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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Groups II, claims 8-18, in the reply filed on 11/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/27/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “radially limit” should be “radially limits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “clamping jaw power assembly” and “side clamp power assembly” in claim 10. Although a skilled artisan would understand what a power assembly would be in terms of generating and delivering power in the art. A skilled artisan is not reasonably apprised as to the structure of such a power assembly, without incorporating limitations from the specification, for movement of devices.
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 does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-16 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the limiting portion" in line 1 and then recites limitations to said limiting portion. However, it is unclear if applicant is referring to a single of the limiting portions of if applicant meant for such limitations to be present for the limiting portions. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “the limiting portions”.
Claim 16 recites “at least two pin shafts”. It is unclear if the two ping shafts are inclusive or exclusive of the pin shaft recited in claim 15. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as inclusive of the pin shaft in claim 15. Clarification and correction are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 & 17-18 are allowable.
Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 requires a quick swap platform, a clamping jaw device, a plasma cleaning machine, and a control device. Further, claim 8 requires that the control device determines the presence of a target tool based on first-article information and based on said determination utilizes the clamping jaw device to grab and move the tool to the plasma cleaning machine. Claim 8 also requires that the first-article information represents blueprint information of a first-article battery module. The following is the closest prior art of record regarding the invention of claim 8:
Liu (CN117046682A) showcases a manipulator (ref 3) for grabbing and moving a plasma cleaning tool (ref 4) or a gluing tool (ref 5), the manipulator is controlled by a controller (ref 16) for the cleaning and assembly of a battery box (abstract). However, the manipulator moves the plasma cleaning tool to the platform on which the battery box is provided, and there is no mention on the ability to move the plasma cleaning tool to a plasma cleaning machine or even the identification of a tool to be cleaned different from the battery box on the platform.
Liu (CN116387728A) discloses a system where a battery module can be grabbed and moved to a plasma cleaning station via a robot controlled by a PLC (abstract), the PLC controller can also detect information regarding the battery box (see step 20 & 40 description, [n0008-n0033] & [n0047-n0061]). However, no mention is made regarding detecting the presence of a tool in the location where the battery box is located or the controller programmed to grab said tool and deliver said tool to a plasma cleaning station for cleaning.
Zhong (CN113044563A) discloses a cleaning and feeding system for battery module production (abstract), wherein a plasma cleaning assembly (ref 400) is utilized and manipulators (refs 200 & 300) are utilized to move the component to be cleaned to the plasma cleaning assembly for cleaning [n0053-n0054 & n0068-n0073]. However, the reference is silent regarding the identification of a tool provided on the same platform as the component and grabbing and movement of the tool from said platform to the plasma cleaning machine.
Li (CN111153179A) discloses a tool circulating device and battery string production (abstract), wherein a plasma cleaning machine (ref 20) is utilized to clean a tool (ref 40) which is moved to the plasma cleaning machine via a conveying jaw (ref 12, see also [0042-0065 & 0074-0088]). However, the reference is directed to implementing a separate cleaning system for the cleaning of a tool used in battery production and does not provide any teaching or suggestion of the tool being present on the same platform as a battery module or being moved from said same platform. Rather the reference is directed towards the cleaning of a welding strip tool ([0005-0009, 0016, 0021) which is pressed to the battery during placement of the welding strip. Such a tool would not be placed on a platform with a battery module, but rather moved to the cleaning area, as seen by the reference.
The prior art of record shows that it is known in the art to utilized a manipulator (e.g., a type of clamping jaw device) to grab and move a tool, identifying battery components, as well as cleaning of tools utilized in battery production via plasma cleaning. However, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a controller which determines the presence of the tool on the same platform the battery module being recognized and subsequently grabbed and taken to the plasma cleaning machine. Thus, claim 8 and its dependents are considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights