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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last paragraph of claim 1 “at least one of the first side of the punch and the die have” should read -- at least one of the first side of the punch and the die has--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1, line 12-13 “a second side of the punch and the die, the second sides facing each other” is confusing. First, the second side is a side between the punch and the die, right? Second, “the second sides facing each other” is confusing. It appears a plurality of the second sides. How many second sides in the claimed invention? If the second side is a side between the punch and the die, it appears an end surface of the die and an end surface of the punch facing to each other. Verification is required. Claim 2 has the same issue “the second side”.
Claim 4, the last paragraph “the hook…the second direction” is unclear since the hook 450, Figure 9 is biased by a spring 444 in a direction horizontally (the first direction as discussed in claim 1).
Claim 6 “a vertical direction” is unclear. Is the vertical direction as same as the second direction, right? Claim 10 has the same issue.
Claim 8 “wherein the lower block has a second elastic member in the second direction” is unclear and conflicted with figure 9 that shows the second elastic member 444 is the horizonal direction or the 1st direction as defined in claim 1.
As the claims are written, the first, second, vertical directions are confusing since claim 1 “an upper plate assembly comprising a punch facing toward the die configured to move with respect to the die in a second direction” that is the vertical direction as seen in Figures 8-9.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGill (US 0557142 A).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, McGill shows a notching apparatus (Figures 1-2) for “an electrode substrate of a rechargeable battery” (see the tittle “ticket punching…”), the notching apparatus comprising:
a lower plate assembly comprising a die (D, Figure 2 below);
an upper plate assembly (A, B, Figures 1) comprising a punch (C) configured to move with respect to the die in a second direction (a vertical direction or a movement of the punch C in Figures 1-2), the punch and the die configured to notch an electrode from an electrode substrate passing in a first direction (a horizontal direction, Figures 2-3) crossing the second direction between the lower plate assembly and the upper plate assembly (Figures 2-3); and
a pusher (G, Figures 1-3, that pushes or biases a tumbler or detent E) on a first side of the punch and the die (see the spring G is on the right side of the punch and the die, Figure 2),
wherein the pusher has a blade (see the discussion of the previous rejections and applicant’s specification and arguments, therefore, the tumbler or detent E meets this limitation since it has the same function or purpose) extending between a second side of the punch and the die, the “second sides” facing each other (see the issue above, therefore, the tumbler E is positioned and meet this limitation as seen in Figures 1-3), and the pusher configured to separate scrap generated during the notching by pressing in the second direction with the blade (as this is written, it is unclear how the blade or the punch does during the notching since it recites “the pusher configured to separate scrap”; therefore, see Figure 3, during punching, first, the tumbler E presses the ticket and is slid up for the punch punching or notching or separating the ticket), and
wherein the first side of the punch has a recess (F) configured to accommodate the blade (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, McGill shows that punch has a receiving recess at a lower surface the “second side” thereof (as it is written, it is unclear whether the recess in claim 1 and the receiving recess are a continuously recess or different portions of the same recess, therefore, Figure 2 below shows different portion of the recess meets this limitation) configured to accommodate a first end of the blade (H, Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGill.
Regarding claim 3, McGill shows that the punch has a receiving recess at a lower surface thereof configured to accommodate the first end of the blade (it appears one solid branch of the tumbler), therefore, it is unclear whether the first end of the blade comprises three branch structures or not.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made three branches of the blade, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8., in order to allow to the blade (having 3 branches) more locking efficient for a large punch machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 4 is free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature of the pusher comprising: an upper block mounting the blade on a first hinge as an operation center, the upper block elasticity supports a second end of the blade at a second side of the operation center in a downwardly direction to vertically operate a first end of the blade at a first side of the operation center; and a lower block at a lower side of the upper block, the lower block having a hook mounted therein and configured to be releasably coupled to the first end of the blade by a second hinge and to elasticity support the hook from an exterior side to an interior side in the “second” direction (see the issue above). Claims 5-11 are considered to contain allowable subject matter because they are being dependent from the claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. See the rejections above.
Regards to the language “blade”, applicant exerts MPEP 2173.01, this argument is acknowledged. MPEP 2173.01 states that “Applicants are their own lexicographers …whatever terms they choose so long as any special meaning assigned to a term is clearly set forth in the specification”, this argument is mooted.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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 on (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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/2/2026