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 8 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 8 recites “a gap between the first guide blocks is less than or equal to the width of the case.” Although the claim is clearly written and understood, please amend “the first guide blocks” to “the pair of first guide blocks” to ensure proper antecedent basis (see “a pair of first guide blocks” in Claim 6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 11 recites “a gap between the second guide blocks is less than or equal to the length of the case.” Although the claim is clearly written and understood, please amend “the second guide blocks” to “the pair of second guide blocks” to ensure proper antecedent basis (see “a pair of second guide blocks” in Claim 9).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 defines the separation gap as “a value obtained by subtracting a width of the electrode assembly from a width of the case.” When the width of the electrode assembly is subtracted from the width of the case, the resulting value is a width-wise amount of the case that is unoccupied by the electrode assembly (a sum of W1 and W2 in Examiner’s annotated instant Fig. 5). Examiner notes the claimed “separation gap between one of the first guide blocks and the electrode assembly” would be equal to half of the claimed separation gap value. For example, in the Examiner’s annotation, the claimed “separation gap between one of the first guide blocks and the electrode assembly” would be equal to W2.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
1124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed separation gap is not a permanent structural feature of the battery manufacturing equipment (i.e., apparatus). Instead, the claimed separation gap occurs between the apparatus and an electrode assembly for a brief moment while the first guide block travels inward towards the electrode assembly (travel direction 1 in Fig. 5), but prior to stopping and descending in direction 2.
The limitations of Claim 7 are interpreted as intended use, and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim 10 recites “a separation gap between one of the second guide blocks and the electrode assembly corresponds to a value obtained by subtracting a length of the electrode assembly from a length of the case.” This limitation is interpreted similarly to Claim 7.
The separation gap of Claim 10 is interpreted as representing a length-wise amount of the case that is unoccupied by the electrode assembly. The claimed separation gap is not a permanent structural feature of the battery manufacturing equipment (i.e., apparatus). Instead, the claimed separation gap occurs between the apparatus and an electrode assembly for a brief moment while one of the second guide blocks travels inward towards the electrode assembly, but prior to stopping and descending in an orthogonal direction.
The limitations of Claim 10 are interpreted as intended use, and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
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 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugai, JP H09139226 A, and further in view of Koo et al., KR 102354867 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugai discloses battery-manufacturing equipment (Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a guide jig (electrode plate group insertion device 3 [0006, 0015], Figs. 3, 4, 6, 7) configured to be adjacent a lower portion of an electrode assembly (device 3 grips above the lower end of the electrode plate group 2 [0006-0007], Figs. 2-4, 6, 7) at a position at which the electrode assembly is to be inserted into a case (inserted into battery case 1 [0007], Figs. 1, 4, 6, 7), and configured to descend together with the electrode assembly (pair of gripping members 3d and 3d of the electrode plate group 2 are slightly lowered during insertion [0008-0010], Figs. 6-7);
a driving unit configured to drive the guide jig (pair of gripping members 3d and 3d are radially slidable via mounting base plate 3a, and vertically moveable via piston rod 3b [0006]).
PNG
media_image2.png
628
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
758
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sugai – Fig. 3 (L) and Fig. 4 (R)
Sugai does not disclose how the driving unit is controlled, and therefore does not disclose “a control unit configured to control the driving unit” as required by Claim 1. However, this limitation is taught by Koo et al.
Koo teaches an electronic control unit can be used to control position, movement, and operating times of battery cell insertion equipment ([0025, 0051]). Koo teaches the control unit can be used in combination with driving mechanisms such as servo motors, pneumatic cylinders, and robots, in order to precisely and easily move a battery gripper forward, backward, left, right, up, and down ([0046-0052]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the electronic control unit and driving units of Koo, to the manufacturing equipment of Sugai, in order to control the movement of Koo’s guide jig with precision and ease.
Regarding the preamble “Secondary battery-manufacturing equipment comprising,” modified Sugai does not specify whether the battery manufacturing equipment is used to assemble a primary or secondary battery. However, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114-2115. In the instant case, since modified Sugai’s battery manufacturing equipment meets all structural limitations in the claim body, it is therefore capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the driving unit comprises a first driving unit configured to move the guide jig in a direction toward the electrode assembly (Sugai, pairs of gripping members 3d are horizontally movable via mounting base plate 3a, opening and closing to grip electrode plate group [0010]), and a second driving unit configured to move the guide jig in an insertion direction of the electrode assembly (Sugai, pair of gripping members 3d and 3d are vertically moveable via piston rod 3b and lowered for insertion [0006-0010]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the guide jig is spaced apart from the case by a gap at the position at which the electrode assembly is to be inserted into the case (Sugai, see “solid line” and “dashed line” for both locations of the lower end 3c1 of each gripping member 3 spaced apart from case 1 [0006-0010] and Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
832
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sugai – Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the guide jig is configured to descend while the electrode assembly descends toward the case (Sugai, insertion gripping member 3 is lowered by approximately 5 to 10 mm to insert further electrode plate groups 2 [0008-0011]) and while maintaining a separation gap between the guide jig and the electrode assembly (Sugai, cathode plates 1a1 of electrode plate group 2 extend beyond lower end 3c1 of each gripping member 3 by height h [0008-0011], see “separation gap” between lower end 3c1 and cathode plates 1a1 in Annotated Sugai Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
312
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sugai – Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the guide jig is configured to descend at a speed that is substantially equal to a descending speed of the electrode assembly (Sugai, pair of gripping members lower with the electrode plate group during insertion [0008-0011]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the guide jig comprises a pair of first guide blocks respectively facing long side portions of the electrode assembly (Sugai, insertion gripping member 3d comprises long rods 3c to grip the “front and rear surfaces” of the electrode plate group 2 [0006], see “Pair of 1st Guide Blocks” as long rods 3c and 3c in Annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
398
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sugai – Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. See Claim Interpretation section in this action, which explains how Claim 7 is interpreted as intended use.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, modified Sugai discloses the first guide blocks travel horizontally to repeatedly grip and release the electrode plate group (Sugai, [0006-0011]). Examiner notes the insertion process of modified Sugai would include the claimed value of the “separation gap between one of the first guide blocks and the electrode assembly,” as modified Sugai’s insertion process includes a gap distance range of zero (when gripping the plate group, see solid line [0010], Fig. 6) to a distance greater than the width of the case (when grip is released, see dashed line [0010], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “a gap between the pair of first guide blocks is less than or equal to the width of the case,” modified Sugai discloses the width of the electrode plate group assembly can range from 2.16 mm to 2.76 mm (Sugai, sum of cathode, anode, and separator layer thicknesses in [0005]), and the total width of the case is 4.84 mm (Sugai, 4.8 mm opening area + 0.02 mm wall thickness per side [0005]).
Since the first guide blocks of modified Sugai are in surface contact with the long sides of the electrode plate group during assembly (see Annotated Fig. 3 in Claim 6), the size of “a gap between the first guide blocks” would be approx. equivalent to the width of the pressed electrode plate group (2.16 mm to 2.76 mm), which is “less than or equal to the width of the case” (4.84 mm).
PNG
media_image7.png
340
408
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Sugai – Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the guide jig further comprises a pair of second guide blocks respectively facing short side portions of the electrode assembly (Sugai, insertion gripping member 3d comprises long rods 3c to grip “both left and right sides” of the electrode plate group 2 [0006], see “Pair of 2nd Guide Blocks” as long rods 3c and 3c in Annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
478
496
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sugai – Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. See Claim Interpretation section in this action, which explains how Claim 10 is interpreted as intended use.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, modified Sugai discloses the second guide blocks travel horizontally to repeatedly grip and release the electrode plate group (Sugai, [0006-0011]). Examiner notes the insertion process of modified Sugai would include the claimed value of the “separation gap between one of the second guide blocks and the electrode assembly,” as modified Sugai’s insertion process includes a gap distance range of zero (when gripping the plate group, see solid line [0010], Fig. 6) to a distance greater than the width of the case (when grip is released, see dashed line [0010], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “a gap between the pair of second guide blocks is less than or equal to the length of the case,” modified Sugai discloses the electrode plate group assembly is 14.3 mm lengthwise (Sugai, [0005]), and the case is 15.64 mm lengthwise (Sugai, 15.6 mm opening width + 0.02 mm wall thickness per side [0005]).
Since the second guide blocks of modified Sugai press the short sides of the electrode plate group during assembly into the case (see Annotated Fig. 3 in Claim 9), the size of “a gap between the second guide blocks” would be approx. equivalent to the length of the pressed electrode plate group (14.3 mm), which is “less than or equal to the length of the case” (15.64 mm).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the guide jig has a diagonal or streamlined cross-section at a surface facing the electrode assembly (Sugai, lower end 3c1 of each insertion gripping member 3c [0006-0007], Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image9.png
270
392
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Sugai – Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claim 14, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the guide jig is configured to return to an original position after the electrode assembly is partially inserted into the case (Sugai, insertion steps are repeated by raising the gripping members about 5 to 10 mm, regripping, and lowering the electrode plate group by a predetermined distance at least once [0010]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses a battery manufactured by the battery-manufacturing equipment as claimed in claim 1 (Sugai, battery cells assembled by the process are evaluated/tested [0007, 0017], Fig. 5).
Although modified Sugai does not disclose the battery is a secondary battery, Koo teaches similar gripping-style assembly equipment can be used for secondary batteries (Koo, [0002-0003]). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture a secondary battery using the battery-manufacturing equipment of modified Sugai, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, as Koo teaches gripping-style assembly equipment can be used in secondary battery manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai discloses the electrode assembly comprises a stack-type electrode assembly (Sugai, electrode plate group 2 is a stack of four cathode plates 2a, three anode plates 2b, and six separators 2c [0005], Figs. 2-3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sugai as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Lim et al., US 20180047950 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Sugai discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Sugai does not disclose “an upper corner of the surface of the guide jig facing the electrode assembly has a radius (R) value of about 5R to about 10R.” However, a rounded upper corner of a guide jig surface is taught by Lim et al.
Lim teaches a stacking guide 160 for reducing positioning errors, wherein the guide comprises a pair of blocks 160a and 160b having chamfered/tapered upper corners ([0042-0058], Figs. 7-10). Lim teaches the shape of the tapered upper corners may be flat as shown in Fig. 10A for ease of processing, convex upwardly as shown in Fig. 10B to lessen the physical impact during positioning, or concave downwardly as shown in Fig. 10C for improved positioning ([0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the upper corner surfaces of modified Sugai’s guide jig have chamfered/tapered upper corners, as Lim teaches this configuration will reduce positioning errors while stacking.
Regarding the limitation “a radius (R) value of about 5R to about 10R,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art adjust the radius value of the upper corners, in order to reduce positioning errors while stacking and achieve the preferred assembly benefit (see various profiles of Lim, [0050-0053] and Lim Fig. 10). It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image10.png
576
346
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Lim – Fig. 10
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights