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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1-6, 8-9, and 12 as amended and claims 13-14 as added. Claims 1-14 remain pending examination.
The amendment to claim 5 obviates the previously indicated objection to the same.
The amendment to claims 1 and 8 obviate the previously indicated rejections under 35 USC 112 (b).
The amendment to claim 1 obviates the rejection of the same under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) to He.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a body part” in claim 2 should be “the body part” since “a body part” is introduced in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant traverses Shimazoe in that the “recess 203 receives pin 402 of splatter block 401” and that a recess defined by 202, 203 “is different than the recess receiving the pin 402.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “lower recess” is taken as the recess defined by the downward curve of 202 and hole 203. Here, a portion of object 51 is received in 202 (See Figures 3A-3B). Additionally, paragraph 0032 of Shimazoe states the placing surface 202 of lower jig 201 “allows for placement of the overlapped separators 51.” Similarly, paragraph 0033 of Shimazoe describes placing surface 202 of the base jig 202 as being “provided with a pin hole 203” that receives a portion of the splatter blog jig (see also Figs. 3b and 3c).
For such reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claim 1 is anticipated by Shimazoe.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-14 are respectively anticipated by or rendered obvious by the prior art of record for the reasons detailed herein.
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) 1-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimazoe et al. (US20200139486).
Regarding claim 1, Shimazoe teaches a laser cutting (intended use; MPEP 2111.02-II) apparatus (Figs. 1 and 3A-3D) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
426
546
media_image1.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).
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_image1.png
426
546
media_image1.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 a 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_image1.png
426
546
media_image1.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_image2.png
492
738
media_image2.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_image3.png
492
738
media_image3.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_image4.png
394
518
media_image4.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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 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
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 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