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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1-3 as amended. Claims 1-14 remain pending examination.
The amendment to claims 2 and 3 obviates the previously indicated objection to the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses, with respect to claim 1, the Shimazoe reference in that claim 1 “now recites that a top edge of the spatter block jig is below a bottom surface of the upper jig” and that “the spatter jig is completely within the lower jig.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim language appears to be broader than Applicant’s contention.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3C of Shimazoe
Shimazoe illustrates a top edge of the spatter block jig is below a bottom surface of the upper jig. Figure 3C shows an assembly step in which the upper jig 401 is placed above the spatter block jig 401 such that the top edge of 401 is below the bottom surface of 301. The claims do not recite, nor are limited to, the top edge of the splatter block jig being below the bottom surface of the upper jig in a assembled state. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes arrangements in which, during assembly, the upper jig is being assembled onto the spatter block jig.
As best understood, by Applicant’s position that the “spatter jig is completely within the lower jig,” the idea seems to be for the spatter block jig to be completely within the lower recess of the lower jig. If so, then this would provide a structural distinction over the Shimazoe reference, as well as, the Savitski reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savitski (US2020/0009798).
Regarding claim 1, Savitski teaches a laser cutting apparatus (para. 0002; laser welding system) (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a lower jig (lowering clamping plate 112/122) configured to support a first side of an object (110/111) to be cut by a laser beam (beam 120);
an upper jig (upper clamping plate 114) configured to support a second side of the object (110/111);
a laser nozzle (laser assembly 200 including laser head 212) configured to emit the laser beam (120) towards a cutting region of the object (110/111; Fig. 3) (The “cutting region” is understood to refer to the processing region of the laser beam 120 which includes the area defined between the output of laser head 212 and the bottom surface 115 of the object.) and
PNG
media_image2.png
714
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Savitski (annotated)
a spatter block jig (clamping plate 113) locatable between a body part of the object and the cutting region of the object (As defined above, plate 113 is located, at least partially, between the object and the processing region),
wherein the lower jig comprises a lower recess (cavity 112a) configured to receive the body part of the object and the spatter block jig (Under broadest reasonable interpretation “receive” is defined as “to bear the weight or force of; support.” See thefreedicitonary.com/receive, viewed on 07/15/2026. In this case, the cavity 112a is configured to support the object 110/111 and, at least partially, plate 113. Para. 0021 describes recess 119 of plate 113 engaging the object in which plate 113 provides a clamping force onto the object. As such, cavity 112a would, at least partially, support the load from 113.)
and wherein a top edge of the spatter block jig is below a bottom surface of the upper jig (Fig. 1 shows 113 below 114).
Regarding claim 13, Savitski teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the laser nozzle (212) is vertically aligned with a space between the spatter block jig (113) and a side wall of the lower recess (112a) (Fig. 2-3).
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimazoe (US20200139486).
Regarding claim 1, Shimazoe teaches a laser cutting (intended use; MPEP 2111.02-II) apparatus (Figs. 1 and 3A-3D) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
426
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Shimazoe (annotated)
a lower jig (base jig 201) configured to support a first side of an object (51) to be cut by a laser beam (LB);
an upper jig (main jig 301) configured to support a second side of the object (51);
a laser nozzle (501) configured to emit the laser beam (LB) towards a cutting region of the object (51); and
a spatter block jig (jig 401) locatable between a body part of the object and the cutting region of the object (jig 401, which is structurally capable of at least partially blocking spatter, is positioned, at least partially, between the body of 51 and the irradiation region),
wherein the lower jig (201) comprises a lower recess (recess defined by 202 and 203) configured to receive the body part of the object (202 receives 51) and the spatter block jig (203 receives 402 of jig 401).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3C of Shimazoe
Shimazoe additionally teaches a top edge of the spatter block jig is below a bottom surface of the upper jig (Fig. 3C shows an assembly step in which the upper jig 401 is placed above the spatter block jig 401 such that the top edge of 401 is below the bottom surface of 301. The claims do not recite, nor are limited to, the top edge of the splatter block jig being below the bottom surface of the upper jig in a assembled state. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes arrangements in which, during assembly, the upper jig is being assembled onto the spatter block jig).
Regarding claim 2, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the spatter block jig (401) has an inner recess region (402, which is recessed from circumference of 403) configured to accommodate the object (para. 0038), the spatter block jig being placeable inside the lower recess of the lower jig, (Figs. 3B-D) wherein the upper jig (301) is configured to cover the lower jig (201), the upper jig (301) being configured to support, along with the lower jig (201), the upper and lower portions of the first side of the cutting region of the object (51) to fix the object (Fig. 1), and
PNG
media_image3.png
426
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Shimazoe (annotated)
wherein a side wall of the spatter block jig, which defines a perimeter of the inner recess region (circumference of 402) of the spatter block jig (401), is configured to be between the body part of the object (51) and the cutting region of the object (the outer wall of 402 is positioned, at least partially, between 51 and the irradiating regions. For instance, the outer wall of 402 is between the leftmost irradiating region and the rightmost portion of 51 residing in recess 202. Similarly, the outer wall of 403 is positioned, partially, between the irradiating regions and the body of 51. For instance, the outer wall of 43 is positioned between the leftmost irradiating region and the body of 51 adjacent to 402).
Regarding claim 3, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, and further teaches wherein the side wall of the spatter block jig (402) is configured to block spatter moving towards the body part of the object in the cutting region of the object during cutting with the laser beam (402 is positioned such that it would, at least partially, block any splatter from the irradiation region from reaching the workpiece 51. See also MPEP 2112 and 2114. The claim is not limited to any particular structural arrangement. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that 402, being positioned above and, partially, in between the workpiece and the laser beam would also, without further modification, be able to block splatter that may arise during processing of the workpiece)
Regarding claim 4, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches wherein the side wall of the spatter block jig (402) is disposable below the cutting region of the object (Figs. 1 and 3A-D; a portion of 402 is below the irradiation region), and wherein an upper portion of the side wall of the spatter block jig is formed in an upwardly tapered shape (inclined region 403a).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Shimazoe (annotated)
Regarding claim 5, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, and further teaches wherein a side wall of the lower jig, which defines a perimeter of the lower recess of the lower jig (outer wall of jig 201), is spaced apart from the side wall of the spatter block jig (outer wall of jig 402) such that the cutting region (irradiation region) of the object is interposable therebetween (see Fig. 1, above).
PNG
media_image4.png
492
738
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3C of Shimazoe (annotated)
Regarding claim 6, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, and further teaches wherein a portion forming an inner perimeter of the upper jig has a right triangular shape in cross-section, and wherein a portion defining an outer perimeter of the lower jig has a quadrangular shape in cross-section (As shown above. Figure 3C shows a cross sectional view of the upper, lower, and splatter jigs. The upper annotated region is shown to indicate a portion of the upper jig that has a right triangular shape. The lower annotated region is shown to indicate a portion of the lower jig that has a rectangular shape.).
PNG
media_image5.png
492
738
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 3C of Shimazoe (annotated)
Regarding claim 7, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, and further teaches wherein the object is an L-shaped metal battery case (the object is not positively recited as a structural component of the claimed apparatus. Rather, the object is the workpiece that the claimed apparatus processes. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).), and wherein the inner recess region of the spatter block jig is L-shaped (the inner recess region, at least partially, defines an L-shape).
Regarding claim 8, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 7, and further teaches wherein the cutting region of the object is located in an edge of the L-shaped metal battery case (the object is not positively recited as a structural component of the claimed apparatus. Rather, the object is the workpiece that the claimed apparatus processes. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).) (The irradiating region of Shimazoe is located in an edge portion of the workpiece), and wherein the upper jig and the lower jig are configured to hold a portion of the object outside the cutting region by vertically pressing the portion (Jigs 201 and 301 are shown in Figures 1 and 3D holding a portion of the object that is outside the irradiating region such that the workpiece is pressed via clamps 351).
PNG
media_image6.png
394
518
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Shimazoe (annotated)
Regarding claim 13, Shimazoe teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the laser nozzle (501) is vertically aligned with a space between the spatter block jig (401) and a side wall (the laser beam is incident at a region that lies, at least partially, between splatter jig 401 and a side wall of recess 202/203. As such, the laser nozzle is vertically aligned with this space.) of the lower recess (202/203)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazoe in view of Savitski et al. (US 20200009798).
Regarding claim 9, Shimazoe teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, except for wherein the lower jig and the upper jig have lower screw holes and upper screw holes in a region outside the lower recess, respectively, and wherein the upper jig and the lower jig are screw-coupled through the upper screw holes and the lower screw holes to fix the object.
Savitski relates to a clamping structure that secures a workpiece in position during laser processing (Abstract) and teaches the clamping structure (Fig. 2) comprising an upper jig (114) and a lower jig (122), with the workpiece (110 and 111) held securely therebetween. Savitski teaches wherein the lower jig (122) and the upper jig (114) have lower screw holes and upper screw holes in a circumferential region, respectively (Fig. 2 shows an exploded view in which the screw holes in 114 and 122 are clearly visible, although unlabeled), and wherein the upper jig and the lower jig are screw-coupled through the upper and lower screw holes (Figure 2 shows an exploded view and illustrates the screws. Figure 3 shows an assembled view illustrating the upper jig and lower jig coupled together) to fix the object (110/111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimizoe with Savitski, by replacing the clamping of the upper and lower jigs and adding to a circumferential region outside the lower recess of Shimizoe, with the screw holes and screw coupling the upper and lower jigs together taught by Savitski, for in doing so would result in an alternative means for coupling the jigs together, thereby securing the workpiece therebetween. Furthermore, using the screw and screw hole coupling would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized couplers performing the same function of coupling upper and lower jigs together and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (See MPEP 2144.06-II).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazoe in view of Sawicki et al. (US 20220040796).
Regarding claims 10-12, Shimazoe teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, except for wherein at least one spatter discharge hole is located in a portion of the lower recess of the lower jig below the cutting region of the object (claim 10), wherein the at least one spatter discharge hole includes a plurality of spatter discharge holes that extend along a direction in which the cutting region of the object extends (claim 11), and wherein the at least one spatter discharge hole includes a plurality of spatter discharge holes that extend adjacent a perimeter of the lower recess (claim 12).
In an alternate embodiment, Shimazoe teaches (Fig. 6) using a vacuum suction device (471) located adjacent the lower jig and below the cutting region of the object. Shimazoe teaches that the vacuum suction device forms a negative pressure around hole 203 and acts to clamp the object (51) in place (para. 0064). In this embodiment, Shimizoe teaches a discharge hole located in a portion of the lower recess (hole 203) of the lower jig below the cutting region of the object (51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimizoe, by replacing the clamping of the upper and lower jigs of Shimizoe, with the vacuum suction device taught by Shimizoe (Fig. 6) for in doing so would result in an alternative means for coupling the jigs together, thereby securing the workpiece therebetween. Furthermore, using the vacuum suction device would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized clamping means performing the same function of securing the object (i.e., workpiece) in place and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (See MPEP 2144.06-II).
Sawicki relates to the art of laser cutting a workpiece in which the workpiece is supported and stabilized by a fixture (para. 0003) and teaches at least one spatter discharge hole (Figs. 1-3) (118) is located in the lower jig (104 or 106) below the cutting region (Figs. 4-6 show laser head 402) of the object (wafer 110), wherein the at least one spatter discharge hole (118) includes a plurality of spatter discharge holes (para. 0035; “any suitable number of holes”) that extend along a direction in which the cutting region of the object extends (Figs. 1 and 3), and wherein the at least one spatter discharge hole includes a plurality of spatter discharge holes that extend adjacent a perimeter of the lower jig (Figs. 1 and 3).
Sawicki teaches (para. 0035) that the holes provide air flow to support an exhaust ventilation to carry away debris that is generated during the laser cutting as well as creating a suction effect for maintaining a position of the wafer during cutting).
Sawicki provides support for using vacuum suction to aid in maintaining position of the workpiece, as well, as to aid in the removal of debris during cutting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimizoe with Sawicki, by adding to the vacuum suction device and to a circumference region around the lower recess of the lower jig of Shimizoe, with the plurality of ventilation holes taught by Sawicki, for in doing so would further improve upon the maintaining of the positioning of the object being processed, while also providing a means to remove debris generated by the laser processing. Furthermore, duplicating the number of discharge holes amounts to the mere duplication of parts that has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-B.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazoe.
Regarding claim 14, Shimazoe teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 13, except for a discharge hole in the space between the spatter block jig and the side wall of the lower recess.
In an alternate embodiment, Shimazoe teaches (Fig. 5) using a vacuum suction device (471) located adjacent the lower jig and below the cutting region of the object. Shimazoe teaches that the vacuum suction device forms a negative pressure around hole 203 and acts to clamp the object (51) in place (para. 0064). In this embodiment, Shimizoe teaches a discharge hole located in the space between spatter block jig (401) and the side wall the lower recess (202/203) in order for the negative pressure to be communicated to the object to clamp the object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimizoe, by replacing the clamping of the upper and lower jigs of Shimizoe, with the vacuum suction device taught by Shimizoe (Fig. 6) for in doing so would result in an alternative means for coupling the jigs together, thereby securing the workpiece therebetween. Furthermore, using the vacuum suction device would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized clamping means performing the same function of securing the object (i.e., workpiece) in place and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (See MPEP 2144.06-II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights