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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 15, 2006:
Claims 2, 4-5, 11-12, 14, and 16-17 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 are pending.
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained. However, a new prior art reference is relied upon to teach/render obvious the newly cited claim limitations
All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 is dependent upon canceled claim 2, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-10, 13, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/03961854 (Xu ‘185) .
The applied reference has a common assignee/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As to claim 1, Xu ‘185 teaches a cylindrical battery electrode plate, comprising:
an electrode plate body and a plurality of tabs provided on one side of the electrode plate body, wherein multiple gap areas are provided between adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs;
each of the plurality of tabs has one or more slits respectively extending along a surface thereof, and a starting end of each of the slits is provided at an end, away from the electrode plate body;
an extending direction of each of the slits is arranged to form an included angle with an arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, and each of the plurality of tabs is divided into a plurality of sub-tabs by the slits;
wherein the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other and are obliquely arranged on the arrangement direction of a respective one of the plurality of tabs, a width of each of the multiple gap areas is unequal, one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to the plurality of sub-tabs of each of the plurality of tabs, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs of each of the plurality of tabs and the stepped portion, the plurality of sub-tabs of each of the plurality of tabs are obliquely arranged on the stepped portion, horizontal heights of the plurality of tabs increase sequentially along the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, tops of outer ring tabs of the plurality of tabs are stacked over tops of the inner ring tabs of the plurality of tabs to form stepped electrical connection areas (figs. 3-4; para 0038-0044, 0054-0063) (note also fig. 3 of the prior art and fig. 5 of the instant application show the same alignment).
As to claim 3, Xu ‘185 teach the widths of adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are equal or unequal (fig. 4).
As to claim 8, Xu ‘185 teaches the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits is 10-85° (fig. 4).
As to claim 9, Xu ‘185 teaches the cylindrical battery electrode plate according to claim 1 (plate of claim 1 set forth above, incorporated herein but not reiterated here for brevity’s sake) (fig. 1).
As to claim 10, Xu ‘185 teaches wherein a plurality of positive tabs and a plurality of negative tabs of the cylindrical battery are located on a same side of the cylindrical battery (figs. 1 and 3 indicate this by the split electrode tabs at opposing portions of the same side).
As to claim 13, Xu ‘185 teaches the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits is 10-85° (fig. 4).
As to claim 15, Xu ‘185 teach the widths of adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are equal or unequal (fig. 4).
As to claim 20, Xu ‘185 teaches the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits is 10-85° (fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0372153 (Chai et al.) in view of US 2024/0222812 (Xu et al.) and US 2023/0268620 (Lee et al.).
As to claim 1, Chai et al. teach a cylindrical battery electrode plate (figs. 3-5), comprising:
an electrode plate body (positive electrode plate [10A}) and a plurality of tabs (positive electrode tabs [20]) provided on one side of the electrode plate body, wherein multiple gap areas are provided between adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs (fig. 4);
each of the plurality of tabs has one or more slits respective extending along a surface thereof, and a starting end of each of the slits is provided at an end, away from the electrode plate body (seen in fig. 4 indicated by the segments; seen also in fig. 6);
an extending direction of each of the slits is arranged to form an included angle with an arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs (generally perpendicular, as seen in figs. 4, 6), and each of the plurality of tabs is divided into a plurality of sub-tabs by the slits (as seen in figs. 4, 6).
wherein the extending direction of the slits are parallel to each other (figs. 4-5), a width of each of the multiple gap areas is unequal (see fig. 4, which shows measurements with respect to “b1”; see also winding effect in fig. 6),
Chai et al. do not teach (a) that the slits are obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs, (b) one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to the plurality of sub-tabs, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion, (c) the plurality of sub-tabs are obliquely arranged on the stepped portion, or (d) horizontal heights of the plurality of tabs increase sequentially along the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, tops of outer ring tabs of the plurality of tabs are stacked over tops of the inner ring tabs of the plurality of tabs to form stepped electrical connection areas.
With respect to (a), Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622], wherein the edges [26211, 26222] are obliquely arranged with respect to the direction of the tabs (an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs – specifically an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is that such a shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have tabs obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs – specifically an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) – in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the oblique arrangement rendered obvious).
With respect to (b), Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] (stepped portion) and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body) and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0127-0128). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (and thus would stop at the stepped portion).
With respect to (c), the combination renders the limitation (wherein the plurality of sub-tabs are obliquely arranged on the stepped portion) obvious, as Chai et al. teach the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab (figs. 4, 6), wherein this limitation is applied to the tab of Xu et al. wherein the “sub-tab” portion (second part [2622]) is obliquely arranged on the stepped portion (first part [2621]) (an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (figs. 8-9; para 0127-0128). See above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
With respect to (d), Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor (electrode tabs), teach horizontal heights of the plurality of tabs increase sequentially along the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, tops of outer ring tabs of the plurality of tabs are stacked over tops of the inner ring tabs of the plurality of tabs to form stepped electrical connection areas (figs. 3, 5A-5C; para 0031-0034). The motivation for having horizontal heights of the plurality of tabs increase sequentially along the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, tops of outer ring tabs of the plurality of tabs are stacked over tops of the inner ring tabs of the plurality of tabs to form stepped electrical connection areas is to allow for welding through a compaction process (para 0046-0047). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have horizontal heights of the plurality of tabs increase sequentially along the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, tops of outer ring tabs of the plurality of tabs are stacked over tops of the inner ring tabs of the plurality of tabs to form stepped electrical connection areas to allow for welding through a compaction process. At the very least, substituting horizontal heights of the plurality of tabs increase sequentially along the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, tops of outer ring tabs of the plurality of tabs are stacked over tops of the inner ring tabs of the plurality of tabs to form stepped electrical connection areas for tabs with the same height would yield the predictable result of providing electrical connection (para 0031, 0034), wherein the substituted components and functions were known in the art (as in Lee et al., para 0031, 0034). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute horizontal heights of the plurality of tabs increase sequentially along the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs, tops of outer ring tabs of the plurality of tabs are stacked over tops of the inner ring tabs of the plurality of tabs to form stepped electrical connection areas for tabs with the same height would yield the predictable result of providing electrical connection (para 0031, 0034), wherein the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 3, Chai et al. teach widths of adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are equal or unequal (see fig. 4, which shows measurements with respect to “b1”; see also winding effect in fig. 6).
As to claim 6, Chai et al. teach the widths of a part of the plurality of tabs provided along one side of the electrode plate body are equal (fig. 4 shows that some of the different tabs are equal).
As to claim 7, Chai et al. either (a) teaches in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs has an equal width, or (b) at the very least renders such a feature obvious.
Regarding (a): Equal sub-tabs can be seen in fig. 4, as compared to the given length of b1 (para 0134). Additionally figs. 6 and 10 show alignment of the tabs indicates that indicates each sub-tab segment is the same.
Regarding (b): If it is shown that in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs does not have an equal width, at the very least the limitation would be obvious over the teaching in fig. 4, as compared to a given length of b1 (para 0134). The proportion of the tabs shows that each sub-tab per tabs is approximately equal (and that adding a sub-tab lengthens a tab (para 0135), such any differences within the sub-tab length within a tab would be obvious. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 8, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits 10-85°.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) is provide for a shape such that a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have tabs arranged at an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are at the same angle as Ɵ2), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the angled tab, rendering the limitation obvious). Note: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 9, Chai et al. teach a cylindrical battery (fig. 6; title), comprising the cylindrical battery electrode plate according to claim 1 (see the rejection to claim 1 for details therein, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
As to claim 10, Chai et al. teach a plurality of positive tabs [20] and a plurality of negative tabs [30] of the cylindrical battery are located on a same side of the cylindrical battery (fig. 6; para 0133).
As to claim 13, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits 10-85°.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) is provide for a shape such that a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have tabs arranged at an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are at the same angle as Ɵ2), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the angled tab, rendering the limitation obvious). Note: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 15, Chai et al. teach wherein widths of adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are equal or unequal (see fig. 4, which shows measurements with respect to “b1”; see also winding effect in fig. 6).
As to claim 18, Chai et al. teach the widths of a part of the plurality of tabs provided along one side of the electrode plate body are equal (fig. 4 shows that some of the different tabs are equal).
As to claim 19, Chai et al. either (a) teaches in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs has an equal width, or (b) at the very least renders such a feature obvious.
Regarding (a): Equal sub-tabs can be seen in fig. 4, as compared to the given length of b1 (para 0134). Additionally figs. 6 and 10 show alignment of the tabs indicates that indicates each sub-tab segment is the same.
Regarding (b): If it is shown that in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs does not have an equal width, at the very least the limitation would be obvious over the teaching in fig. 4, as compared to a given length of b1 (para 0134). The proportion of the tabs shows that each sub-tab per tabs is approximately equal (and that adding a sub-tab lengthens a tab (para 0135), such any differences within the sub-tab length within a tab would be obvious. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 20, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits 10-85°.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) is provide for a shape such that a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have tabs arranged at an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are at the same angle as Ɵ2), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the angled tab, rendering the limitation obvious). Note: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention allows for uniform spreading and flattening of all sub-tabs from a single direction, which is achieved by the obliquely arranged slits, which is not obvious over Chai (straight silts) and Xu (oblique arrangement of tabs).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs which would be applied to the oblique arrangement rendered obvious. Thus the argument is piecemeal analysis that fails to take the combination into consideration. 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).
Applicant argues that the combination does not suggest the synergistic combination of the structure to ensure uniform spreading/flattening from one side while preventing metal shavings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the combination does not suggest the synergistic combination of the structure to ensure uniform spreading/flattening from one side while preventing metal shavings, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, no unxepcted results has been shown. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the height coordination is not taught.
Examiner submits that Lee et al. is relied upon to render obvious the newly cited claim limitations (see fig. 3). Thus the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights