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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to provide a technical disclosure of the improvements of the related invention. As is, the abstract appears to only be related to a predetermined path of a laser beam moved by a controller and fails to mention the laser processing device that the application is focused on. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 7, paragraph 31 refers to “strip electrode” as both “100” and “101”, however, it should only be referred to as 100 as shown in the figures and the rest of the written description.
Pg. 9, paragraph 42 refers to a “first path as both “41” and “42”, however, it should only be referred to as 41 as shown in the figures and the rest of the written description.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“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 5 and 11. Support for the laser irradiating unit can be found on page 8, paragraph 35 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 conveyance device that conveys configured to convey the strip electrode in a conveyance direction” in claim 1. Support for the conveyance device can be found on page 7, paragraph 33 of the written description which states, “The conveyance device 4 includes a first driving motor 11 and a second driving motor 12. The first driving motor 11 is connected to the winding out shaft 2…The second driving motor 12 is connected to the winding shaft 3.”
“A guide configured to hold the strip electrode, the guide including a notch having a first edge section that follows the first path and a second edge section that follows the second path” in claims 3 and 9. The notch and edges are not sufficient structure to perform the function of holding, therefore invoking 112(f). Support for the guide can be found on page 9, paragraph 38 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 this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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.
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 3 and 9 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. Claims 3 and 9 each state “a second edge section that follows the second path”, however, Figures 5A, 7, and 8 all show the second edge section 52 to be following the third path 43. Furthermore, the second edge section is inclined as stated in the claims, “the second edge section being positioned in the direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the first edge section, and being 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” and claim 1 sets forth the locations and relative positions of the second and third path as “a second path extending from the second position to a third position positioned in a direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the second position, and a third path extending from the third position to a fourth position positioned further inside in the width direction and further in the conveyance direction than the third position”, following the claimed descriptions, the device would not work if the second edge followed the second path. Therefore, it is unclear how the second edge section would follow the second path since the orientation of the second edge section is equivalent to that of the third path, which is further supported by the figures previously mentioned. Based on the evidence available, the examiner will interpret the limitation to be “a second edge section that follows the third path”.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 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 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 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 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 is anticipated by claim 6 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 is anticipated by claim 11 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 claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 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 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 is anticipated by claim 13 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 10 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (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 10 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (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 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 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.
Claims 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/248,403 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12-14 are anticipated by claim 13 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(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.
All foreign documents cited are citing the English translation provided.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida et al (JP Patent Document No. 2014210277), hereinafter Uchida.
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), the predetermined path including a first path (Fig. 7A, B to A) extending from a first position (B) to a second position (A) positioned further outside in a width direction perpendicular to a conveyance direction and further in the conveyance direction than the first position (Fig. 5), and a second path (Fig. 7A, A to C) extending from the second position (A) to a third position (C) positioned in a direction opposite the conveyance direction (Fig. 5) with respect to the second position (Fig. 7A, A), and a third path (C to B) extending from the third position (C) to a fourth position (B) positioned further inside in the width direction and further in the conveyance direction (Fig. 5) than the third position (C), and the controller (Fig. 1, 20)) is being further configured to cause the laser beam to move from the first position (Fig. 7A, B) to the second position (A) along the first path (B to A), cause the laser beam to move from the second position (A) to the third position (C) along the second path (A to C), and cause the laser beam to move from the third position (C) to the fourth position (B) along the third path (B to C).
Regarding claim 2, Uchida teaches the laser processing device, wherein a fourth position (Fig. 7A, B) is a same position as a first position (Fig. 7A, B).
Regarding claim 7, Uchida teaches a laser cutting method (Title), conveying a strip electrode in a conveyance direction (Pg. 12, par. 33); irradiating a laser beam onto the strip electrode (Pg. 14, par. 45); causing the laser beam (Fig. 5, LB) to move from a first position (Fig. 7A, B) to a second position (A) along a first path (b) extending from the first position (B) to the second position (A) positioned further outside in a width direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction and further in the conveyance direction than the first position (Fig. 5); causing the laser beam (LB) to move from the second position (Fig. 7A, A) to a third position (C) along a second path (a) extending from the second position (A) to the third position (C) positioned in a direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the second position (Fig. 5); and causing the laser beam (LB) to move from the third position (C) to a fourth position (B) along a third path (c) extending from the third position (C) to the fourth position (B) positioned further inside in the width direction and further in the conveyance direction than the third position (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Uchida teaches a laser cutting method (Title), wherein a fourth position (Fig. 7A, B) is a same position as a first position (Fig. 7A, B).
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.
Claims 3-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to claims 1-2 above in view of Min et al (KR Patent Document No. 20150102771), hereinafter Min, and Ottnad (Us Patent Document No. 20180001421).
Regarding claim 3, Uchida fails to teach the laser processing device comprising a guide configured to hold the strip electrode, the guide including a notch having a first edge section that follows a first path and a second edge section that follows a third path, the first edge section is being inclined with respect to a width direction toward the outside of the strip electrode in the width direction and toward a conveyance direction, and the second edge section is being positioned in a direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the first edge section, and is being 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. 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 4 and 10); 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 5 and 11).
Min teaches Min teaches an apparatus for cutting an electrode using laser (title) with a guide (Fig. 1, grippers 20, 30) 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 guide including a 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 path and a second edge section that follows a third path, the first edge section is being inclined with respect to a width direction toward the outside of the strip electrode in the width direction and toward a conveyance direction, and the second edge section is being positioned in a direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the first edge section, and is being 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 for the purpose of increasing process reliability.
Regarding claim 4, the combination made in reference to claim 3 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 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 5, the combination made in reference to claim 3 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 9, the device of Uchida as applied to claim 2 fails to teach the laser processing device comprising a guide configured to hold a strip electrode, the guide including a notch having a first edge section that follows a first path and a second edge section that follows a third path, the first edge section being inclined with respect to a width direction toward an outside of the strip electrode in the width direction and toward a conveyance direction, and the second edge section being positioned in a direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the first edge section, and being 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.
The combination made in reference to claim 3 above teaches the guide configured to hold the strip electrode, the guide including a notch having a first edge section that follows a first path and a second edge section that follows the third path, the first edge section being 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 being positioned in a direction opposite the conveyance direction with respect to the first edge section, and being 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 10, the combination made in reference to claim 3 as applied to claim 9 above teaches the laser processing device, wherein 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 11, the combination made in reference to claim 3 as applied to claim 9 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.
Claims 6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Uchida as applied to claims 1 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al (JP Patent Document No. 2015201328).
Regarding claims 6 and 12-14, the combination made in reference to claim 3 as applied to claims 9-11 teaches the guide. 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 the 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 the 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