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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Application CN2024101671261 dated 02/06/2024 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this Chinese application on 09/10/2025.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, “characterizedby” should read--characterized by--.
Claim 1, line 2, “isarranged on” should read --is arranged on--.
Claim 1, line 3, “The battery string transmission device” should read --the battery string transmission device--.
In claims 1-10, dot should be added after claim numbers.
Claim 1, line 18, “The frame” should read --the frame--.
Claim 1, line 21, “The controller” should read --the controller--.
Claim 2, line 4, “The support frame” should read --the support frame--.
Claim 3, line 3, “The positioning groove” should read --a positioning groove--.
Claim 3, line 4, “The lower part” should read --the lower part--.
Claim 4, line 7, “A conveyor belt” should read --a conveyor belt--.
Claim 5, line 4, “the typesetting base.” Should read --the typesetting base;--.
Claim 5, lines 9-10, “A typesetting rotary motor” should read --a typesetting rotary motor--.
Claim 7, “A visual chute” in lines 3-4, should read --a visual chute--.
Claim 7, “A plurality of vision mounting brackets” in line 6, should read --a plurality of vision mounting brackets--.
Claim 9, “The film sucking guide rail is sliding connected” in line 4, should read --the film sucking guide rail is slidably connected--.
Claim 9, lines 8-9, “is sliding installed” should read --is slidably installed--.
Claim 9, line 9, “A sheet sucking workbench” should read --a sheet sucking workbench--.
Claim 9, line 10, “A vertical suction support” should read --a vertical suction support--.
Claim 10, line 3, “A junction box” should read --a junction box--.
Claim 10, “The junction box” in lines 6-7 should read --the junction box--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation “The battery string transmission device” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because this limitation is not previously recited in the claim. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --a battery string transmission device--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the typesetting rectification device” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because this limitation is not previously recited in the claim. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --a typesetting rectification device --.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the beam” in lines 7, 8, 13 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the beam is the same as cross beam previously claimed or is different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same and this limitation is interpreted to be --the cross beam--.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a beam track installed on a beam” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the beam is the same as the cross beam of claim 1 or is different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same and this limitation is interpreted to be -- a beam track installed on the cross beam--.
Also “the beam” in line 4 has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a vision bracket installed on a beam” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the beam is the same as cross beam previously claimed or is different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same and this limitation is interpreted to be --a vision bracket installed on the cross beam--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the beam” in two instances in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the beam is the same as cross beam previously claimed or is different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same and this limitation is interpreted to be --the cross beam--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The film suction mechanism” in in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if applicant intended to claim “sheet suction mechanism” previously recited or is different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The series welding mechanism” in in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Limitations “battery string welding device” and “string welding mechanism” are previously recited, but it is not clear if this limitation is referring to them or is different.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electromagnetic welding assembly” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because it is not clear if applicant intended to claim “an electromagnetic welding component” previously recited or this is different.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the control device” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a rotary lifting typesetting mechanism” in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “rotary lifting typesetting mechanism” is earlier recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a vision mechanism” in line 23. It is not clear if this is the same as “visual mechanism” earlier recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a vacuum receiving plate assembly” in line 23. It is not clear if this is the same as “vacuum receiving plate component” earlier recited in the claim or is different. Also see “a vacuum receiving plate” in claim 8.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a sheet suction mechanism” in lines 23-24. It is not clear if this is the same as “sheet suction mechanism” and “film suction mechanism” earlier recited in the claim or is different.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a string welding mechanism” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a string welding mechanism” is earlier recited in line 14.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the battery string transmission mechanism” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if it is the same as “battery string transmission device” earlier recited in line 3 of the claim or is different.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the receiving mechanism”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of groups of receiving mechanisms” in lines 4-5. It is not clear if the claimed “receiving mechanism” is one of the plurality of groups of receiving mechanisms.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the driving motor is connected with a gear box in a transmission way” in lines 4-5, which is unclear what “transmission way” is.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the driving motor in a transmission way”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “transmission way” is earlier recited in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a transmission way” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “transmission way” is earlier recited in claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “The lower part of the material receiving seat is provided with a threaded hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “material receiving seat” and its “lower part” are not earlier recited.
Claims 4 and 5 recite limitations “transmission connection” and “a transmission connection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the upper end face of the support frame is provided with a chute”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “upper end face” is not earlier recited. Also “the bottom of the chute” should read --a bottom of the chute--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the receiving seat”. Claim 2 recites “the material receiving seat”. It is clear if they are the same or different.
Claim 3 recites “the lower end of the clamping seat” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “lower end” is not earlier recited.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the positioning rail” in last two line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the supporting frame” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if “the supporting frame” is different than “support frame” and “frame” of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an infrared sensor facing the inner side of the frame”. It is not clear which frame is claimed (supporting frame, frame, support frame or conveying frame).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a conveying motor” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a conveying motor” is earlier recited in line 4 of the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “transmission shafts” in last line There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 earlier recites --a transmission shaft--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the upper part of the typesetting mounting vertical plate” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “upper part” is not earlier recited.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the lower end of the rotary shaft” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “lower end” is not earlier recited.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the lower end of the typesetting rack” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “lower end” is not earlier recited.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the typesetting mounting rack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 earlier recites “the typesetting rack, typesetting mounting frame, typesetting mounting vertical plate and typesetting mounting transverse plate”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the typesetting sucker group” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites “a plurality of typesetting sucker groups”. It is not clear if claim 6 is claiming one of the typesetting sucker groups of claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the lower part of the typesetting rack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites “lower end of the typesetting rack”. It is not clear if they are the same or different.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the lower part of the typesetting rack and provided with typesetting suckers, and a plurality of typesetting suckers are installed on the typesetting sucker bracket” which has antecedent basis issues for all three underlines limitations.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the top of the vision bracket”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the side of the visual bracket”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “A plurality of vision mounting brackets are installed on the additional vision mounting bracket”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if this is different than “visual bracket” earlier recited in the claim and “additional vision mounting bracket” is not earlier recited.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a deviation correction camera is installed in each of the vision mounting brackets”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “The frame is provided with a vacuum generator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear which frame is claimed (supporting frame, frame or vacuum receiving frame). Also “a vacuum generator” is earlier recited in claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the vacuum generator communicates with each vacuum channel through a pipeline”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Because “pipeline” is earlier recited in claim 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the mobile film sucking base”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the film sucking linear motor transmission”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “film sucking linear motor” earlier recited in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the lower two sides of the suction plate support” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the suction plate moving support” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 9 earlier recites “two suction plate moving supports”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the two sheet sucking sliding seats”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the suction table” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the top of the vertical suction support” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “The lower part of the suction lifting seat” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the lower part of each suction transverse bar” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “The sheet suction vacuum generator is installed on the sheet suction workbench, and the sheet suction vacuum generator communicates with each sheet suction cup through a pipeline”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the lower part of the welding lifting workbench”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “The electromagnetic welding driving plate is electrically connected with the electromagnetic welding joint” in last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if applicant intended to claim –an electromagnetic welding driving plate of the plurality of electromagnetic welding driving plates is electrically connected with an electromagnetic welding joint of the electromagnetic welding joints--.
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.
Insomuch as the claims are best understood, especially in view of the Section 112 second paragraph rejections, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN 206947369 U) in view of Jeon (US 20240410968 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) an all-in-one machine for typesetting and welding battery strings (abstract “automatic battery string series welding in existing technique, typesetting machine independently set”; Figs. 1-6); Zhong teaches all elements of claim 1 including a controller.
PNG
media_image1.png
108
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Zhong does not teach rotary lifting mechanism.
PNG
media_image2.png
1752
1890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jeon teaches a welding machine with rotation base 120 in center of seven operating units including welding unit 400, inspection unit (500, 600) so that the workpiece is rotated fore different operations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use rotary mechanism of Jeon in device of Zhong for sequential operations on the workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights