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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/07/2026 in which claims 1-16 are pending, claim 16 is new, claims 11-14 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 3-8 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites, “wherein the second punch is independently supported from the first punch.” The first and second punch are both mounted to the guide rod 153 and carried by the common punch assembly 120. There is nothing in the originally filed specification or drawings that describes or illustrates the first punch 122 and the second punch 123 being independently supported relative to one another. Although the support plates 131 and 141 are separately moveable relative to one another and engage punches 122 and 123 respectively, the disclosure of independently movable support plates does not reasonably convey that the punches themselves are independently supported from one another as claimed. Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the “second punch being independently supported from the first punch.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach a first and second punch, wherein the first punch has a first inclination surface to form a first angled surface of the electrode sheet and a second, v-shaped punch to cut an edge of an electrode sheet to form a second angled surface on the electrode sheet and the cutting surface of the first punch extends a greater distance from a bottom surface of the punch member than a cutting surface of the second punch. Jiang (CN 205463833) is the closest prior art with a punch having two V-shaped punching ends and a straight punching portion. However, Jiang does not disclose that the cutting surface of the first punch extends a greater distance from a bottom surface of the punch member than a cutting surface of the second punch. Xu (CN 109482706) discloses a punch having a straight cutting portion and end portions inclined relative to a horizontal plane that extend beyond the straight cutting portion. Xu further teaches that the inclined portions facilitate cutting, reduced forming force and improve blade life (see paragraph [0031]). However, applying the inclined end portions with the larger extension of Xu to the punch of Jiang would merely result in the end portions of the punch extending beyond the center portion at to provide a progressive cutting action. Such a modification would not result in a first punch having a cutting surface that extends a greater distance from the bottom of the punch member than a cutting surface of a second punch as presently claimed, wherein each punch has an inclined surface.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement between Groups I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 09/30/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claims do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim and are therefore not eligible for rejoinder.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights