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 .
Response to Amendments
Entry of Amendments
Claims 1 has been amended.
New Claim 20 has been added.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant’s amendments filed 09/02/2026 with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference(s) and/or ground(s) being used in the current rejection.
For further details see the rejections/objections for Claim(s) 1-20 herein.
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 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 of this title, 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, 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20230140040; hereinafter Maeda) in view of Ohashi et al. (US 4999578).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 a battery cell inspection system, comprising:
a transport unit including a plurality of conveyors (9A, 9B, 5A, 5B, 2,7; figs. 2,4-5) arranged in multiple levels in a vertical direction (para. 53 - first conveying device 9A and the second conveying device 9B are stacker cranes configured to travel along rails 91, 91 installed on a floor and a ceiling), and configured to transport a tray (94A) on which an assembled battery cell is mounted (B,95);
a cell inspection unit (41/4; fig. 2) corresponding to the multiple levels of the transport unit, and configured to perform pre-charging and cell defect inspection of the assembled battery cell (para. 56 - charge-and-discharge inspection or an aging inspection); and
a shuttle (5,7,93) configured to move between the cell inspection unit and the transport unit to carry the tray (tray T1; figs. 3) into the cell inspection unit or take the tray from the cell inspection unit (4).
Maeda does not teach explicitly a shuttle separate from the transport unit, the shuttle being configured to move between the cell inspection unit and the transport unit; conveyors arranged in multiple levels.
However, Ohashi teaches in figure(s) 1-5 a shuttle (316-318 in fig. 2 or sliders 31-37 in fig. 1) separate from the transport unit (conveyors 38-43, 38’-43’, 38”-43”), the shuttle being configured to move between the cell inspection unit (21-26) and the transport unit (38-43); conveyors arranged in multiple levels (col. 2 lines 65-68 :- upper-and-lower-two-level belt conveyors 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43, so that each of the printed circuit boards 10 to be inspected can be conveyed onto any of the inspection units 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maeda by having a shuttle separate from the transport unit, the shuttle being configured to move between the cell inspection unit and the transport unit as taught by Ohashi in order to provide combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results as evidenced by "provide a functions inspecting system which can perform inspection in a shorteded period and can inspect appliances of mutually different types at the same time" (col. 1 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the shuttle is configured to convey a plurality of trays (trays T1…T5; figs. 3) when carrying the plurality of trays to the cell inspection unit or when taking the plurality of trays from the cell inspection unit.
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the transport unit is disposed on a carry-in path (take-in conveyer 2; fig. 1) and a carry-out path (7,5) of the cell inspection unit (4).
Regarding claim 17, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the cell defect inspection comprises causing a predetermined amount of current to flow in the assembled battery cell, detecting a voltage change of the assembled battery cell, and determining a presence or absence of a defect (para. 48 - inspection device 4 configured to perform one process of inspection processes (e.g., a charge-discharge inspection process, a voltage/current/resistance inspection process, and an aging process) of secondary batteries such as lithium-ion batteries).
Claim(s) 3, 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Ohashi, and further in view of Chih-Hubg et al. (US 20070109010).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 2,
Maeda does not teach explicitly wherein the shuttle comprises multiple levels corresponding to the transport unit and the cell inspection unit, and wherein each level of the multiple levels of the shuttle is configured to convey at least one tray.
However, Chih-Hubg teaches in figure(s) 1-8 wherein the shuttle comprises multiple levels (tracks 24; fig. 2) corresponding to the transport unit (22) and the cell inspection unit (28), and wherein each level of the multiple levels of the shuttle is configured to convey at least one tray (trays 15/16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maeda by having wherein the shuttle comprises multiple levels corresponding to the transport unit and the cell inspection unit, and wherein each level of the multiple levels of the shuttle is configured to convey at least one tray as taught by Chih-Hubg in order to provide use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way as evidenced by "handler 10 has multiple shuttles 22, and the shuttle has front depression 22a and rear depression 22b on it, which is used to store the IC and the tested IC respectively. The shuttles 22 carry the IC from the input/output zone to the test zone, or carry the tested IC from the test zone to the input/output zone by slipping through several tracks 24, furthermore, the track 24 is capable of carrying more than one shuttle on it in the meantime" (para. 23).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 3, wherein the transport unit includes: a first transport conveyor (2; fig. 1); and a second transport (7,9,5) conveyor disposed a vertical distance from the first transport conveyor.
Regarding claim 6, Maeda in view of Chih-Hubg teaches the battery cell inspection system according to claim 5,
Chih-Hubg additionally teaches in figure(s) 1-8 wherein the cell inspection unit further includes: a first inspection device (first 28 corresponding to first 24; fig. 2) disposed at a height corresponding to the first transport conveyor; and a second inspection device (second 28 corresponding to second 24; fig. 2) placed on the first inspection device and disposed at a height corresponding to the second transport conveyor.
Regarding claim 12, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 6, wherein a plurality of cell inspection units (41; fig. 2) are arranged in a line.
Regarding claim 13, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 12, wherein the shuttle moves in parallel to a lengthwise arrangement of the plurality of cell inspection units (clm. 20 - conveying device includes a transfer unit capable of simultaneously transferring the batteries accommodated side by side horizontally in the storage device, and the storage control controls the conveying device such that the batteries managed as the same group are stored on horizontally adjacent shelves).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Ohashi, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20170077510).
Regarding claim 18, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 1,
Maeda does not teach explicitly wherein the assembled battery cell includes an electrode assembly including a negative electrode plate, and wherein the pre-charging of the assembled battery cell comprises charging the assembled battery cell in a predetermined amount to form an electric charge layer on the negative electrode plate to prevent formation of an electron movement channel by oxidation of metal impurities.
However, Zhang teaches in figure(s) 1-17 wherein the assembled battery cell includes an electrode assembly including a negative electrode plate, and wherein the pre-charging of the assembled battery cell comprises charging the assembled battery cell in a predetermined amount (paras. 4-5 - rapid charge-and-discharge can be stably performed. Such a battery also has a longer life than those using a negative electrode with carbonaceous material) to form an electric charge layer on the negative electrode plate to prevent formation of an electron movement channel by oxidation of metal impurities (para. 115-116 - negative electrode terminal 6 is preferably made of the same material as the negative electrode current collector 3a in order to reduce the contact resistance with the negative electrode current collector 3a; para. 95 - resistant to oxidation even at a high potential, and most preferably LiPF6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maeda by having wherein the assembled battery cell includes an electrode assembly including a negative electrode plate, and wherein the pre-charging of the assembled battery cell comprises charging the assembled battery cell in a predetermined amount to form an electric charge layer on the negative electrode plate to prevent formation of an electron movement channel by oxidation of metal impurities as taught by Zhang in order to provide "electrode, nonaqueous electrolyte battery capable of rapid charge and discharge has the benefit that charging time is remarkably short, and is able to improve motive performances in hybrid automobiles…the battery can also efficiently recover regenerative energy from power of the vehicle." (paras. 2-3).
Regarding claim 19, Maeda teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the battery cell inspection system according to claim 1,
Maeda does not teach explicitly wherein the assembled battery cell is a cylindrical battery.
However, Zhang teaches in figure(s) 1-17 wherein the assembled battery cell is a cylindrical battery (para. 105 - container member may be flat (thin), square, cylinder, coin, or button-shaped. The container member depends on the size of the battery).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Maeda by having wherein the assembled battery cell is a cylindrical battery as taught by Zhang in order to provide "container member depends on the size of the battery, and may be that for a compact battery mounted on mobile electronic devices, or a large battery mounted on vehicles such as two- to four-wheel automobiles" (para. 105).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-11, 14-16 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior arts of record do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein each of the first inspection device and the second inspection device includes: a pin plate disposed on the tray and having a plurality of exposed electrodes; a bottom plate configured to support the tray and spaced a predetermined distance apart from the pin plate; and an up/down movement unit connecting the bottom plate to the pin plate, and configured to decrease or increase a distance between the bottom plate and the pin plate” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, the prior arts of record do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the shuttle includes: a body having a moving wheel; a first carrying unit disposed at the height corresponding to the first transport conveyor and the first inspection device; and a second carrying unit disposed at the height corresponding to the second transport conveyor and the second inspection device.” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, the prior arts of record do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the cell inspection unit includes a plurality of inspection devices arranged in multiple levels at heights corresponding to the plurality of conveyors of the transport unit” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 15-16 are objected for dependent upon the objected base claim(s).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JUDY NGUYEN can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
