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 “penetrated portion (Claim 1, line 11)” and “the upper frame having a penetrated portion that is an opening through which the guide portion extends (Claim 1, lines 12-13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed September 26, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding claim 1 (lines 24-28), the phrase “wherein the mounting ring is fixed to the upper frame by an adhesive bonded between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion, the adhesive configured to fix the upper frame to the mounting ring” is new matter. Page 10, Para [58], discloses in a state in which the upper cutter and the lower cutter are disposed in completely tight contact with each other and the guide portion is perpendicular to the lower frame, therefore, a process of injecting an adhesive between the guide portion 300 and the penetrated portion of the upper frame such that bonding is achieved therebetween may be performed in order to finally fix the guide portion. Pg. 13, Para [50] discloses the guide portion 300 performs a function of guiding upward and downward movement of upper unit 100 and Page 14, Para [55] states the upper unit and the lower unit are assembly and coupled to each other using the guide portion 300. Based on the original disclosure filed October 27, 2022, disclosure is specific to injecting the adhesive between the guide portion and penetrated portion of the upper frame to bond the structures. The Examiner acknowledges the amended Specification filed September 26, 2025; however, Para [58] states “a process of injecting an adhesive between the mounting ring 300b of the guide portion 300 and an inner surface of the upper frame 130 exposed within the penetrated portion of the upper frame that is an opening through which the guide portion extends…In this manner, the mounting ring 300b is fixed to the upper frame 130 by an adhesive bond between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion, the adhesive configured to fix the upper frame to the mounting ring with the planes of the upper cutter 110 and the lower cuter 210 being parallel to one another” the newly added details introduces new matter in the attempt to further define where adhesive is injected with respect to the guide portion.. How does bonding occur if adhesive is injected within an inner surface of the upper frame within the penetrated portion? In other words, if the adhesive is in the inner surface of the penetrated portion (or opening) how does this have any bonding impact on the mounting ring? Wouldn’t the bond would be created between the inner surface of the penetrated portion and the guide shaft? There are no details to the mounting ring 300b being fixed to the upper frame by an adhesive bond between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening.
The amendments the Specification to Para [58] to the newly added subject matter “…a process of injecting an adhesive between the mounting ring 300b of the guide portion 300 and an inner surface of the upper frame 130 exposed within the penetrated portion of the upper frame that is an opening through which the guide portion extends, such that bonding is achieved therebetween may be performed in order to finally fix the guide portion. In this manner, the mounting ring 300b is fixed to the upper frame 130 by an adhesive bonded between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion, the adhesive configured to fix the upper frame to the mounting ring with the planes of the upper cutter 110 and the lower cutter 210 being parallel to one another” is new matter. Applicant is permitted to expand on existing disclosed structures, but in this instance, the disclosed subject matter to where the adhesive is injected (between the mounting ring 300b…and an inner surface of the upper frame 130 exposed within the penetrated portion of the upper frame that is an opening through which the guide portion extends” extends beyond the scope of what was originally disclosed (and supported) and introduces new matter.
Regarding claim 1 (lines 12-13), the phrase “the upper frame having a penetrated portion that is an opening through which the guide portion extends” is new matter. Claim 1, lines 8-9, discloses “the guide portion comprises a guide shaft and a mounting ring slidably coupled to the guide shaft.” If the guide portions comprises a guide shaft and mounting ring, how do both structures extend through the penetrated portion? There are no details to the mounting ring extending through the penetrated portion.
The objection can be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the upper frame having a penetrated portion that is an opening through which the guide shaft
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-4, 6, 9, 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. Regarding claim 1 (lines 24-28), the phrase “wherein the mounting ring is fixed to the upper frame by an adhesive bonded between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion, the adhesive configured to fix the upper frame to the mounting ring” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing and is new matter. Page 10, Para [58], discloses in a state in which the upper cutter and the lower cutter are disposed in completely tight contact with each other and the guide portion is perpendicular to the lower frame, therefore, a process of injecting an adhesive between the guide portion 300 and the penetrated portion of the upper frame such that bonding is achieved therebetween may be performed in order to finally fix the guide portion. Pg. 13, Para [50] discloses the guide portion 300 performs a function of guiding upward and downward movement of upper unit 100 and Page 14, Para [55] states the upper unit and the lower unit are assembly and coupled to each other using the guide portion 300. Based on the original disclosure filed October 27, 2022, disclosure is specific to injecting the adhesive between the guide portion and penetrated portion of the upper frame to bond the structures. The Examiner acknowledges the amended Specification filed September 26, 2025; however, Para [58] states “a process of injecting an adhesive between the mounting ring 300b of the guide portion 300 and an inner surface of the upper frame 130 exposed within the penetrated portion of the upper frame that is an opening through which the guide portion extends…In this manner, the mounting ring 300b is fixed to the upper frame 130 by an adhesive bond between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion, the adhesive configured to fix the upper frame to the mounting ring with the planes of the upper cutter 110 and the lower cuter 210 being parallel to one another” the newly added details introduces new matter in the attempt to further define where adhesive is injected with respect to the guide portion. How does bonding occur if adhesive is injected within an inner surface of the upper frame within the penetrated portion? In other words, if the adhesive is in the inner surface of the penetrated portion (or opening) how does this have any bonding impact on the mounting ring? Wouldn’t the bond would be created between the inner surface of the penetrated portion and the guide shaft? There are no details to the mounting ring 300b being fixed to the upper frame by an adhesive bond between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening.
Regarding claim 1 (lines 12-13), the phrase “the upper frame having a penetrated portion that is an opening through which the guide portion extends” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing and is new matter. Claim 1, lines 8-9, discloses “the guide portion comprises a guide shaft and a mounting ring slidably coupled to the guide shaft.” If the guide portions comprises a guide shaft and mounting ring, how do both structures extend through the penetrated portion? There are no details to the mounting ring extending through the penetrated portion.
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 1-4, 6, 9 and 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. Regarding claim 1 (lines 24-28), the phrase “wherein the mounting ring is fixed to the upper frame by an adhesive bonded between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion” is indefinite. It is unclear how the mounting is fixed to the upper frame by an adhesive bonded between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion. How does the adhesive bond within the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening of the penetrated portion bond the mounting ring to the upper frame? In other words, if the adhesive is injected into the opening (of the penetrated portion), how does it contact the mounting ring to fix it to the upper frame? Wouldn’t the adhesive have to be injected between the mounting ring and the upper surface of the frame to permit bonding of the mounting ring to the upper frame?
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108582256 to Lin et al. in view of US Patent No. 3,504,576 to Logan et al. and in further view of WO2017145678 to Ikeda.
In re claim 1, Lin teaches a cartridge electrode cutting assembly comprising an apparatus (capable of being) detachably attached to a main body, the electrode cutting apparatus comprising:
an upper unit (as shown in at least Figure 1) configured to be disposed above an electrode sheet when the electrode sheet is received in the electrode cutting apparatus;
a lower unit (as shown in at least Figure 1) configured to be disposed under the electrode sheet when the electrode sheet is received in the electrode cutting apparatus; and
a guide portion (3 and see Annotated Figure 1, below) configured to guide upward and downward movements of the upper unit, the guide portion comprising a guide shaft (3) and a mounting ring (see Annotated Figure 1, below) slidably coupled to the guide shaft,
wherein the upper unit comprises an upper cutter (9) configured to cut the sheet when the electrode sheet is received in the electrode cutting apparatus, an upper holder (2) to which the upper cutter is fixed, and an upper frame (4) to which the upper holder is mounted, the upper frame (4) having a penetrated portion that is an opening through which the guide portion extends, the penetrated portion having an inner surface of the upper frame (4) exposed within the opening,
wherein the lower unit (as shown in at least Figure 1) comprises a lower cutter (10) configured to cut the sheet when the electrode sheet is received in the electrode cutting apparatus and a lower frame (5) to which the lower cutter is fixed, the guide shaft (3) being (capable of being) inserted into and fixed to a recess formed in the lower frame (5) with the guide shaft (3) extending perpendicular to the lower frame (as shown in at least Figure 1),
wherein a clearance between the upper cutter (9) and the lower cutter (100 and a parallelism of respective planes defined by the upper cutter and the lower cutter are both configured to be set in a state in which the cartridge electrode cutting apparatus is (capable of being) not fixed to the main body, and the cartridge electrode cutting apparatus is (capable of being) configured to be fixed to the main body after setting of the clearance and the parallelism is completed, and
wherein the mounting ring (see Annotated Figure 1, below) is fixed to the upper frame (4).
In re claim 2, further comprising a moving unit (1) coupled to the upper frame (4) for transmitting power to moving the upper cutter (9) towards and away from the lower cutter (10).
In re claim 3, wherein the electrode sheet is disposed between the upper unit (as shown in at least Figure 1) and the lower unit (as shown in at least Figure 1) when the electrode sheet is received in the electrode cutting apparatus, and
wherein the upper cutter (10) is downwardly moveable so as to be adjacent to a front surface of the lower cutter (9) in order to cut the electrode sheet when the electrode sheet is received in the electrode cutting apparatus.
Note, the preamble is directed to an apparatus and not the electrode sheet (which in this instance is the workpiece). The apparatus of Lin merely has to be capable of cutting an electrode sheet, in which it is.
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an electrode cutting assembly having a cartridge electrode cutting apparatus, but does not teach the cartridge electrode cutting apparatus attached to a main body and wherein the electrode cutting apparatus is mounted to the main body by a sliding fastening in a state in which a clearance between the upper cutter and the lower cutter and the parallelism of respective planes defined by the upper cutter and the lower cutter are set to predetermined values.
Ikeda teaches a cartridge electrode cutting apparatus (2,5) attached to a main body (1) and wherein the electrode cutting apparatus is mounted to the main body by a sliding fastening (as shown in at least figure 1, there are a plurality of rails fastened to the main body) in a state in which a clearance between the upper cutter and the lower cutter and the parallelism of respective planes defined by the upper cutter and the lower cutter are set to predetermined values (as shown in at least Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Lin with a main body as taught by Ikeda to provide additional structural support to the cutting elements to provide additional stability and enhanced precision in order to prevent misaligned cuts.
Regarding claims 1, Lin teaches the mounting ring is fixed to the upper frame, but does no teach the mounting ring is fixed to the upper frame by an adhesive bonded between the mounting ring and the inner surface of the upper frame exposed within the opening that is the penetrated portion, the adhesive configured to fix the upper frame to the mounting ring with the planes of the upper cutter and the lower cutter being parallel to one another.
Logan provides a teaching of tool alignment between an upper and lower die during die setting (Col. 1, lines 34-47). The holes in each of the die plate (12) and punchholder (14) receive an epoxy adhesive to fix the components in a precise relationship (Col. 3, lines 71-75, Col. 4, lines 1-21).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to secure the mounting ring to the upper frame of Lin via an epoxy adhesive as taught by Logan to provide a precision cutter set utilizing components that are not entirely precision finished (Col. 5, lines 26-30). One having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that there are numerous known mechanical fasteners used to adhere and/or attach corresponding structures. One having ordinary skill in the art would possesses the knowledge of such various fasteners, including, but not limited to screw fasteners and adhesives. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of using adhesive rather than another known mechanical fastener, based on the desired attachment outcome (and use of the device).
In re claim 9, modified Lin teaches wherein the upper frame and the lower frame are directly coupled to the main body (as shown in at least Figure 1, Ikeda).
In re claim 10, modified Lin teaches wherein, for a sliding fastening of the electrode cutting apparatus, a handle (12, Ikeda) is attached to one end of the electrode cutting apparatus in a major-axis direction.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Logan, and in further view of Ikeda, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of EP2452790 to Pisarski et al.
In re claim 4, modified Lin teaches a cutting apparatus, but does not teach a gripper located at respective front parts of the upper cutter and the lower cutter, the gripper being configured to guide movement of the electrode sheet.
Pisarski teaches a gripper (8) for transporting a sheet to various stages of a machine.
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Lin with a gripper carriage as taught by Pisarski for precise alignment into the cutting apparatus (Pg. 2, lines 2-17).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Logan and in further view of Ikeda, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20190030923 to Sudo.
In re claim 6, modified Lin teaches wherein the upper cuter has a cutting edge, but does not teach the upper cutter is double-edged in which a central portion of the upper cutter is short and opposite ends of the upper cutter are long.
Sudo teaches an upper cutter is double-edged (22b, Para 0041) in which a central portion of the upper cutter is short and the opposite ends of the upper cutter are long.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Lin with a V-shaped blade as taught by Sudo to cut from both sides without skewing the paper. Providing Lin with a V-shaped blade as taught by Sudo is an obvious design choice (of blade shape) based on (the following factors, but not limited to) the desired final cut and material being cut.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection in the Office Action mailed June 27, 2025 have been maintained.
The specification objection in the Office Action mailed June 27, 2025 has been obviated by the amendments filed September 26, 2025.
The 112, second paragraph rejections have been overcome by the amendments filed September 26, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724