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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Matsubayashi (2017/0066075A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsubayashi discloses a jig assembly, comprising: a first pressing member 110 and a second pressing member 120,; and an adjustment jig 140 configured to space the first pressing member and the second pressing member apart from each other to maintain an interval between the first pressing member and the second pressing member to adjust a pressing force applied to the electrode tabs, wherein the adjustment jig 140 is configured to separably contact each of the first pressing member and the second pressing member during use of the jig assembly, and wherein the adjustment jig is configured to contact against a pressing surface of either the first pressing member or the second pressing member, (figure 2B).
The limitation “for an electrode tab” is intended use and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
The limitations “which are configured to press a plurality of electrode tabs” and the pressing surface being configured to press the electrode tabs” is functional and dependent on the material worked upon. These limitations do not further limit the apparatus. The apparatus of Matsubayashi would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 2, Matsubayashi discloses that the adjustment jig comprises an adjustment part 130 provided between the first pressing member and the second pressing member to space the first pressing member and the second pressing member apart from each other (figure 2B). Since Matsubayashi discloses the claimed structure, it is the Examiner’s position that Matsubayashi would be capable of performing the function of “so that the interval between the first pressing member and the second pressing member is maintained at a set interval or more”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the first pressing member and the second pressing member extend in a width direction of the electrode tabs, and the adjustment part is provided between an end of the first pressing member and an end of the second pressing member, which are positioned to surround the electrode tabs” is dependent on the material worked upon (tabs). Since Matsubayashi discloses the claimed structure, it is the Examiner’s position that Matsubayashi is capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the set interval is a thickness of the adjustment part, and the thickness of the adjustment part is less than that of the bundled electrode tabs” is functional and dependent on the material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubayashi (2017/0066075A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zaima et al. (4,973,531).
Regarding claim 15, Matsubayashi discloses a jig assembly of claim 1 (see rejection above for claim 1). Matsubayashi discloses that the jig is used in baking which would indicate that it is used in high temperatures (abstract). Matsubayashi does not disclose a welding device. However, Zaima discloses a similar apparatus as Matsubayashi that is used for thermal welding (abstract, embodiment 1-2, figures 1-4). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a thermal welding device with the jig of Matsubayashi since the jig is used in high temperature operations. Using thermal welding with the jig would allow the components to be held together and also allow for movement caused by thermal expansion.
The limitation “for an electrode tab” is intended use and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art was not found wherein a pressing surface of each of the first pressing member and the second pressing member, which press the electrode tabs, is planar, and the adjustment part has a square block shape and contacts the pressing surface of each of the first pressing member and the second pressing member, or wherein the adjustment jig further comprises a pair of fixing parts provided on each of a pair of opposing ends of a surface of the adjustment part disposed in a full-length direction of the electrode tabs to support each of a pair of opposing surfaces of the first pressing member, or wherein the adjustment jig further comprises a support part provided on one end of a surface of the adjustment part disposed in a length direction of the electrode tabs so as to extend adjacent a surface of the second pressing member, or further comprising a protective film having elasticity further provided on a surface of the adjustment part on which the first pressing member and the second pressing member contact, or wherein each of the first pressing member and the second pressing member is made of a metal material, and one surface of the adjustment part is magnetized to magnetically couple to the first pressing member, or wherein the jig assembly for the electrode tab further comprises an inspection member configured to measure the interval between the first pressing member and the second pressing member, which are spaced apart from each other by the adjustment part, wherein, if the measured interval is within a range of an input set interval, it is determined as being normal, and if the measured interval is outside of the range of the set interval, it is determined as being defective.
Claims 16-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art was not found that taught or suggested the limitations of claim 16 that also include wherein the jig assembly further comprises a protective film having elasticity further provided on a surface of the adjustment part on which the first pressing member and the second pressing member contact. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested the limitations of claim 17 that also include wherein the jig assembly for the electrode tab further comprises an inspection member configured to measure the interval between the first pressing member and the second pressing member, which are spaced apart from each other by the adjustment part, and wherein, if the measured interval is within a range of an input set interval, it is determined as being normal, and if the measured interval is outside of the range of the set interval, it is determined as being defective.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 3, 5, 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735