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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I: claims 1 and 10 in the reply filed on 4/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 103
Regarding applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner provided rationale for the motivations to combine Choi in view of Sakurai in the rejections of 11/14/2025, 5/29/2025, and the rejection herein.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards “using the second laser beam to remove the second active material located on the other side of the to-be-cut part while performing the step of performing laser cutting on the to-be-cut part at the preset position to cut off the to-be-cut part”, the claims are broad enough to be read on by the art of Choi in view of Sakurai. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a top and bottom side) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, applicant’s arguments that Choi does not teach this is accurate, the examiner relies on Sakurai to teach “using the second laser beam to remove the second active material located on the other side of the to-be-cut part while performing the step of performing laser cutting” as indicated in the rejections of 11/14/2025, 5/29/2025, and the rejection herein.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that per par. 32, the active functional materials of the instant application are “a carrier aluminum foil of the positive plate, and the first active material and the second active material are, for example, ternary positive electrode materials (lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode materials)”. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the argued language is not in the specification of the instant application and is the reason for the 112(a) rejections herein. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a carrier aluminum foil of the positive plate, and the first active material and the second active material are, for example, ternary positive electrode materials (lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode materials)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Sakurai includes negative active materials and not positive active materials, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that in absence of the disclosure of the structure of an active material, the application for a layer to be used as a negative or positive electrode are considered a recitation of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that separator sheets 56 and 55 of Sakurai are inappropriate as active materials because Sakurai does not involve the removal of active materials at all, the examiner respectfully notes that the structure of an active material is not positively recited in the claims nor specification of the instant application and therefore is left open to broad interpretation. See claim interpretation section herein. Therefore, the examiner considers the rejection to stand.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant has not linked an active material to being part of a battery or the like and has not disclosed a material or structure that makes the “active material” active. As such, the term “active material” is interpreted broadly in the rejection herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 10 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.
The recitation of a “active material” is unclear in the specification and claims because 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways a material can be considered active. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “active material”.
The recitation of a “positive active material” is unclear in the specification and claims because 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways a material can be considered positive and active. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “positive active material”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190267608A1 Choi in view of US 11267077 B2 Sakurai.
Regarding claim 1,
Choi teaches, except where struck through,
A laser cutting method (par. 2), comprising steps of:
removing an active material (active material layer 112) on a surface of a preset position of a to-be-cut part (current collector 111) (active material layer removing step (S2));
and performing laser cutting on the to-be-cut part at the preset position (cut portion 111a) to cut off the to-be-cut part (cutting step S3 and par. 30 teach “Accordingly, portions of the active material layer 112 formed on the top and bottom surfaces of the current collector plate 111 are removed”);
wherein the to-be-cut part is of a sheet shape (figs. 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 4), and two sides of the to-be-cut part are oppositely provided with a first active material and a second active material (fig. 2a teaches slot die 20 providing active material 112 to a top and bottom side of current collector plate 111), and the step of removing an active material on a surface of a preset position of a to-be-cut part comprises:
using a first laser beam to perform laser irradiation on the preset position of the to-be-cut part to remove the first active material located on one side of the to-be-cut part (topside first laser part 30)(par. 30 teaches “In the active material layer removing step (S2), the laser beam generated from the first laser part 30 is irradiated to the current collector plate 111 having the active material layer 112 formed thereon to remove a portion of the active material layer 112”);
wherein the step of performing laser cutting on the to-be-cut part at the preset position to cut off the to-be-cut part comprises:
using a second laser beam (second laser part 40) to cut off the to-be-cut part (par. 31 teaches “Therefore, if the current collector plate 111 from which the active material layer has been removed by the first laser part 30 is transferred to a position of the second laser part 40 by the winding roller 50, as shown in FIGS. 2E and 2F, the second laser part 40 irradiates a laser beam to cut the current collector plate 111”);
wherein the laser cutting method further comprises:
Choi does not teach using the second laser beam to remove the second active material located on the other side of the to-be-cut part while performing the step of performing laser cutting on the to-be-cut part at the preset position to cut off the to-be-cut part; wherein an energy density of the first laser beam is less than an energy density of the second laser beam..
Sakurai teaches, using a low power laser beam L1 to remove separator sheet 56 and the method of using the second laser beam (L2) to remove the second active material (separator sheet 55) located on the other side of the to-be-cut part (negative electrode sheet 52) while performing the step of performing laser cutting on the to-be-cut part at the preset position to cut off the to-be-cut part (column 12 lines 44 through 67 and column 13 lines 1 through 36 teach irradiating with Laser beam L1 to remove separator sheet 56 then using L2 to remove and cut 53A, 54, 53B, and 55); wherein an energy density of the first laser beam is less than an energy density of the second laser beam (Sakurai teaches in table 1 that the first laser has an output power of 100W and spot size of 50µm where laser 2 has an output power of 700W and a spot size of 50µm, therefore, laser 1 has a lower energy density than laser 2).
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the Choi reference, with the teachings of Sakurai such that the second laser beam of Choi removes the second active material located on the other side of the to-be-cut part while performing the step of performing laser cutting on the to-be-cut part at the preset position to cut off the to-be-cut part; wherein an energy density of the first laser beam is less than an energy density of the second laser beam by eliminating the use of the additional first laser part 30 located on the bottom surface of the current collector 111 for the purpose of providing the advantage to cut a negative electrode sheet (Sakurai column 13 lines 37) to suppress formation of raised portions on upper surfaces of the separator sheets 56, 55 near the cut surfaces of the separator sheets (column 14 lines 15 through 19).
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches
wherein the to-be-cut part is a positive plate (current collector plate 111), and the active material is a positive active material (active material layer 112)(par. 26 teaches “Here, the electrode plate may be, for example, a positive electrode plate, but all features of the following description can also be applied to a negative electrode plate as well”, par. 31 teaches “Accordingly, the manufacture of the electrode plate 110 (positive electrode plate) is completed”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761