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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2020193336, filed on November 20, 2020.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, paragraph 39 refers to “first path” in Figure 5A as “42” and “41”, however, it should only be referred to as 41 as shown in the figure and the rest of the written description.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed on April 10, 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/JP2021/040753 and of the foreign patent application JP 2020193336 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case November 20, 2020, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of April 10, 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A notch shape configured to follow” implies the notch itself can move, however, this is not the case since the notch is a spacing created by the guide and a space itself has no movement. The examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “a notch shaped to follow”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“A conveyance device configured to convey the strip electrode in a conveyance direction” in claim 1. Support for the conveyance device can be found on page 6, paragraph 30 of the written description which states, “The conveyance device 4 includes a first drive motor 11 and a second drive motor 12. The first drive motor 11 is connected to the winding out shaft 2…The second drive motor 12 is connected to the winding shaft 3.”
“A laser irradiating unit configured to irradiate the strip electrode” in claim 1 and “the laser irradiating unit is disposed above the guide” in claims 8 and 12. Support for the laser irradiating unit can be found on page 6, paragraph 32 of the written description which states, “The laser irradiating unit 6 is a so-called galvanoscanner-type laser device. The laser irradiating unit 6 includes a laser oscillator 13 and a head 14.”
“A guide configured to hold the strip electrode” in claim 1. The structure of the notch formed by the guide is not sufficient to complete the function of holding, therefore 112(f) is invoked. Support for the guide can be found on page 7, paragraph 35 of the written description which states, “The guide 20 includes a workpiece guide 21 and a foil guide 22. The workpiece guide 21 includes an upper plate 23 and a lower plate 24.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 and 6 are anticipated by claim 3 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 is anticipated by claim 4 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 is anticipated by claim 5 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 is anticipated by claim 12 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 11, or 14 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 in view of Min et al (KR Patent Document No. 20150102771) and Ottnad (Us Patent Document No. 20180001421). Based on the teachings of Min et al and Ottnad as discussed below in the 103 rejection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of each of claims 10, 11, and 14 of the copending application to include a guide configured to hold a strip electrode, and a notch shaped to follow at least a portion of a predetermined path. Please see the statements of fact and obvious statements to justify their inclusion into application 18/248,437 in the corresponding 35 USC 103 rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination of claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 in view of Min et al (KR Patent Document No. 20150102771) and Ottnad (Us Patent Document No. 20180001421) as set forth in the rejection of claim 5. Please see the statements of fact and obvious statements to justify their inclusion into application 18/248,437 in the corresponding 35 USC 103 rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination of claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 in view of Min et al (KR Patent Document No. 20150102771) and Ottnad (Us Patent Document No. 20180001421) as set forth in the rejection of claim 10. Please see the statements of fact and obvious statements to justify their inclusion into application 18/248,437 in the corresponding 35 USC 103 rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination of claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 in view of Min et al (KR Patent Document No. 20150102771) and Ottnad (Us Patent Document No. 20180001421) as set forth in the rejection of claim 10. Please see the statements of fact and obvious statements to justify their inclusion into application 18/248,437 in the corresponding 35 USC 103 rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination of claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/248,437 in view of Min et al (KR Patent Document No. 20150102771) and Ottnad (Us Patent Document No. 20180001421) as set forth in the rejection of claim 12. Please see the statements of fact and obvious statements to justify their inclusion into application 18/248,437 in the corresponding 35 USC 103 rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
All foreign documents cited are citing the English translation provided.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al (JP Patent Document No. 2014210277), hereinafter Uchida, in view of Min et al (KR Patent Document No. 20150102771), hereinafter Min, and Ottnad (Us Patent Document No. 20180001421).
Regarding claim 1, Uchida teaches a laser processing device for processing a strip electrode (An apparatus for cutting an electrode using a laser, Title), the device comprising a conveyance device (Fig. 3, take up reel 50) configured to convey the strip electrode (metallic tape WT) in a conveyance direction (Pg. 12, par. 32); a laser irradiating unit (laser emitting unit 16) configured to irradiate the strip electrode (WT) with a laser beam (Pg. 8, par. 12) and is configured to change an irradiating direction of the laser beam (Pg. 8, par. 13); a controller (Fig. 1, scanner control unit 20) configured to control the laser irradiating unit (16) so as to cut the strip electrode into a tab shape by causing the laser beam to move along a predetermined path on the strip electrode (Pg. 15, par. 45)
Uchida fails to teach a laser processing device with a guide configured to hold a strip electrode, the guide including a notch shaped to follow at least a portion of a predetermined path (claim 1), more specifically, wherein the predetermined path includes a first inclined path with respect to a width direction that is perpendicular to a conveyance direction, and the notch includes a first edge section that follows the first inclined path (claim 2). Uchida additionally fails to teach the guide having a first upper guide plate disposed in the conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed above an end material cut off from a strip electrode, and a first lower guide plate disposed in the conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed below the end material, and at least one of the first upper guide plate and the first lower guide plate have has a tapered shape that faces the notch (claims 7 and 11); wherein a laser irradiating unit is disposed above the guide and a second upper guide plate disposed in the direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed above the strip electrode, and at least one of the first upper guide plate and the second upper guide plate has a tapered shape that faces upward (claims 8 and 12).
Min teaches an apparatus for cutting an electrode using laser (title) with a guide (Fig. 1, grippers 20, 30) having a notch (pg. 6, par 18) configured to hold the strip electrode (Pg. 5, par. 9), a first upper guide plate (Fig. 1, 30a) disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the notch (Fig. 1) and disposed above (Fig 1) an end material cut off from the strip electrode (long metal foil 2), and a first lower guide plate (Fig. 1, 30b) disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed below (Fig 1) an end material (2), and at least one of a first upper guide plate (30a) and a first lower guide plate (30b) has a tapered shape that faces the notch (Fig. 1); wherein the laser irradiating unit (laser cutter 10) is disposed above the guide (20, 30), and the guide (20, 30) includes a second upper guide plate (Fig. 1, 20a) disposed in a direction opposite a conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed above (Fig. 1) the strip electrode (2), and at least one of the first upper guide plate (30a) and the second upper guide plate (20a) has a tapered shape that faces upward (Fig. 1) for the purpose of suppressing vibrations of an electrode (Pg. 4, par. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Uchida to incorporate a guide configured to hold a strip electrode as taught by Min for the purpose of suppressing vibrations of an electrode.
However, the modified device of Uchida and Min still fails to teach the notch having a shape configured to follow at least a portion of the predetermined path.
Ottnad teaches it is old and well known in the cutting art to modify the shape of a notch between work support surfaces (pg. 1, par. 7) for the purpose of increasing process reliability (pg. 1, par. 5). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Ottnad to have the guide form a notch of any orientation to follow a predetermined laser beam path, including the notch having a first edge section that follows a first inclined path and a second edge section that follows a second inclined path for the purpose of increasing process reliability.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Uchida as applied to claim 1 teaches the laser processing device, wherein the predetermined path (pg. 5, par. 10; Uchida) includes a first inclined path inclined (Fig. 7A, vertex B to vertex A; Uchida) with respect to a width direction that is perpendicular to the conveyance direction (Fig. 5; Uchida). The combination made in reference to claim 1 above therefore teaches the notch of the modified device of Uchida includes a first edge section that follows the first inclined path (Pg. 1, par. 7; Ottnad; see obvious statement of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Uchida as applied to claim 1 teaches the laser processing device, wherein the predetermined path (pg. 5, par. 10; Uchida) includes a second inclined path (Fig. 7A, vertex B to vertex A; Uchida) inclined with respect to the width direction in a direction opposite the first inclined path (Fig. 5; Uchida). The combination made in reference to claim 1 above therefore teaches the notch of the modified device of Uchida includes a second edge section that follows the second inclined path (Pg. 1, par. 7; Ottnad; see obvious statement of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Uchida as applied to claim 1 teaches the laser processing device, wherein the first inclined path extends from a first position (Fig. 7A, B; Uchida) to a second position (Fig. 7A, A; Uchida) located further to an outside in the width direction and further in the conveyance direction than the first position (Fig. 5; Uchida), and the second inclined path (Fig. 7A, C to B; Uchida) extends from a third position (Fig. 7A, C; Uchida) located in a direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the second position (Fig. 7A, A; Uchida), to a fourth position (Fig. 7A, B; Uchida) located further to an inside in the width direction and further in the conveyance direction than the third position (Fig. 5; Uchida), and a controller (Fig. 1, 20; Uchida) moves the beam spot BS of the laser beam LB on the metal tape WT in two dimensional directions in a horizontal plane, that is, in an X direction (tape width direction) and a Y direction (tape length direction) (Pg. 16, par. 50; Uchida).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Uchida as applied to claim 4 teaches the laser processing device, wherein a fourth position (Fig. 7A, B; Uchida) is a same position as a first position P1 (Fig. 7A, B; Uchida).
Regarding claim 6, Ottnad teaches it is old and well known in the cutting art to modify the shape of a notch between work support surfaces (pg. 1, par. 7) for the purpose of increasing process reliability (pg. 1, par. 5). The combination made in reference to claim 1 above therefore teaches the notch of the modified device of Uchida includes a second edge section positioned in an opposite direction of the conveyance direction with respect to a first edge section, the first edge section is inclined with respect to a width direction toward an outside of the strip electrode in the width direction and toward the conveyance direction, and the second edge section is inclined with respect to the width direction toward the outside of the strip electrode in the width direction and toward the direction opposite the conveyance direction.
Regarding claim 7, the combination made in reference to claim 1 above teaches the guide is made up of a first upper guide plate disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to a notch and disposed above an end material cut off from a strip electrode, and a first lower guide plate disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to a notch and disposed below an end material, and at least one of a first upper guide plate and a first lower guide plate has a tapered shape that faces the notch.
Regarding claim 8, the combination made in reference to claim 1 above teaches the laser processing device, wherein the laser irradiating unit is disposed above the guide, and the guide includes a first upper guide plate disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed above an end material cut off from the strip electrode, and a second upper guide plate disposed in a direction opposite a conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed above the strip electrode, and at least one of the first upper guide plate and the second upper guide plate has a tapered shape that faces upward.
Regarding claim 10, the combination made in reference to claim 1 as applied to claim 5 above teaches the notch having a second edge section positioned in an opposite direction of a conveyance direction with respect to the first edge section, the first edge section is inclined with respect to a width direction toward an outside of the strip electrode in a width direction and toward a conveyance direction, and the second edge section is inclined with respect to the width direction toward the outside of the strip electrode in the width direction and toward a direction opposite the conveyance direction.
Regarding claim 11, the combination made in reference to claim 1 as applied to claim 10 above teaches the guide includes a first upper guide plate disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed above an end material cut off from the strip electrode, and a first lower guide plate disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the notch and disposed below an end material, and at least one of a first upper guide plate and a first lower guide plate has a tapered shape that faces the notch.
Regarding claim 12, the combination made in reference to claim 1 as applied to claim 10 above teaches the laser processing device, wherein the laser irradiating is disposed above the guide, and the guide includes a first upper guide plate disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to a notch and disposed above an end material cut off from a strip electrode, and a second upper guide plate disposed in a direction opposite a conveyance direction with respect to a notch and disposed above the strip electrode, and at least one of the first upper guide plate and the second upper guide plate has a tapered shape that faces upward.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Uchida as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al (JP Patent Document No. 2015201328).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Uchida as applied to claim 1 teaches the guide (Fig. 1, grippers, 20, 30; Min), However, it fails to teach the laser processing device comprising a suction roller disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the guide and configured to suction an end material cut off from the strip electrode.
Yamaguchi teaches an electrode manufacturing device (title) comprising a suction roller (Fig. 5, 32) disposed in a conveyance direction (Fig. 5) configured to suction an end material cut off from a strip electrode (Pg. 10, par. 42) for the purpose of separating the cut material from the original sheet (Pg. 10, par. 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified of Uchida to incorporate a suction roller disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the guide and configured to suction an end material cut off from the strip electrode as taught by Yamaguchi for the purpose of separating the cut material from the original sheet.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Uchida as applied to claim 12 teaches the guide (Fig. 1, grippers, 20, 30; Min), However, it fails to teach the laser processing device comprising a suction roller disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to the guide and configured to suction an end material cut off from the strip electrode.
Yamaguchi teaches an electrode manufacturing device (title) comprising a suction roller (Fig. 5, 32) disposed in a conveyance direction (Fig. 5) configured to suction an end material cut off from a strip electrode (Pg. 10, par. 42) for the purpose of separating the cut material from the original sheet (Pg. 10, par. 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified of Uchida to incorporate a suction roller disposed in a conveyance direction with respect to a guide and configured to suction an end material cut off from a strip electrode as taught by Yamaguchi for the purpose of separating the cut material from the original sheet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/C.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761