driving assembly 72, configured to drive the press-fit 42 piece to move along the axial direction of the inner mold 20 (Fig. 1; Col. 10, Lns. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the press-fit piece 42 comprises a first surface oriented toward the necking piece 50 along the axial direction of the inner mold, and the first surface is a flat face perpendicular to the axial direction of the inner mold (Figs. 1-3 show that the bottom of the press-fit piece is a flat surface that is oriented towards and contacts the necking piece).
Regarding claim 8, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the necking piece 50 is one of a plurality of necking pieces of the necking and flanging apparatus, and the plurality of necking pieces 50 are distributed along a circumferential direction of the inner mold 20 (Fig. 1; Col. 8, Ln. 63 through Col. 9, Ln. 14; the system includes more than one necking piece 46, 50 and these are distributed about the circumference of the neck of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 9, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), further comprising: a second driving assembly 70, configured to drive the necking piece 50 to move along the radial direction of the inner mold 20 (Fig. 1; Col. 9, Lns. 58-68).
Regarding claim 11, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), further comprising: a fixing mechanism 16, disposed opposite to the inner mold 20 along the axial direction of the inner mold 20, and configured to fix the housing (Fig. 1; Col. 8, Lns. 12-16).
Regarding claim 12, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the inner mold 20 comprises a gas duct 52, and the gas duct 52 is configured to feed a high-pressure gas into the housing (Figs. 1 and 4; Col. 9, Lns. 15-29).
Regarding claim 13, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 12 (Fig. 1), wherein the gas duct 52 runs through the inner mold 20 along the axial direction of the inner mold 20 (Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Slade teaches a piece of battery manufacturing equipment, wherein the equipment comprises the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lns. 24-29; the necking and flanging equipment may be used to form any hollow body, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a battery housing), and the necking and flanging apparatus is configured to neck and flange the housing of a battery (Figs. 1-4; the system is capable of necking and flanging a workpiece that can be used to house a battery).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slade in view of US 4,058,998 to Franek.
Regarding claim 6, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 5 (Fig. 1).
Slade fails to explicitly teach wherein the first driving assembly is mounted on the inner mold.
Franek a necking and flanging system including an inner mold 77 and a press-fit piece 78, wherein the first drive assembly 81 of the press-fit piece is mounted on the inner mold 77 (Fig. 7; Col. 7, Lns. 14-47).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the press-fit piece drive assembly in the necking and flanging system of Slade with the drive assembly of Franek as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of driving the movement of the press-fit piece relative to the mold.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slade in view of US 3,782,314 to Rhodes.
Regarding claim 10, Slade teaches the necking and flanging apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the necking piece 50 is a necking roller 46 (Fig. 1; Col. 8, Ln. 63 through Col. 9, Ln. 14).
Slade fails to explicitly teach the necking and flanging apparatus further comprises: a third driving assembly, configured to drive the necking roller to revolve around the inner mold.
Rhodes teaches a necking and flanging system including a necking piece 21 including a roller 11 and a third driving assembly, configured to drive the necking roller to revolve around the inner mold 10 (Figs. 1-2; Col. 3, Lns. 46-64; the necking roll 11 is rotated relative to the mandrel 10 in order to form the neck).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the roller of to rotate about the mandrel as taught by Rhodes so that the roller may work on the entire surface of the workpiece without requiring the workpiece to be rotated throughout the process.
Response to Arguments
Firstly, it is noted that Applicant traverses the interpretation of some phrases under 35 USC 112(f) because the specification describes sufficient structure for these phrases. These phrases are still being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because each of the phrases satisfies the three-prong test for 112(f) interpretation, as discussed above. Further, the description in the specification of these phrases is noted in the 112(f) interpretation as the corresponding structures for each phrase.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated June 2, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-14 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the case law established obviousness rationale to make a unitary piece separable, as discussed above.
Applicant's amendments and remarks regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Applicant has amended some recitations of components “coordinating” with each other, the claims still include this language, including in the newly added claim. As discussed in the 112 rejection in the Non-Final Office Action “it is not clear what is required for the pieces to ‘coordinate’” and Applicant has provided no explanation as to why the remaining recitations of the pieces coordinating with each other are not indefinite.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights