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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a device for manufacturing a battery cell, classified in H01M 10/0404.
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method for manufacturing a battery cell, classified in B21D 51/2653.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process for using the product can be practiced with another materially different product, such as with a metal crimping tool.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Group I is a product classified in CPC H01M 10/0404 and Group II is a process classified in CPC B21D 51/2653. Additionally, the search strategies required to find products vs. processes are distinct and require different search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jun Ma on 8/13/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of a device for manufacturing a battery cell, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because improper formatting in Fig. 7 shows part 35 as 3 and 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0131] line 9, “S410: controlling” should read --410: controlling--
In paragraph [0026], line 2, “Such the annular second processing surface facilitates” should read --The annular second processing surface facilitates--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
“a roller moving mechanism, configured to control a first roller” and “the roller moving mechanism controls the first roller” in claim 1
“the roller moving mechanism controls the first roller” in claim 4
“the roller moving mechanism is further configured to control the second roller” and “the roller moving mechanism controls the second roller” in claim 11
“the roller moving mechanism controls the second roller” in claim 16
“the roller moving mechanism is further configured to: control the second roller” in claim 17
“a roller rotating mechanism configured to control the first roller” in claim 3
“ the roller rotating mechanism is configured to control the first roller” in claim 4
“the roller rotating mechanism is configured to control the second roller” in claims 15-16
“a press head moving mechanism configured to control the second press head” and “press head moving mechanism is further configured to control a first press head” in claim 13.
The instant specification provides an example of a roller moving mechanism as directly or indirectly connected to the first roller, such that the roller moving mechanism can control the first roller to move (Instant specification, [0072], lines 1-4). Based on the instant specification, examiner interprets a roller moving mechanism as anything directly or indirectly connected to a first roller that is capable of moving the first roller.
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.
Claim limitations “a roller rotating mechanism” and “a press head moving mechanism” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The instant specification is devoid of any structure that performs the recited functions in claims 3, 4, 13, 15, and 16. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucholski (US 6265101 B1), in view of Lee et al. (US 20230063841 A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Tucholski teaches an electrochemical battery and a method of making the electrochemical battery comprising a sealing assembly (corresponding to the claimed device for manufacturing a battery cell) (Tucholski, col. 14, lines 56-63). Tucholski also teaches the sealing assembly comprising a first seaming roll 510 (corresponding to the claimed first roller) that moves radially toward the center of the battery cell and comprises a curved surface (corresponding to the claimed first processing surface) (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 9-14). Fig. 12C from Tucholski below shows an outwardly turned peripheral edge 470 and a flange 450 after the first seaming roll 510 folding step (corresponding to the claimed case and the cover plate forming a rolled edge structure that is turned outwards) (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 18-20).
Regarding the limitation “the battery cell comprises a case and a cover plate, the case and the cover plate being hermetically connected and forming a rolled edge structure that is turned outwards”, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP §2115.
Tucholski does not teach a roller moving mechanism. However, Lee teaches a cylindrical secondary battery cell production apparatus (Lee, [0009], lines 2-4), comprising a pressing rod 332 that may include a roller member 336 (Lee, [0076], lines 1-5; Fig. 3). Lee’s pressing rod corresponds to the structural limitation of the roller moving mechanism being directly or indirectly attached to the first roller (Instant specification, [0072], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Lee's pressing rod to the sealing assembly of Tucholski in order to press an end portion of the battery (Lee, [0076], lines 1-5).
Examiner notes that “configured to control a first roller to move in a direction of a central axis of a battery cell” is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. Modified Tucholski teaches a pressing rod comprising a roller member (Lee, [0076], lines 1-5), which corresponds to the structural limitation of the roller moving mechanism being directly or indirectly attached to the first roller (Instant specification, [0072], lines 1-4). Since modified Tucholski’s pressing rod is identical to applicant’s moving mechanism, modified Tucholski’s pressing rod would also be capable of performing the recited function.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
328
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that “configured to squeeze, when the roller moving mechanism controls the first roller to move in the direction of the central axis of the battery cell, the rolled edge structure by the first processing surface, to cause the rolled edge structure to be inclined in a direction close to the central axis of the battery cell” is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. Modified Tucholski teaches a first seaming roll comprising a curved surface (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 12-14), which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the first roller having a first processing surface. Since modified Tucholski’s first seaming roll is identical to applicant’s first roller, modified Tucholski’s first seaming roll would also be capable of performing the recited function under the stated condition.
Regarding claim 2, annotated fig. 12B from Tucholski above shows the first seaming roll 510 located at one side, away from the central axis of the battery cell.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, for the purposes of examination, examiner interprets the claimed “roller rotating mechanism” as any means able to rotate the claimed first roller. Lee teaches gear teeth and a motor coupled to a rotating plate 320 for rotating the plate 320 (corresponding to the claimed roller rotating mechanism) (Lee, [0069], lines 1-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Lee's gear teeth and motor to the sealing assembly of modified Tucholski in order to press an end portion of the battery and form a crimping portion (Lee, [0086], lines 7-10).
Examiner notes that “configured to control the first roller to rotate about the central axis of the battery cell” and “configured to control, when the roller moving mechanism controls the first roller to move in the direction of the central axis of the battery cell, the first roller to rotate about the central axis of the battery cell” are instances of functional language which only impart a structure that is capable of doing said function. Modified Tucholski teaches gear teeth and a motor (Lee, [0069], lines 1-11), which corresponds to the structural limitation of the roller rotating mechanism. Since modified Tucholski’s gear teeth and motor are identical to applicant’s roller rotating mechanism, modified Tucholski’s gear teeth and motor would also be capable of performing the recited function under the stated conditions.
Regarding claim 5, modified Tucholski teaches a first seaming roll comprising a curved surface (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 12-14). Annotated fig. 12B from Tucholski above further denotes the inwardly curved groove on the first seaming roll (corresponding to the claimed first processing surface is an inner surface of a groove surrounding the first roller).
Regarding claim 6, further regarding the claimed stiffener, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP §2115. Examiner notes that “configured to squeeze the rolled edge structure, to cause the rolled edge structure to be inclined in the direction close to the central axis of the battery cell, and to cause at least part of the stiffener to be located between an inner side of the rolled edge structure and the cover plate” is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. Modified Tucholski teaches a first seaming roll (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 9-14), corresponding to the claimed structural limitation of the first roller. Modified Tucholski teaches the first seaming roll comprising a curved surface (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 12-14), which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the first roller having a first processing surface. Since modified Tucholski’s sealing assembly is identical to applicant’s device, modified Tucholski’s sealing assembly would also be capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding claim 7, further regarding the limitations “the first surface being a surface, in contact with the rolled edge structure, of the stiffener” and “an inclined surface with an inclination direction consistent with that of a first surface of the stiffener” inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP §2115. Regarding the limitation “the first processing surface comprises an inclined surface with an inclination direction consistent with that of a first surface of the stiffener”, modified Tucholski teaches a first seaming roll comprising a curved surface with an inclined portion (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 12-14), which corresponds to applicant’s first processing surface. Annotated fig. 12B from Tucholski above also shows an inclined portion of the curved surface, which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the first processing surface comprises an inclined surface. Since modified Tucholski’s curved surface is identical to applicant’s first processing surface, modified Tucholski’s curved surface is capable of the same apparatus limitations claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tucholski teaches a seaming chuck 500 (corresponding to the claimed first press head) (Tucholski, col. 18, line 7). Examiner notes that “configured to restrict a movement of the stiffener of the battery cell in a first plane perpendicular to the central axis of the battery cell” is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. The instant specification describes the first press head as having a first end surface 311 on its outer surface (Instant specification, [0095], lines 4-5). The instant drawings show first end surface 311 as facing away in the radial direction from the X-axis. Annotated fig. 12B from Tucholski above shows the seaming chuck 500 comprising an outer surface facing away in the radial direction from the X-axis, which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the first press head having a first end surface. Since modified Tucholski’s seaming chuck is identical to applicant’s first press head, modified Tucholski’s seaming chuck would also be capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, further regarding the limitations “the first press head is arranged on an inner side of the stiffener, such that the first press head is in contact with a second surface, close to the central axis of the battery cell, of the stiffener”, “wherein the stiffener is annular”, and “an angle between a surface, in contact with the stiffener, of the first press head and the central axis of the battery cell ranges from 0° to 10°”, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP §2115. However, modified Tucholski teaches a seaming chuck 500 placed on an outer cover 445 (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 7-10; Figs. 12B & 12C), which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the first press head. Since modified Tucholski’s seaming chuck is identical to applicant’s first press head, modified Tucholski’s seaming chuck is capable of the same apparatus limitations claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 11, modified Tucholski teaches the sealing assembly comprising a second seaming roll 520 with a different profile than the first seaming roll (corresponding to the claimed second roller having a second processing surface) (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 21-26). Examiner notes that “configured to control the second roller to move in the direction of the central axis of the battery cell” is an instance of functional language, which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. As stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Tucholski teaches a pressing rod comprising a roller member (Lee, [0076], lines 1-5), which corresponds to the structural limitation of the roller moving mechanism being directly or indirectly attached to the first roller (Instant specification, [0072], lines 1-4). Since modified Tucholski’s pressing rod is identical to applicant’s roller moving mechanism, modified Tucholski’s pressing rod would also be capable of performing the recited function.
Examiner notes that “configured to squeeze and wind, when the roller moving mechanism controls the second roller to move in the direction of the central axis of the battery cell, a first edge portion of the cover plate and a second edge portion of the case by the second processing surface, to form the rolled edge structure”, is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. Modified Tucholski teaches a second seaming roll (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 21-26), which corresponds to the claimed structure of the second roller. Modified Tucholski also teaches the second seaming roll comprising a profile (Tucholski, col. 18, lines 21-26), which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the second processing surface. Since modified Tucholski’s second seaming roll is identical to applicant’s second roller, modified Tucholski’s second seaming roll would also be capable of performing the recited function under the stated condition.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a cylindrical secondary battery cell production apparatus (Lee, [0009], lines 2-4) comprising a fixing member 200 with a fixing protrusion 210 (Lee, [0065], lines 1-2), which corresponds to the claimed structural limitations of the second press head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Lee's fixing member to the sealing assembly of modified Tucholski in order to fix the cylindrical battery cell (Lee, [0065], lines 2-6).
Regarding the limitations “a second press head in contact with a first surface of a stiffener” and “the stiffener is arranged on one side, away from an interior of the battery cell, of the cover plate, the first surface is a surface, facing the rolled edge structure, of the stiffener”, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP §2115. Modified Tucholski teaches a fixing member (Lee, [0065], lines 1-2), which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the second press head. Since modified Tucholski’s fixing member is identical to applicant’s second press head, modified Tucholski’s fixing member is capable of the same apparatus limitations claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 13, for the purposes of examination, examiner interprets the claimed “press head moving mechanism” as any means able to move a press head. Lee teaches a motor or hydraulic pump (Lee, [0065], lines 8-9) as a second moving portion to move a fixing protrusion (corresponding to the claimed press head moving mechanism) (Lee, [0014], 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Lee's second moving portion to the sealing assembly of modified Tucholski in order to move the fixing member and fixing protrusion (Lee, [0065], lines 1-9).
Examiner notes that “configured to control, before the case and the cover plate form the rolled edge structure, the second press head to squeeze the stiffener towards the interior of the battery cell in the direction of the central axis of the battery cell, such that at least part of the cover plate is accommodated in an opening of the case, and the first edge portion is in contact with the second edge portion” and “configured to control, when the second press head is controlled to leave the battery cell, a first press head of the device not to leave the battery cell” are instances of functional language that only impart a structure that is capable of doing said functions. Modified Tucholski teaches a motor or hydraulic pump (Lee, [0065], lines 8-9) as a second moving portion to move a fixing protrusion (Lee, [0014], 1-4), which corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the press head moving mechanism. Since modified Tucholski’s second moving portion is identical to applicant’s press head moving mechanism, modified Tucholski’s second moving portion would also be capable of performing the recited functions under the stated conditions.
Regarding claim 14, annotated fig. 12C from Tucholski above shows the second seaming roll 520 located on the outer side of the battery cell.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, for the purposes of examination, examiner interprets the claimed “roller rotating mechanism” as any means able to rotate the claimed first roller. Lee teaches gear teeth and a motor coupled to a rotating plate 320 for rotating the plate 320 (corresponding to the claimed roller rotating mechanism) (Lee, [0069], lines 1-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Lee's gear teeth and motor to the sealing assembly of modified Tucholski in order to press an end portion of the battery and form a crimping portion (Lee, [0086], lines 7-10).
Examiner notes that “configured to control the second roller to rotate about the central axis of the battery cell” and “configured to control, when the roller moving mechanism controls the second roller to move in the direction of the central axis of the battery cell, the second roller to rotate about the central axis of the battery cell” are instances of functional language which only impart a structure that is capable of doing said function. Modified Tucholski teaches gear teeth and a motor (Lee, [0069], lines 1-11), which corresponds to the structural limitation of the roller rotating mechanism. Since modified Tucholski’s gear teeth and motor are identical to applicant’s roller rotating mechanism, modified Tucholski’s gear teeth and motor would also be capable of performing the recited function under the stated conditions.
Regarding claim 17, for the purposes of examination, examiner interprets the claimed “roller rotating mechanism” as any means able to rotate the claimed first roller. Examiner notes that “configured to: control, when the first roller is controlled to move till the first processing surface is in contact with the battery cell, the second roller to move till the second processing surface is not in contact with the battery cell” and “and control, when the second roller is controlled to move till the second processing surface is in contact with the battery cell, the first roller to move till the first processing surface is not in contact with the battery cell” are instances of functional language which only impart a structure that is capable of doing said function. Modified Tucholski teaches gear teeth and a motor (Lee, [0069], lines 1-11), which corresponds to the structural limitation of the roller rotating mechanism. Since modified Tucholski’s gear teeth and motor are identical to applicant’s roller rotating mechanism, modified Tucholski’s gear teeth and motor would also be capable of performing the recited function under the stated conditions.
Regarding claim 18, annotated fig. 12C from Tucholski above shows the second seaming roll 520 comprising a groove with an inner surface (corresponding to the claimed second processing surface is an inner surface of a groove surrounding the second roller).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucholski (US 6265101 B1) and Lee (US 20230063841 A1) as applied to claims 1-18 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (CN 105552259 A), hereinafter “Yu”, as cited in the IDS dated 5/14/2024.
Regarding claim 19, modified Tucholski teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a cylindrical can 312 (corresponding to the claimed battery cells is a cylinder) (Tucholski, col. 16, lines 11-14). Modified Tucholski does not teach that the first roller is a cylinder and that the device comprises a plurality of first rollers uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the battery cell. Yu teaches a scribing and edge-sealing device (Yu, [0009], line 1) comprising three edge-curling wheels 6 evenly distributed around a battery 8 with the axis of the battery 8 in the center (corresponding to the claimed first rollers uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the battery cell) (Yu, [0037], lines 12-14; Fig. 6). Furthermore, figs. 5 and 6 from Yu show the edge-curling wheels comprising a cylindrical shape (corresponding to the claimed first roller is a cylinder). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Yu's distribution of edge-curling wheels for modified Tucholski’s arrangement of seaming rolls in order to perform scribing and edge-sealing on the battery twice (Yu, [0041], lines 1-2), and to substitute Yu’s edge-curling wheel cylindrical shape for modified Tucholski’s seaming roll shape in order to rotate radially around the battery (Yu, [0018], line 1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12115749, hereinafter “the ‘749 patent” in view of Yu (CN 105552259 A), as cited in the IDS dated 5/14/2024.
Regarding the instant claim 19, claim 1 of the ‘749 patent teaches the same limitations as the instant claim, except for the first roller being a cylinder and a plurality of first rollers uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the battery cell. Yu teaches a scribing and edge-sealing device (Yu, [0009], line 1) comprising three edge-curling wheels 6 evenly distributed around a battery 8 with the axis of the battery 8 in the center (corresponding to the claimed first rollers uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the battery cell) (Yu, [0037], lines 12-14; Fig. 6). Furthermore, figs. 5 and 6 from Yu show the edge-curling wheels comprising a cylindrical shape (corresponding to the claimed first roller is a cylinder). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Yu's distribution of edge-curling wheels for the ‘749 patent’s arrangement of rollers in order to perform scribing and edge-sealing on the battery twice (Yu, [0041], lines 1-2), and to substitute Yu’s edge-curling wheel cylindrical shape for the ‘749 patent’s roller shape in order to rotate radially around the battery (Yu, [0018], line 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights