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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/697369 filed on 3/29/2024. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9: In line 7 “the vacuum suction portion ”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1-9: the limitation of “subminiature” is unclear as the specific size limitation is not the provided. For compact prosecutions, Examiner considers a subminiature cell as a cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 2, 7-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20140059855 A1) in view of Giusti et al. (US 20240051176 A1) and Ji et al. (KR 20160008879 A). The English translation of KR 20160008879 A is as attached.
Regarding claim 1: Miyazaki et al. disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode (abstract). The stacking apparatus, comprising:
a stacking stage (55) (equivalent to a jig unit) (par. 26, fig. 4) configured to allow an anode sheet (11), a cathode sheet (12), and a separator (13) to be stacked on an upper surface thereof (par. 22, fig. 2-4), the upper surface being flat;
a support table (79) (par. 43, fig. 4) provided with a groove (see fig. below) into which the stacking stage (55) is inserted;
a first wing (71) and a second wing (72) that are disposed on both sides of the stacking stage (55) (par. 26, fig. 4) and comprise a vacuum suction portion (par. 35) (a combination of the support table (79), the first wing (71), and the second wing (72) is equivalent to a support unit), wherein
the stacking stage (55) is movable relative to the support table (79) in a vertical direction (z direction in fig. 4 is equivalent to a vertical direction) (par. 47, fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyazaki et al. fail to explicitly disclose a laser radiation unit located above the jig unit . However, Giusti et al. disclose a machine tool (abstract). The machine tool comprises a laser (238) (equivalent to a laser radiation unit) above a machining table (220) (par. 92, fig. 1). The laser (238) projects the beam onto the machining table (220) (equivalent to the jig unit) to makes it possible to precisely align the piece with the mark projected by the laser (238) (par. 94). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the laser (238) of Giusti et al. above the stacking stage (55) of Miyazaki et al. because Giusti et al. teach that the laser for projecting a reference line determines the position more precisely (par. 51).
Miyazaki et al. and Giusti et al. fail to explicitly disclose a display unit configured to measure and display a relative height of the jig unit or the support unit. However, Ji et al. disclose a thickness inspection device (abstract). The thickness inspection device comprises a display unit (270) configured to display the first height and the second height of a battery cell (201) measured from a jig (210) and a gauge pin (240) (par. 58, 61-76, fig. 2-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the display unit (270) of Ji et al. above the stacking apparatus of Miyazaki et al. because Ji et al. teach that the display unit can control dimension precisely and achieve high quality in the production process (par. 6).
Regarding claim 2: Miyazaki et al. disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode (abstract) as described above. Miyazaki et al. fail to explicitly disclose the laser radiation unit is arranged to radiate a laser along at least one side of the jig unit. However, Giusti et al. disclose a machine tool (abstract). The machine tool comprises a laser (238) (equivalent to a laser radiation unit) above a machining table (220) (equivalent to the jig unit) (par. 92, fig. 1). The laser (238) projects a reference line towards the machining table (220) on the longitudinal direction axis (par. 92, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the laser (238) of Giusti et al. above the stacking stage (55) of Miyazaki et al. because Giusti et al. teach that the laser for projecting a reference line determines the position more precisely (par. 51).
Regarding claim 7: Miyazaki et al. disclose the stacking apparatus, further comprising:
a suction head (equivalent to an electrode transfer unit) configured to transfer the anode sheet (11) and the cathode sheet (12) to the stacking stage (55) (par. 31, fig. 5, 6); and
a third supply line (130) (equivalent to a separator stacking unit) configured to unroll a separator (13) from a roll (131) disposed at an upper surface of the support table (79) so as to be stacked on the anode sheet (11) and the cathode sheet (12) in a zigzag fashion (par. 22, 25-29, 44-51 fig. 1, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 8: Miyazaki et al. disclose the stacking apparatus is configured to manufacture a cell including an anode sheet (11) and a cathode sheet (12) that are rectangular in shape (fig. 1, 2). Miyazaki et al. also disclose that a zigzag separator configuration enables battery miniaturization and increased capacitance (par. 2). Miyazaki et al. are silent as to the dimension of the electrode. However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, the stacking apparatus disclosed by Miyazaki et al. would still function to manufacture the staked electrode cell despite changing the sizes of the negative and positive electrodes, rendering the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9: Miyazaki et al. disclose a procedure of manufacturing the layered stack (10) for a battery by the stacking apparatus. The procedure comprises:
seating the anode sheet (11) and the cathode sheet (12) on the stacking stage (55) (par. 49, 50, fig. 6);
seating the separator (13) on an upper surface of the anode sheet (11) and fixing the separator (13) through a second wall surface (52) of the second wing (71) (par. 48-51 fig. 6); and
downwardly moving the stacking stage (55) to a predetermined height (par. 47, fig. 4).
Miyazaki et al. fail to explicitly disclose the procedure comprising forming a positioning guideline through the laser radiation unit and the electrode seated along the positioning guideline However, Giusti et al. disclose a machine tool (abstract). The machine tool comprises lasers (238, 239) (equivalent to laser radiation units) above a machining table (220) (equivalent to the jig unit) (par. 92-93, fig. 1-2). The lasers (238, 239) project reference lines (equivalent to positioning guidelines) towards the machining table (220) on the longitudinal and transversal direction axes, respectively (par. 92-93, fig. 1, 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the laser projected reference lines of Giusti et al. on the stacking stage (55) of Miyazaki et al. because Giusti et al. teach that the laser for projecting a reference line determines the position more precisely (par. 51) (as the lasers (238, 239) projects reference lines in the longitudinal and transversal direction axes, the anode and the cathode sheets (11, 12) of Miyazaki et al. can sit along the longitudinal and transversal reference lines).
Regarding claim 10: Miyazaki et al. further disclose
the separator (13) is seated in a zigzag fashion (par. 22, 25-29, 44-51 fig. 1, 5, 6), and
the stacking stage (55) is downwardly moved to the predetermined height (par. 47, fig. 4).
Miyazaki et al. fail to explicitly disclose a length change value through the display unit is identified when the jig unit is downwardly moved to the predetermined height. However, Ji et al. disclose a thickness inspection device (abstract). The thickness inspection device comprises a display unit (270) configured to display the first height and the second height of a battery cell (201) measured from a jig (210) and a gauge pin (240) (par. 58, 61-76, fig. 2-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the display unit (270) of Ji et al. to identify a length change value when the stacking stage (55) of Miyazaki et al. is downwardly moved because Ji et al. teach that the display unit can control dimension precisely and achieve high quality in the production process (par. 6).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20140059855 A1) in view of Giusti et al. (US 20240051176 A1) and Ji et al. (KR 20160008879 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Maruhashi et al. (US 20230006262 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Miyazaki et al. in view of Giusti et al., and Ji et al. disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Miyazaki et al. also disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode is configured to manufacture a cell (par. 11). Miyazaki et al. fail to explicitly disclose the laser radiation unit radiates a laser along one side at which the negative electrode is disposed. However, Giusti et al. disclose a machine tool (abstract). The machine tool comprises lasers (238, 239) (equivalent to laser radiation units) above a machining table (220) (equivalent to the jig unit) (par. 92-93, fig. 1-2). The lasers (238, 239) project reference lines towards the machining table (220) on the longitudinal and transversal direction axes, respectively (par. 92-93, fig. 1, 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the lasers (238, 239) of Giusti et al. above the stacking stage (55) of Miyazaki et al. because Giusti et al. teach that the laser for projecting a reference line determines the position more precisely (par. 51) (as the lasers (238, 239) projects reference lines in the longitudinal and transversal direction axes, the cathode sheet (12) of Miyazaki et al. can sit along the longitudinal and transversal reference lines).
Miyazaki et al. and Giusti et al. fail to explicitly disclose a negative electrode is larger than a positive electrode. However, Maruhash et al. disclose a secondary battery includes a laminate in which a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode are stacked in stated order (abstract). The negative electrode (20) is larger than the positive electrode (40) (par. 45, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the relative size of the negative electrode (20) and the positive electrode (40) of Maruhash et al. as the size of the cathode sheet (12) and the anode sheet (11) of Miyazaki et al. because Maruhash et al. teach that this can provide a secondary battery having excellent cycle characteristics (par. 23).
In addition, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, the stacking apparatus disclosed by Miyazaki et al. would still function to manufacture the staked electrode cell despite changing the sizes of the negative and positive electrodes, rendering the claim obvious.
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20140059855 A1) in view of Giusti et al. (US 20240051176 A1) and Ji et al. (KR 20160008879 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (JP 2011233857 A). The English translation of the JP 2011233857 A is attached.
Regarding claim 4: Miyazaki et al. in view of Giusti et al., and Ji et al. disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Miyazaki et al. also disclose the stacking stage (55) comprises:
a center portion configured to allow the anode sheet (11), the cathode sheet (12), and the separator (13) to be stacked thereon (par. 22, fig. 2-4).
Miyazaki et al., Giusti et al., and Ji et al. fail to explicitly disclose an auxiliary jig portion disposed at one side of the jig center portion, the auxiliary jig portion being configured to allow an electrode tab of the electrode to be seated therein. However, Kim et al. disclose a manufacturing apparatus for energy storage devices (par. 1). The manufacturing apparatus comprises a jig (100) (par. 22, fig. 2). The jig (100) comprises an accommodating groove (121) (equivalent to a jig center portion) for accommodating a cell stack (10) (par. 24, fig. 2, 4) and a terminal housing groove (131) (equivalent to an auxiliary jig portion) for housing a terminal section (10a) (equivalent to an electrode tab) (par. 29, fig. 2, 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the terminal housing groove (131) of Kim et al. into the stacking stage (55) of Miyazaki et al. because Kim et al. teach that this jig can stably carry out lamination for a cell and the cell can be easily transferred to subsequent processes (par. 8).
Regarding claim 5: Miyazaki et al. in view of Giusti et al., and Ji et al. disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Miyazaki et al., Giusti et al., and Ji et al. fail to explicitly disclose the auxiliary jig portion is configured to allow both a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab of the electrode to be disposed at the same side. However, Kim et al. disclose a manufacturing apparatus for energy storage devices (par. 1). The manufacturing apparatus comprises a jig (100) (par. 22, fig. 2). The jig (100) comprises an accommodating groove (121) (equivalent to a jig center portion) for accommodating a cell stack (10) (par. 24, fig. 2, 4) and a terminal housing groove (131) (equivalent to an auxiliary jig portion) for housing a terminal section (10a) (equivalent to an electrode tab) (par. 29, fig. 2, 4). The terminal housing groove (131) is configured to allow both an anode terminal portion (11a) (equivalent to a negative electrode tab) and a cathode terminal portion (13a) (equivalent to a positive electrode tab) to be disposed at the same side (fig. 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the terminal housing groove (131) of Kim et al. into the stacking stage (55) of Miyazaki et al. because Kim et al. teach that this jig can stably carry out lamination for a cell and the cell can be easily transferred to subsequent processes (par. 8).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20140059855 A1) in view of Giusti et al. (US 20240051176 A1) and Ji et al. (KR 20160008879 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Volkmar (DE 102012104624 A1). The English translation of the DE 102012104624 A1. is attached.
Regarding claim 6: Miyazaki et al. in view of Giusti et al., and Ji et al. disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Miyazaki et al. also disclose the vacuum suction portion comprises:
a first wall surface (51) and a second wall surface (52) (equivalent to vacuum nozzles) provided with a plurality of suction holes (41) (par. 35, fig. 4)
Miyazaki et al., Giusti et al., and Ji et al. fail to explicitly disclose a vacuum pad disposed at an upper surface of the vacuum nozzle, the vacuum pad comprising a porous material. However, Volkmar discloses a device and a method for stacking sheets of battery cells (par. 1) The device comprises a suction gripper (13) (equivalent to the vacuum nozzle). The suction gripper (13) has a porous plate (14) (equivalent to a vacuum pad) with which a separator sheet (18) can be picked up through a vacuum suction (par. 52, 55, fig. 4). The porous plate (14) is made of an open pore plastic foam or preferably of a coarse-pored sintered metal (par. 31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the porous plate (14) of Volkmar into the first wall surface (51) and the second wall surface (52) of Miyazaki et al. because Volkmar teach that the porous plate (14) can effectively gripping and at the same time gentle in terms of its impact on the material being gripped (par. 30).
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20140059855 A1) in view of Giusti et al. (US 20240051176 A1) and Ji et al. (KR 20160008879 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cho (KR 20210045181 A) . The English translation of KR 20210045181 A is as attached.
Regarding claim 11: Miyazaki et al. in view of Giusti et al., and Ji et al. disclose a stacking apparatus for a stacked electrode (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Miyazaki et al. fail to explicitly disclose the positioning guideline is a guideline for one side of a negative electrode, and a positive electrode is disposed at a position spaced apart from the guideline by a predetermined distance, or a positive electrode tab is inserted into an electrode tab insertion groove of the jig groove of the support unit and one side of the positive electrode is disposed in parallel to the positioning guideline. However, Giusti et al. disclose a machine tool (abstract). The machine tool comprises lasers (238, 239) (equivalent to laser radiation units) above a machining table (220) (equivalent to the jig unit) (par. 92-93, fig. 1-2). The lasers (238, 239) project reference lines (equivalent to positioning guidelines) towards the machining table (220) on the longitudinal and transversal direction axes, respectively (par. 92-93, fig. 1, 2).
In addition, Cho discloses a secondary battery manufacturing device having a multi-type vision inspection function capable of performing vision inspection (par. 1). The vision inspection procedure comprises placing the electrode plate (3000, 4000) on a stacker table (par. 27); extracting the position of the electrode plate (3000, 4000) relative to a reference unit (720) (equivalent to a positioning guideline) ; and calculating the error with the current position (par. 48, fig. 10) (the electrode plate (3000) is spaced apart from the reference unit (720) in fig. 10 in Cho).
Since the prior art of Giusti et al. and Cho recognize the equivalency of the laser projected reference lines and the reference unit (720) in the field of the positioning reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the reference unit (720) of Cho with the laser projected reference lines of Giusti et al. as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent positioning references recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the laser projected reference lines Giusti et al. as the positioning guideline for the electrode sheets (11, 12 ) of Miyazaki et al. because Giusti et al. teach that the laser for projecting a reference line determines the position more precisely (par. 51) and Cho teaches the position error can be accurately measured each time when the electrode plate is placed (par. 52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
