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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 15 are presented for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suehiro et al. (US 2018/0131009 A1; pub. May 10, 2018) in view of Kaufman et al. (US 2024/0243281 A1; pub. Jul. 18, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Suehiro et al. disclose: A stack cell comprising: a plurality of electrodes; a separator disposed between two adjacent electrodes (para. [0018]); and a mark formed on the separator (para. [0049], fig.2 doted lines & 70a).
Suehiro et al. are silent about: a mark formed of a radio-opaque material through which no radiation ray is transmitted, and provided at an edge region of the separator.
In a similar field of endeavor Kaufman et al. disclose: a radio-opaque material through which no radiation ray is transmitted, and provided at an edge region of the separator (para. [0023], para. [0048] teaches aluminum which is radio-opaque, para. [0277]) motivated by the benefits for optimized battery (Kaufman et al. para. [0277]).
In light of the benefits for optimized battery as taught by Kaufman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suehiro et al. with the teachings of Kaufman et al. to have a mark formed of a radio-opaque material.
Regarding claim 2, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: the mark is provided so that when the edge region of the separator is folded, the mark is folded together with the edge region of the separator (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: the mark is provided so that when the separator is folded, at least a partial region is positionally moved along the folding direction of the separator (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: the mark is provided at a corner portion of the edge region of the separator (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: the mark is provided on the edge region on the long side or short side of the separator (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: the mark is formed continuously along the edge region of the separator (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: the mark is formed integrally over the entire edge region of the separator (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: the mark comprises a plurality of marks, is provided, where wherein the plurality of marks is formed at different positions in the edge region of the separator, respectively (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, especially see fig.2 & fig.4 of Kaufman et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Regarding claim 9, Oh et al. disclose: a radiation inspection part provided configured to irradiate the stack cell according to claim 1 with radiation rays, thereby obtaining an image of the radiation ray-irradiated separator (claim 5).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: a control part configured for inspecting folding of the separator by comparing the position information of the mark pre-formed on the separator with the position information of the mark in the image obtained by the radiation inspection part.
Claim 10 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 9 for dependency reasons.
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 11, Suehiro et al. and Kaufman et al. disclose: A separator inspection method comprising: a step (a) of irradiating a stack cell including a separator in which a mark formed of a radio-opaque material is provided at an edge region with radiation rays (see rejection of claim 1).
Oh et al. disclose: a step (b) of obtaining an image of the radiation ray-irradiated separator (claim 5).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: a step (c) of inspecting folding of the separator by comparing the position information of the mark pre-formed on the separator with the position information of the mark shown in the obtained image.
Claims 12-15 are allowed on the same basis as claim 11 for dependency reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884