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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “target position” and “different workstations” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to for containing numbers, letters, and/or reference characters that are too small. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “conveying mechanism,” “clamping modules,” “moving module,” “holding structure,” and “driving assembly.”
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “conveying mechanism” has not been defined by and clearly linked to sufficient structure within the disclosed Specification or Drawings to perform the claimed function. Consequently, it is unclear that Applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed at the time of filing.
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 1-9, 11-12, and 14-16 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 8 is indefinite for the limitation “included angles.” The term is not a known term within the art, nor is it defined within Applicant’s Specification. If interpreted based on the common meaning of “included,” it is unclear what angles are excluded.
Claims 11 and 12 are indefinite for being dependent from cancelled Claim 10. To maintain compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret Claims 11 and 12 as being dependent from Claim 1.
Claims 14-16 are indefinite in that the preamble of Claims 14 and 15 are written as independent claims but the respective claim bodies are dependent from Claim 1. Thus, it is unclear whether Claims 14 and 15 are dependent or independent claims.
Claim 14 is indefinite for the limitation “a conveying mechanism.” If Claim 14 is dependent from Claim 1, then the limitation is indefinite in that parent Claim 1 has established antecedence for the limitation, and it is unclear whether Applicant is referencing the previously claimed “conveying mechanism,” or claiming a new and different “conveying mechanism.” To maintain compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret as referencing the previously claimed “conveying mechanism.”
The claim limitation “conveying mechanism” invokes 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 § 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 1-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGearchy et al. (US 5,595,413).
McGeary discloses;
Claim 1. A clamping assembly (10) used for a conveying mechanism (robotic arm), comprising:
two clamping modules (72 and 74) apart from each other in a first direction (left to right, Fig. 1), wherein a material (work part) is located between the two clamping modules; and
a moving module (120) linked to the two clamping modules; wherein the two clamping modules are configured to: when the moving module moves along a second direction (in and out of the page, Fig. 1), move along the first direction away from each other to release the material or move along the first direction approaching each other to clamp the material, the second direction being different from the first direction, wherein the clamping assembly further comprises:
a bearing module (16), wherein the bearing module is stacked with the moving module along a third direction (direction parallel with longitudinal axis of 82) and is adjacent to the material, and a surface (76) of the bearing module facing the material is a bearing surface (Col. 1-3 and Fig. 1-5).
Claim 2. The clamping assembly according to claim 1, wherein the clamping assembly comprises: a holding structure (18, 20, and 60), wherein the holding structure is connected to the moving module, the holding structure is configured to hold the moving module at a target position (position where 72 and 74 are in contact with the work part), and the two clamping modules are configured to clamp the material along the first direction when the moving module is located at the target position (Col. 2 and Fig. 1).
Claim 3. The clamping assembly according to claim 2, wherein the holding structure comprises a spring (60) extending along the second direction (spring 60 is a three-dimensional component, so it extends in all three claimed directions, including the second direction) (Col. 2 and Fig. 1).
Claim 4. The clamping assembly according to claim 1, wherein when the moving module is subjected to a driving force (force applied on walls of 122 and 124 by respective 82 and 84) applied by a driving assembly (18 and 20) of the conveying mechanism along the second direction, the moving module is configured to move along the second direction, and the two clamping modules are configured to move along the first direction away from each other to release the material (Col. 2-3 and Fig. 1 and 5).
Claim 5. The clamping assembly according to claim 1, wherein the moving module comprises a sliding groove structure (122 and 124), and each clamping module in the two clamping modules comprises a protrusion structure (82 and 84), and at least part of the protrusion structure is accommodated in the sliding groove structure and moves in the sliding groove structure (Col. 2-3 and Fig. 1 and 5).
Claim 6. The clamping assembly according to claim 5, wherein an extension direction of the sliding groove structure is different from the second direction and the first direction (illustrated in Fig. 5).
Claim 7. The clamping assembly according to claim 5, wherein the moving module comprises two sliding groove structures (122 and 124), and the two sliding groove structures are in one-to-one correspondence with the protrusion structures of the two clamping modules (Fig. 5).
Claim 8. The clamping assembly according to claim 7, wherein included angles between the two sliding groove structures and the first direction are equal (illustrated in Fig. 5).
Claim 9. The clamping assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
Claim 11. The clamping assembly according to claim 10, wherein the two clamping modules are respectively configured to clamp two opposite first end surfaces of the material, the first end surfaces being perpendicular to the bearing surface (Fig. 1-4).
Claim 12. The clamping assembly according to claim 10, wherein the second direction and the first direction are both parallel to the bearing surface; and/or wherein the material is an electrode assembly in a battery cell. The Examiner notes that the conjunction “and/or” is understood to mean either the first and second joined phrases, or either the first phrase or the second phrase. The Examiner is interpreting as the “or” part of the conjunction and selecting the first phrase.
Claim 14. A conveying mechanism (previously cited robotic arm), comprising: the clamping assembly according to claim 1 (Col. 3, Ln 60-61).
Claim 15. The conveying mechanism according to claim 14, wherein the conveying mechanism further comprises: a driving assembly (18 and 20) configured to apply a driving force to the clamping assembly, wherein the clamping assembly is configured to release the material under action of the driving force (Col. 3-4 and Fig. 1).
Claim 16. A device (robotic arm and 10) capable of being used for assembling a battery cell, comprising: the conveying mechanism according to claim 14, wherein the conveying mechanism is capable of conveying components of the battery cell to be assembled between different workstations (different workstations are implicitly disclosed in the statement, “[a]fter the desired operation or operations are performed, the workpiece is transferred by the robot, then released by the gripper 10”) (Col. 4, Ln. 7-9).
With respect to the limitations that have been cited as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structures cited in the art of record as disclosing or teaching these limitations are either structurally similar to the respective structure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure or perform the same claimed function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure;
Williams et al. (US 2010/0052348).
Kempter (US 2016/0245380).
Hubbard et al. (US 4,898,416).
Chin et al. (US 4,913,481).
Bertini (US 5,967,581).
Yuda (US 4,723,806).
Borcea et al. (US 4,593,948).
Tseng et al. (US 2020/0353597).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/RONALD P JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652