DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 5/16/2024, in which claims 1-20 are currently pending. The Application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2023/071200, filed 01/09/2023; and claims foreign priority to 202210327957.1, filed 03/30/2022
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 5/16/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
Shooting assemblies/components in claim 1, 13, 15-16,
First/second driving component in claims 10-11,
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
7- 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.
8- Claims 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, which reads “…the plurality of second electrode plates are arranged alternately on outer sides of the two insulators along the extension direction of the insulators… configured to photograph two adjacent second electrode plates…”, the underlined clauses appear to present indefiniteness issues, as it is not clear how the second electrode plates can be claimed to be alternately arranged on outer sides of the insulators/apparatus and to be possibly adjacent. Adjacent is usually defined as “sharing a same vertex or side, bordering, next to each other”. Claiming the electrode plates to be alternately disposed on the outer surface, which is confirmed by Fig. 3 of the instant application, appears to prevent these electrodes to be adjacent to each other. For examination purposes, the electrode plates will be considered to be measurement on the same side, or on both side and measured in a successive fashion.
Claims 2-12 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
As to claims 9, which reads “… the clamping assembly comprises two groups of grippers, the two groups of grippers are disposed on two sides of the composite electrode plate respectively along the thickness direction, and are movable along an extension direction of the composite electrode plate, and two groups of grippers are configured to clamp the composite electrode plate during shooting.”, it is not clear whether the underlined “two groups of grippers” are the same or different than the two groups of grippers in bold. The claim language is confusing. For examination purposes, both options will be considered.
Claims 10-11 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10- Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 110441325) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 214203779), both cited by Applicants.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
As to claims 1-2, 13, Han teaches a dimension detection apparatus, and its method of use, configured to detect a composite electrode plate (Abstract and Figs. 1-8), wherein the composite electrode plate comprises a plurality of first electrode plates (11), a plurality of second electrode plates (12), and two insulators (any two of insulators 13); the first electrode plates are of an opposite polarity to the second electrode plates (anodes 11 and cathodes 12); the plurality of first electrode plates are sandwiched between the two insulators and arranged continuously in parallel along an extension direction of the insulators (Fig. 2; plates 11 are each sandwiched between two plates 13 along the width of the plates in figure 2 plane); the plurality of second electrode plates are arranged alternately on outer sides of the two insulators (cathodes 12 are alternatively disposed outside of each pair of plates 13), and correspond one-to-one to the plurality of first electrode plates (for each plate 11 corresponds a plate 12); and the dimension detection apparatus comprises: two shooting assemblies, disposed on two sides of the composite electrode plate respectively along a thickness direction (Figs. 3-4; module 300 in conjunction with the two illumination units 200a-b disposed on each side of the plate stacking), and configured to photograph two adjacent second electrode plates respectively (given the 112b issues here above, one PHOSITA can consider the ccd camera to image multiple stacking of plates 12 with respect to plates 11/13; Figs. 3-4), wherein each of the shooting assemblies comprises four shooting components (CCD camera presents a plurality of pixels, of which four groups can be considered as the claimed components) configured to shoot images of corner regions of one of the second electrode plates respectively (Fig. 4); and a controller (Fig. 8; processor needed to perform methods of Figs. 6-7 and/or inside computer 400), communicatively connected to the two shooting assemblies (Fig. 8), wherein the controller is configured to obtain dimensional parameters of the composite electrode plate based on the captured images (Figs. 4-7 and ¶ 60-71 for ex; using the images of the corners of the plates, misalignments are determined).
(claims 4-5/15-16) wherein the controller is configured to obtain, based on the image captured by each shooting component, a first deviation distance between an edge of the first electrode plate and an edge of the second electrode plate, and/or a second deviation distance between an edge of the insulator and the edge of the first electrode plate or the second electrode plate, whichever is wider; (claims 5/16) wherein the controller is configured to obtain, based on images captured by any two adjacent shooting components in a same shooting assembly, a dimension of at least one of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate, or the insulator along a direction of spacing out the two adjacent shooting components (Figs. 4-7 and ¶ 60-71 for ex; using the images of the corners of the plates, misalignments, i.e. deviations and/or dimensions of the plates, d1-3/x1-3, are determined along the two transversal directions).
(claim 6) further comprising: a memory, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of storage units, each of the storage units is disposed by being correlated with the second electrode plate, and the controller is configured to store obtained dimensional parameters into the storage unit correlated with the second electrode plate (necessary from the digital comparison, s160/s280 of the measured values of the plate dimensions/positions and the preset reference values).
(claims 7/17) wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the obtained dimensional parameters all meet preset parameter ranges, and, when the obtained dimensional parameters all meet the preset parameter ranges, cause the composite electrode plate to proceed with subsequent operations, or, when the obtained dimensional parameters do not all meet the preset parameter ranges, cause the composite electrode plate to undergo a scrapping process (Figs. 6-7; steps s160-s170-s110 or S280-290-210).
Han does not teach expressly (claims 1, 13) wherein the second electrode plates are disposed alternately on outer sides of the two insulators along the extension direction of the insulators; the four shooting components configured to shoot images of four corner regions of one of the second electrode plates; (claim 2) wherein the two shooting assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner along an extension direction of the composite electrode plate; (claims 9-11/18-20) further comprising a clamping assembly, wherein the clamping assembly comprises two groups of grippers, the two groups of grippers are disposed on two sides of the composite electrode plate respectively along the thickness direction, and are movable along an extension direction of the composite electrode plate, and two groups of grippers are configured to clamp the composite electrode plate during shooting and keep moving synchronously with the composite electrode plate; wherein: the clamping assembly further comprises: a first driving component, configured to drive the two groups of grippers to move along the extension direction of the composite electrode plate; and a second driving component, configured to drive the two groups of grippers to move away from or closer to each other; and the controller is configured to cause, after the first driving component drives the two groups of grippers to accelerate from an initial position to a running speed of the composite electrode plate, the second driving component to drive the two groups of grippers to approach each other to clamp the composite electrode plate; wherein the controller is configured to cause, after the shooting assemblies complete shooting, the second driving component to drive the two groups of grippers to move away from each other to release the composite electrode plate, and cause the first driving component to drive the two groups of grippers to return to the initial position; (Claim 12) A stacking device, comprising: an electrode plate combining apparatus, configured to combine a plurality of first electrode plates, a plurality of second electrode plates, and two insulators to form a composite electrode plate, wherein the plurality of first electrode plates are arranged continuously; a stacking platform, configured to fold the composite electrode plate into a stack-type electrode assembly; and the dimension detection apparatus according to claim 1, disposed between the electrode plate combining apparatus and the stacking platform, and configured to detect the composite electrode plate.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zhao teaches an electric core and stacking/lamination device, with an electrode plate combining apparatus, and its mode of operation (Abstract and Figs. 1-7) wherein, ¶45-49 and Figs. 1-7, a battery electrode sheet strip 100 comprises a first electrode strip 10, a plurality of second electrode sheets 20, a first separator strip 30 and a second separator strip 40; the first separator strip 30 and the second separator strip 40 respectively cover two sides of the first electrode strip 10, i.e. sandwiching the electrode; the side of the first separator strip 30 facing away from the first electrode strip 10 and the side of the second separator strip 40 facing away from the first electrode strip 10 are each provided with a second electrode sheet 20; the plurality of second electrode sheets 20 are alternately arranged in the extension direction of the separator strips. Zhao provides the specific structure of the claimed electrode sheet, see Fig. 2 for ex, and one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use Han’s apparatus and method for inspecting the structure of the electrode sheet in Zhao. Moreover, it would also be obvious to use Han’s detectors, similarly to Zhao’s pair of imaging collecting piece and CCDs 8, in a staggered fashion, with their multiple pixels to image, among others, the four corners of electrode sheets 20 similarly to Han’s method to check for appropriate alignments between the different plates (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D). As to claims 9-12/18-20, Zhao teaches using pressing, i.e. gripping/holding rollers 62 on both sides of the plates surface and rolling/moving synchronously with the plates (100), with corresponding drivers to control the gripping and the speed/acceleration of the plate movement (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Han in view of Zhao’s suggestions so that the second electrode plates are disposed alternately on outer sides of the two insulators along the extension direction of the insulators; the four shooting components configured to shoot images of four corner regions of one of the second electrode plates; wherein the two shooting assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner along an extension direction of the composite electrode plate; further comprising a clamping assembly, wherein the clamping assembly comprises two groups of grippers, the two groups of grippers are disposed on two sides of the composite electrode plate respectively along the thickness direction, and are movable along an extension direction of the composite electrode plate, and two groups of grippers are configured to clamp the composite electrode plate during shooting and keep moving synchronously with the composite electrode plate; wherein: the clamping assembly further comprises: a first driving component, configured to drive the two groups of grippers to move along the extension direction of the composite electrode plate; and a second driving component, configured to drive the two groups of grippers to move away from or closer to each other; and the controller is configured to cause, after the first driving component drives the two groups of grippers to accelerate from an initial position to a running speed of the composite electrode plate, the second driving component to drive the two groups of grippers to approach each other to clamp the composite electrode plate; wherein the controller is configured to cause, after the shooting assemblies complete shooting, the second driving component to drive the two groups of grippers to move away from each other to release the composite electrode plate, and cause the first driving component to drive the two groups of grippers to return to the initial position; 12. A stacking device, comprising: an electrode plate combining apparatus, configured to combine a plurality of first electrode plates, a plurality of second electrode plates, and two insulators to form a composite electrode plate, wherein the plurality of first electrode plates are arranged continuously; a stacking platform, configured to fold the composite electrode plate into a stack-type electrode assembly; and the dimension detection apparatus according to claim 1, disposed between the electrode plate combining apparatus and the stacking platform, and configured to detect the composite electrode plate, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the alignment determination of the electrode plates.
As to claims 3/14, 8, the combination of Han and Zhao teaches the dimension detection apparatus, and its corresponding method of use, according to claims 1/13. Moreover, Han teaches further comprising: a position detector (CCD camera 300 has multiple detectors since the position detector is not claimed to be distinct and separate from the claimed shooting assembly), wherein the position detector is configured to detect a position of the second electrode plate to be photographed (Figs. 3, 6-7; the position of the plates is detected in steps s150/s250); (claim 8) further comprising: two light source groups, wherein the two light source groups are disposed corresponding to the two shooting assemblies respectively (200a-b).
The combination does not teach expressly the controller is configured to trigger, based on the position of the second electrode plate detected by the position detector, a corresponding shooting assembly to turn on; (claim 8) each of the light source groups comprises a first light source and a second light source of different luminous colors, and the first light source and the second light source are arranged on two sides of the composite electrode plate respectively along the thickness direction.
However, Zhao suggests using detectors 8 to trigger the waste removing means 7 to act for a purpose of removing defectuous plates. One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use such triggering internally in the CCDs of Han to trigger the measurements of the corners of the plates when in place to optimize the plate measurement operations. Moreover, and to avoid confusion between the measurements of the second plates vs the other plates, multiple light wavelengths can be used with corresponding light filtering means (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Han in view of Zhao’s suggestions so that the controller is configured to trigger, based on the position of the second electrode plate detected by the position detector, a corresponding shooting assembly to turn on; each of the light source groups comprises a first light source and a second light source of different luminous colors, and the first light source and the second light source are arranged on two sides of the composite electrode plate respectively along the thickness direction;, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the alignment measurement operations.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877