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 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 5-9 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 5 recites: “The electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of injection nozzles is arranged…” There is no mention of a plurality of injection nozzles previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 5 as depending on claim 4.
Claim 6 recites: “The electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of injection nozzles comprises injection nozzles…” There is no mention of a plurality of injection nozzles previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 6 as depending on claim 4.
Claim 6 recites: “The electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the plurality of injection nozzles comprises injection nozzles of m x n in a first direction parallel to an entering direction of the carrier and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the plurality of battery containers comprises battery containers of p x q in the first direction and the second direction, m, n, p and q are positive integers, m is smaller than p, and n is equal to q.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to that applicant refers to. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the dimensions of each individual injection nozzle, such as a sizing dimension, or if it is a different type of dimension. It is also unclear if applicant is referring to the dimensions of each individual battery container, such as a sizing dimension, or if it is a different type of dimension.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “The electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein p is a multiple of m”. There is no mention of these variables previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 7 as depending on claim 6.
Claim 8 recites: “The electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the carrier comprises a lower carrier part on which the plurality of battery containers is mounted, and an upper carrier part above the battery container, and the upper carrier part comprises an injection hopper configured to penetrate the upper carrier part in an upward/downward direction and communicate with the inside of the battery container and configured to correspond to the injection nozzle.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is referring to only a single battery container or if applicant is referring to the plurality of battery containers.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 8 as reciting: “The electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the carrier comprises a lower carrier part on which the plurality of battery containers is mounted, and an upper carrier part above the plurality of battery containers, and the upper carrier part comprises an injection hopper configured to penetrate the upper carrier part in an upward/downward direction and communicate with the inside of the plurality of battery containers and configured to correspond to the injection nozzle.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation: “The electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a distance from a discharge port of the injection nozzle to a bottom surface of the vacuum chamber is larger than a height from a bottom surface of the carrier to an upper end of the injection hopper.” There is no mention of an injection hopper previously in claim 1.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 9 as depending on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR1020160135974A, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Park).
In regard to Claim 1, Park discloses an electrolyte injection apparatus (#100) comprising:
a carrier (#120) (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0070]);
a plurality of battery containers (#110) aligned and mounted on the carrier (#120) (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0070]);
a vacuum chamber (#130) in which the carrier (#120) is movably accommodated (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0070] and [0076]-[0079]); and
an injection nozzle (#142) fixed while penetrating an upper surface of the vacuum chamber (#130) and configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers (#110) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0071] and [0077]-[0078]).
In regard to Claim 2, Park discloses wherein the injection nozzle (#142) protrudes from the upper surface of the vacuum chamber (#130) toward the inside of the vacuum chamber (#130) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
In regard to Claim 3, Park discloses wherein a part of the injection nozzle (#142) is positioned inside the vacuum chamber (#130), and another part of the injection nozzle (#142) is outside the vacuum chamber (#130) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
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.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
In regard to Claim 4, Park discloses wherein the injection nozzle (#142) comprises a plurality of injection nozzles (#142) (see figures 1-3). Although Park does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the injection nozzles is smaller than a number of the battery containers, changing/adjusting the amount number of injection nozzles to an optimum amount, such that the number of injection nozzles is smaller than a number of battery containers, is a mere engineering design choice and is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as to minimize electrolyte overflow and/or improving filing efficiency, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 5, Park discloses wherein the plurality of injection nozzles (#142) are arranged in a first direction parallel to an entering direction of the carrier (#120), and the plurality of battery containers (#110) is arranged in the first direction (see figures 1-3).
Claim 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kim et al. (KR1020110032848A, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Kim).
In regard to Claim 6, Park discloses the electrolyte injection apparatus as recited in claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of injection nozzles comprises injection nozzles of m x n in a first direction parallel to an entering direction of the carrier and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the plurality of battery containers comprises battery containers of p x q in the first direction and the second direction, m, n, p and q are positive integers, m is smaller than p, and n is equal to q.
However, Kim teaches a vacuum-pressurization apparatus for pouring electrolyte to a secondary battery. The vacuum-pressurization apparatus comprises a carrier (#100), a plurality of battery containers (#140) aligned and mounted on the carrier (#100), a vacuum injection chamber (#200) in which the carrier (#100) is accommodated, and a plurality of injection nozzles (#264) configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers (#140). The plurality of battery containers (#140) are arranged in two dimensions of 12 rows x 12 columns, 144 batteries (#140) are arranged, but the present invention is not limited thereto. That is, more battery containers may be arranged by further adding the number of rows and columns of the battery containers (#140) (see figures 1A-3A and pages 7-8 and 10). This is considered equivalent to the plurality of battery containers comprises battery containers of p x q in the first direction and the second direction and p x q are positive integers, as claimed by the applicant.
Examiner notes that although Park, in view of Kim, does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of injection nozzles comprises injection nozzles of m x n in a first direction parallel to an entering direction of the carrier and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and m and n are positive integers, m is smaller than p, and n is equal to q, adjusting/changing the amount of plurality of injection nozzles to an optimum value of m x n in a first direction parallel to an entering direction of the carrier and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and m and n are positive integers, m is smaller than p, and n is equal to q, as claimed by the applicant, is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation and is a mere engineering design choice, in order to obtain a desired end-result, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 7, Park, in view of Kim, discloses the electrolyte injection apparatus as recited in claim 6. Although Park, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein p is a multiple of m, adjusting/changing the amount of plurality of injection nozzles to an optimum value such that p is a multiple of m, as claimed by the applicant, is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation and is a mere engineering design choice, in order to obtain a desired end-result, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 8, Park discloses the electrolyte injection apparatus as recited in claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the carrier comprises a lower carrier part on which the plurality of battery containers is mounted, and an upper carrier part above the plurality of battery containers, and the upper carrier part comprises an injection hopper configured to penetrate the upper carrier part in an upward/downward direction and communicate with the inside of the plurality of battery containers and configured to correspond to the injection nozzle.
However, Kim teaches a vacuum-pressurization apparatus for pouring electrolyte to a secondary battery. The vacuum-pressurization apparatus comprises a carrier (#100), a plurality of battery containers (#140) aligned and mounted on the carrier (#100), a vacuum injection chamber (#200) in which the carrier (#100) is accommodated, and a plurality of injection nozzles (#264) configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers (#140). The carrier (#100) further comprises a lower carrier (#120) and an upper carrier (#110). The upper carrier (#110) is provided in with an injection hopper (#130 buffer hopper) configured to penetrate the upper carrier (#110) in an upward/downward direction and communicate with the inside of the plurality of battery containers (#140) and configured to correspond to the plurality of injection nozzles (#264) (see figures 1A-3A and pages 7-8 and 10).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the electrolyte injection apparatus as disclosed by Park by substituting a known carrier with another known carrier, such as a carrier comprising a lower carrier part on which the plurality of battery containers is mounted, and an upper carrier part above the plurality of battery containers, and the upper carrier part comprises an injection hopper configured to penetrate the upper carrier part in an upward/downward direction and communicate with the inside of the plurality of battery containers and configured to correspond to the injection nozzle, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kim teaches a vacuum-pressurization apparatus for pouring electrolyte to a secondary battery comprising a carrier, a plurality of battery containers aligned and mounted on the carrier, a vacuum injection chamber in which the carrier is accommodated, and a plurality of injection nozzles configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers, wherein the carrier further comprises a lower carrier and an upper carrier, whereby the upper carrier is provided in with an injection hopper configured to penetrate the upper carrier in an upward/downward direction and communicate with the inside of the plurality of battery containers and configured to correspond to the plurality of injection nozzles, thereby efficiently securing the alignment of the plurality of batteries to ensure the proper electrolyte injection (see figures 1A-3A and pages 7-8 and 10).
In regard to Claim 9, Park, in view of Kim, discloses the electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 8. Kim further teaches wherein a distance from a discharge port of the injection nozzle (#264) to a bottom surface of the vacuum chamber (#200) is larger than a height from a bottom surface of the carrier (#100) to an upper end of the injection hopper (#130) (see figures 1A-3A and 5A).
In the alternative, although Park, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance from a discharge port of the injection nozzle to a bottom surface of the vacuum chamber is larger than a height from a bottom surface of the carrier to an upper end of the injection hopper, adjusting the distance from a discharge port of the injection nozzle to a bottom surface of the vacuum chamber to be larger than a height from a bottom surface of the carrier to an upper end of the injection hopper, as claimed by the applicant, is a mere engineering design choice and within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end result and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 10, Park discloses the electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose a time control valve connected to the injection nozzle and configured to adjust a capacity of the electrolyte to be injected by controlling an opening/closing operation on a time basis.
However, Kim teaches a vacuum-pressurization apparatus for pouring electrolyte to a secondary battery. The vacuum-pressurization apparatus comprises a carrier (#100), a plurality of battery containers (#140) aligned and mounted on the carrier (#100), a vacuum injection chamber (#200) in which the carrier (#100) is accommodated, and a plurality of injection nozzles (#264) configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers (#140) (see figures 1A-3A and 5B and pages 7-8 and 10). The electrolyte (#500) stored in electrical storage unit (#162) is injected by the plurality of injection nozzles to the plurality of battery containers (#140) at an injection time of at least 30 seconds or more (see figure 5B and page 14). Since the electrolyte is injected at a time of at least 30 second or more, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that a time control valve is reasonably connected to the injection nozzle and is configured to adjust a capacity of the electrolyte to be injected by controlling an opening/closing operation on a time basis, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the electrolyte injection apparatus as disclosed by Park by further including a time control valve connected to the injection nozzle and configured to adjust a capacity of the electrolyte to be injected by controlling an opening/closing operation on a time basis, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kim teaches a vacuum-pressurization apparatus for pouring electrolyte to a secondary battery comprising a carrier, a plurality of battery containers aligned and mounted on the carrier, a vacuum injection chamber in which the carrier is accommodated, and a plurality of injection nozzles configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers, wherein the electrolyte stored in electrical storage unit is injected by the plurality of injection nozzles to the plurality of battery containers at an injection time of at least 30 seconds or more, thereby efficiently securing the correct quantity of electrolyte to be injected to the plurality of battery containers (see figure 5B and page 14).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yoon et al. (WO2019/164299A1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Yoon).
In regard to Claim 11, Park discloses the electrolyte injection apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a carrier drive part configured to provide driving power to move the carrier in the vacuum chamber.
However, Yoon teaches an electrolyte injection device for injecting an electrolyte into a plurality of battery containers (see paragraphs [0001] and [0008]). The electrolyte injection device (#100) comprises a carrier (#200), a plurality of battery containers (#40) aligned and mounted on the carrier (#200), a vacuum chamber (#120) in which the carrier (#200) is accommodated, and injection nozzles (#111) fixed while penetrating an upper surface of the vacuum chamber (#120) and configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers (#40) (see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0012]-[0014] and [0019]-[0020]). The electrolyte injection device (#100) additionally includes an up-and-down movement part (#150) for driving the up-and-down movement of the cell tray support part (#140) and the cell tray support part (#140) may include a pair of linear movement guide members (#142) installed along the movement path of the cell tray (#200) to guide the linear movement of the cell tray (#200). The cell tray support member(#140) may additionally include a pair of horizontal roller members (#144) installed along the movement path of the cell tray (#200) to support the side of the cell tray (#200) (see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0020]-[0023]). This is considered equivalent to further comprising a carrier drive part configured to provide driving power to move the carrier in the vacuum chamber, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the electrolyte injection apparatus as disclosed by Park by further including a carrier drive part configured to provide driving power to move the carrier in the vacuum chamber, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yoon teaches an electrolyte injection device for injecting an electrolyte into a plurality of battery containers comprising a carrier, a plurality of battery containers aligned and mounted on the carrier, a vacuum chamber in which the carrier is accommodated, injection nozzles fixed while penetrating an upper surface of the vacuum chamber and configured to discharge an electrolyte and to supply the electrolyte to the battery containers, and an up-and-down movement part, i.e. carrier drive part, for driving the up-and-down movement of the cell tray support part and the cell tray support part may include a pair of linear movement guide members installed along the movement path of the cell tray to guide the linear movement of the cell tray, and wherein the cell tray support member may additionally include a pair of horizontal roller members installed along the movement path of the cell tray to support the side of the cell tray, thereby improving the ease of removal and introduction of the battery containers into the vacuum chamber (see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0020]-[0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights