DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 6/11/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12-13, and 18 – 20 were amended. The previous objection to the abstract is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The examiner agrees the primary reference JP 2014-3071 (Kasai) fails to teach the amended subject matter of claim 1. Claim 1 is currently rejected under 35 USC 103 over JP 2014-3071 (Kasai) in view of US 2020/0150061 (Kriele)
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) 1, 2, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-3071 (Kasai) in view of US 2020/0150061 (Kriele).
Regarding claim 1, Kasai teaches an apparatus for inspecting insulation of a separator for a battery (apparatus of Figs. 1-2 for inspecting a separator to be tested 1 of a battery; see Figs. 1, 2; see [0002], [0009]-[0010]), the apparatus comprising:
an upper metallic member; a lower metallic member under the upper metallic member, and configured to press the separator with the upper metallic member (a roughly cylindrical metal hard member 4 that sandwiches the separator to be tested 1 and the conductive elastic plate electrodes 2 and 3, and a metal hard member 5 that is larger than the roughly cylindrical metal hard member 4; see Figs. 1, 2; see [0002], [0009]-[0010]); and
a source meter electrically connected to the upper metallic member and to the lower metallic member, and configured to apply a voltage and/or current between the upper metallic member and the lower metallic member, and to measure resistance and/or current between the upper metallic member and the lower metallic member corresponding to the insulation of the separator (ammeter 9 and 9 V DC power source are connected to the upper and lower conductive members 4, 5 and measures the current to determine a load resistance of the separators; see Figs. 1, 2; see [0002], [0019]).
Kasai fails to teach a pressing frame having a plurality of resilient members configured to press the upper metallic member and the lower metallic member, the resilient members comprising variable springs.
Kriele teaches a pressing frame having a plurality of resilient members configured to press the upper metallic member and the lower metallic member, the resilient members comprising variable springs (housing 2 comprises springs and pre-tensioned screws 13; see Fig. 5).
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 features of a frame comprising variable springs to press upper and lower metallic members a taught in Kriele into Kasai in order to gain the advantage of springs which are a known means for applying a desired pressure to a battery wherein the springs may be adjusted to provide adjust the desired pressure when compressing a battery for testing.
Regarding claim 2, Kasai teaches wherein a shape of the upper metallic member and the lower metallic member is a column extending in a first direction (roughly cylindrical metal hard member 4 and roughly cylindrical metal hard member 5 are cylindrical, i.e. columnar, and extend in a direction aligned with arrows in Fig. 2; see Figs. 1-2; see [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, Kasai fails to teach wherein each of the upper metallic member and the lower metallic member have a shape of a rectangular plate extending in a first direction, however, it would be an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant to change the shape of the metallic member from a circle to a rectangle a matter of choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would find changing the metallic member from a circle as shown in Kasai to a rectangle as shown in Figs. 4-5 of Kriele without providing any new or unexpected results or requiring any undue experimentation.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-3071 (Kasai) in view of US 2020/0150061 (Kriele), and in further view of US 2019/0324089 (Kang).
Regarding claim 20, Kasai fails to teach wherein the upper metallic member has a bar shape extending in a first direction, and comprises a plurality of upper metallic members spaced apart from each other in a third second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the lower metallic member has a bar shape extending in the first direction, comprises a plurality of lower metallic members under the upper metallic members and spaced apart therefrom in an upward-downward direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction and to the third second direction.
Kang teaches wherein the upper metallic member has a bar shape extending in a first direction, and comprises a plurality of upper metallic members spaced apart from each other in a third second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the lower metallic member has a bar shape extending in the first direction, comprises a plurality of lower metallic members under the upper metallic members and spaced apart therefrom in an upward-downward direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction and to the third second direction (upper and lower pressing jigs 110, 120 include protrusions 111, 121 corresponding to a bar shape in a configuration as claimed; see Figs. 1-6; see p0052]-[0053]).
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 features of Kang into Kasai in order to gain the advantage of protrusion which press torn or damaged portions of the separator to cause a short to detect a defect which is not detected when the entire outer surface of the electrode assembly is pressed. .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest further comprising: an upper fixed shaft extending through a central axis of the upper metallic member; and a lower fixed shaft extending through a central axis of the lower metallic member, wherein the source meter contacts, and is electrically connected to, the upper fixed shaft and the lower fixed shaft, in combination with all other limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Claims 4-12, definite and enabled by the specification, are allowed through a dependence on allowed claim 3.
Claims 14-19 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 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest further comprising: an upper insulating cover covering an outside of the upper metallic member, and spaced apart from the upper metallic member; and a lower insulating cover covering an outside of the lower metallic member, and spaced from the lower metallic member. As best understood by the examiner, the insulating covers cover the outside of the electrically charged metallic member, which may improve safety. See [0090] of the specification as filed 8/12/2024. The limitations as claimed would not be obvious in combination with all other limitations of parent claims 1 and 13.
Claims 15-16, definite and enabled by the specification, are allowed through a dependence on objected claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the upper metallic member further comprises an upper protrusion protruding and extending from opposite side walls thereof in the first direction, and wherein the lower metallic member further comprises a lower protrusion protruding and extending from opposite side walls thereof in the first direction. The limitations are illustrated in Fig. 5 disclosed in [0084] and [0092] of the specification as filed 8/12/2024 to provide electrical connections to the source meter as well as couple to the adjustable springs and pressing frame.
Claims 18-19, definite and enabled by the specification, are allowed through a dependence on objected claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights