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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, it states “an upper gripper installed opposite the lower gripper”. It appears it should state “an upper gripper installed opposite of the lower gripper”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, it states “The lamination device of claim . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f)
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 limitation(s) is/are: “gripper driving unit”, “correction driving unit”, “control unit”, and “alarm generation unit” in claims 1,2,10,12,13,19, and 20.
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 intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1,2,10,12,13,19, and 20 recite limitations that include “unit configured to” 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 function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
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 no obviousness.
Claims 1-3,7-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210050626 A1.) in view of Kim (KR 102251320 B1) - relied on human assisted machine translation.
As per claim 1, Kim et al. teaches
A lamination device comprising (para 9, para 18, Fig. 3, Fig. 8):
a lower gripper configured to receive supply of a unit cell (Fig. 3, para 23, the movable gripper # 50 teaches lower gripper, the lower gripper is grasping unit cells using the unit cell grasping step S10);
an upper gripper installed opposite the lower gripper and liftable and lowerable in a vertical direction (Fig. 3, para 23, the movable gripper # 60 teaches the upper gripper, the upper gripper 60 is grasping unit cells using the unit cell grasping step S10, paras 41 and 50, the movable gripper can be moved towards Y axis, Y axis teaches vertical direction).
a gripper driving unit configured to lift and lower the upper gripper so that the upper gripper is configured to press the unit cell (para 42, Fig. 1 to Fig. 3, #50, #60, unit cells are grasped by movable grippers 50 and 60 at unit cell grasping step (S10). Paras 49 and 50, Movable grippers 50 and 60 are corrected to align the unit cells as parallel to Y axis. Therefore, the grippers are moved up and down towards Y axis);
a vision camera configured to capture an image of a plurality of calibration marks (Fig. 2, vision device #40, Fig. 1, vision measurement step S20, paras 47 and 57, vision measurement step S20 measuring the width of unit cell);
a correction driving unit connected to the lower gripper and the upper gripper, the correction driving unit being configured to correct a height of each of the lower gripper and the upper gripper (paras 47-48, control unit 70 controls the movement of the movable grippers 50 and 60 to adjust them according to full width of the unit cells. Para 50, the control unit 70 adjust the movable grippers 50 and 60 to align the angle of unit cells with respect to Y axis. According to Fig. 3, movable gripper 50 is the lower gripper and movable gripper 60 is the upper gripper and they can be aligned along Y axis. Y axis teaches vertical direction (height));
However, Kim et al. do not teach
a plurality of calibration marks disposed on the upper gripper; and
a control unit configured to read the plurality of calibration marks to calculate a positional deviation between an actual position of the upper gripper and a preset allowable position range, the control unit being configured to move the lower gripper and the upper gripper to correct the positional deviation.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches
a plurality of calibration marks (para 40, Fig. 5a, a plurality of reference marks 104 may be composed of four circular marks (104 a-d) provided on the upper surface of the stage 100, also see para 5, Kim also teaches a vision alignment device that can align and stack multiple sheets on stage by capturing images of the sheet and adjust them accordingly);
a control unit configured to read the plurality of calibration marks to calculate a positional deviation of a stage between an actual position and a preset allowable position range, the control unit being configured to move the stage to correct the positional deviation (para 74, a control unit 500 controls the operation of the horizontal position adjustment unit, also see Fig. 10, #500, also see paras 69 -74, and Fig. 9. A loading step S901 loading the stacking sheet 10 based on the image captured by the image capturing unit upper part loading at a predetermined loading position P1. The alignment step S903 sets the stacking sheet at a predetermined fixed position P2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lamination device taught by Kim et al. to include a device for acquiring a plurality of calibration marks and a control unit to move the grippers according to the calibration marks as taught by Kim. This would have been obvious because both Kim et al. and Kim teach of an alignment control device that can adjust the grippers/stage movement in X-Y directions. By implementing the calibrations marks taught by Kim into grippers’ adjustment taught by Kim et al., the vision alignment device can capture the calibration marks on grippers and based on them, the grippers can be aligned more precisely (Kim, para 23).
As per claim 2, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, wherein the control unit has an allowable image range for the plurality of calibration marks is therein, and the control unit is configured to calculate the positional deviation of the upper gripper by comparing the allowable image range with a size of the image captured by the vision camera (Kim et al., para 61, at vision measurement step 20, the control unit 70 detect the deviation with respect to full width of unit cell with respect to the Y axis based on the stored information in memory 72. The deviation is corrected through the movable gripper 50 and 60 to move the unit cells. Kim, para 08, the alignment calculation step calculating an X-Y- theta direction misalignment between the sheet loaded at the loading position P1 and the stage 100 through a first captured image and adjusting a horizontal position X-Y-theta direction based on misalignments. Also see paras 74, 75, and 78, the alignment step S903 is aligning the horizontal position of the stage 100 using a first captured image after stacking the target sheet 10 in a preset position P2 and the control unit 500 controlling the operation for adjusting the horizontal position, also see claim 3).
As per claim 3, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, wherein some of the calibration marks are disposed side by side at a first distance from an end of the upper gripper, and the remaining ones of the calibration marks are disposed side by side at a second distance from the end of the upper gripper (Kim, Fig. 4, para 40, the plurality of fiducial marks 104 composed of four circular marks 104 a-d, also see para 41, the upper surface of the stage 100 may have four circular marks 104 a-d parallel to the area corresponding to the first capturing area).
As per claim 7, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, wherein each of the calibration marks has a circular shape (Kim, Fig. 4, para 40, the plurality of fiducial marks 104 composed of four circular marks 104 a-d, also see para 41).
As per claim 8, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, wherein the vision camera is configured to capture the image of the plurality of calibration marks when the upper gripper is completely lowered (Kim et al., Fig. 3, Upper gripper 60, Lower gripper 50, para 47, the control unit 70 may control the movement of the movable grippers 50 and 60 according to the corrected input moving amounts, it implies that the grippers can be completely lowered. Kim et al. para 41, vision measurement step S20 captures the angle of the end of the electrode with respect to Y axis. Also see, Kim, para 7, Fig. 9, claim 1, image capturing part 200 captures images 200 of the stage 100 and the sheet 10 stacked on the stage 100 so as to acquire a second image of the circular marks).
As per claim 9, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, wherein the vision camera is disposed adjacent to an upper side of the upper gripper (Kim et al. para 47, para 23, Fig. 3, Kim, claim 9, Fig. 3).
As per claim 10, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, wherein the vision camera is configured to recapture an image of the calibration marks after a position of the upper gripper is corrected, and the control unit is configured to recheck whether a corrected position of the upper gripper is within the allowable position range (Kim, Fig. 9, claim 1, describes the image capturing part 200 captures images 200 of the stage 100 and the sheet 10 stacked on the stage 100 so as to acquire a second image, Kim et al. ,Fig. 3, upper gripper 60, lower gripper 50, para 47, the control unit 70 may control the movement of the movable grippers 50 and 60 according to the corrected input moving amounts at step S30, the control unit 70 may receive an image signal vision measured by vision measured step.).
As per claim 11, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, wherein the lower gripper is fixed to a linear guide, and the upper gripper is installed on the linear guide and configured to be liftable and lowerable (Kim et al., Fig. 3, paras 47 and 50, Upper gripper 60 and the lower gripper 50 are aligned with the control unit 70 and can be corrected or moved based on the information from the image signal. Also, these grippers can be moved toward Y axis up and down as vertical directions).
As per claim 12, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1, further comprising an alarm generation unit configured to notify that the upper gripper needs to be replaced when a corrected position of the upper gripper is outside of the allowable position range (Kim, an image of the sheet 10 repeatedly imaged a predetermined number of times after alignment and correction unit 530 correct misalignment derived from the image in a reverse direction. Kim et al. para 47, the control unit 70 receive the image signal in the input step S30, the image signal is vision measured at step S20 and extract to measure full width of the unit cells and then compared to the stored information in the memory 72. If there is any mismatch, the grippers 50 and 60 are moved to correct the misalignment. The process is done based on the image signal. The image signal teaches the alarm notification.).
As per claim 13, the combination of Kim et al. teach
A method of controlling a lamination device (Kim et al., abstract, para 56, Fig. 8), the method comprising:
supplying a unit cell to a lower gripper (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above).
pressing the unit cell by lowering an upper gripper (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above);
capturing, using a vision camera, an image of a plurality of calibration marks formed on the upper gripper and transmitting the image to a control unit (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above);
reading, using the control unit, the plurality of calibration marks and calculating a positional deviation between an actual position of the upper gripper and a preset allowable position range (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above); and
moving the lower gripper and the upper gripper to correct the positional deviation when the positional deviation is outside of the preset allowable position range (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above).
As per method claim 14, please refer to the analysis of device claim 3 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per method claim 18, please refer to the analysis of device claim 8 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per method claim 19, please refer to the analysis of device claim 10 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per method claim 20, please refer to the analysis of device claim 12 above, as they recite the same limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210050626 A1.), and in view of Kim (KR 102251320 B1) - relied on human assisted machine translation, and further in view of Woo et al. (US 20180126718 A1.).
As per claim 4, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim teach
The lamination device of claim 1(Kim et al., para 9, para 18, Fig. 3, Fig. 8)
The combination of Kim et al. and Kim do not teach
wherein the upper gripper includes a transparent window configured to receive passage therethrough of light to the vision camera.
In the same field of endeavor, Woo et al. teach
wherein the upper gripper includes a transparent window configured to receive passage therethrough of light to the vision camera (para 28, a device that includes a transparent body in the form of calibration glass 312, a reference marker is located on the calibration mark 312, a bond head 302 is movable as gripper. The calibration glass 312 moves as long as the reference marker. The transparent calibration glass 312 allows the reference marker to be visible from both upper and underside of the calibration glass 312. “calibration glass 312 allows the reference marker to be visible from both the upper side and the underside of the calibration glass 312”. Also see Fig. 5e whole unit 302 is gripper and unit 316 is camera).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vision alignment device taught by Kim and Kim et al. and to include the transparent body in the form of calibration glass taught by Woo et al. This would have been obvious because the combination of Kim, Kim et al., and Woo et al. teach a vision alignment system. By adding transparent body in the form of calibration glass 312 to the vision camera, the calibration marks will be easily visible from both upper and lower body. (Woo et al., para 28-29, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5e).
Claims 5, 6, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210050626 A1.), and in view of Kim (KR 102251320 B1) - relied on human assisted machine translation, and further in view of Woo et al. (US 20180126718 A1.)., and further in view of Rodriguez Barros et al. (US 20140091915 A1.).
As per claim 5, the combination of Kim and Kim et al. teach
The lamination device of claim 4 (Kim et al., para 9, para 18, Fig. 3, Fig. 8)
The combination of Kim et al., Kim, and Woo et al. do not teach
wherein a circumference of the transparent window is coated with an anodizing layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Rodriguez Barros teaches
wherein a circumference of the transparent window is coated with an anodizing layer (Rodriguez Barros, para 140, a circumference surrounding a transparent mirror can be painted with anodizing layer to provide surface treatment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparent window taught by Woo et al. and to include anodizing paint/coating taught by Rodriguez Barros. This would have been obvious because the combination of Kim, Kim et al, and Woo et al. teach a vision alignment system/camera with transparent lenses. By coating the circumference of the transparent lenses with anodizing layer, it will provide a surface treatment (e.g., enhance corrosion resistance, surface hardness, etc – which is well known) (Rodriguez Barros, para 140).
As per claim 6, although Kim teaches of an image capturing unit that captures the reference marks, it doesn’t specifically distinguish that the reference marks are white compared to other surrounding areas within or attached to the image capturing unit as being black.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surrounding areas within or attached to the image capturing unit and the reference marks taught by Kim as being black and white. This would have been obvious because Kim teaches in par. 42 that the number, shape and arrangement of the reference marks can be configured in various ways depending on the design, and a person skilled in the art would have seen the benefit of distinguishing the reference marks (being white) from the surrounding areas (being black) since it would provide clarity and precise location of the reference marks.
As per claim 15, please refer to the analysis of claims 4 and 5 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 16, please refer to the analysis of claim 6 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 17, please refer to the analysis of claim 7 above, as they recite the same limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)270-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights