DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 12, line 9, “the laser beam” should be revised to:
-- a [[the]] laser beam--;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanashi (US 2020/0122274 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamanashi discloses a separator cutting device (Fig. 1, 2) for cutting a sheet-shaped separator with which at least one electrode is laminated [intended use] (the device of Yamanashi can be used to cut sheets of metal, Para. 0032), the separator cutting device comprising:
a laser generator 10 configured to emit a laser beam (Para. 0030);
a scanner 32 (“galvano scanner unit”) configured to control an optical path of the laser beam emitted from the laser generator (Para. 0036-40); and
an end mirror 33 (“bend mirror”) configured to reflect the laser beam passing through the scanner toward the separator W (towards the workpiece) and disposed at a side of the scanner (Fig. 2, Para. 0036, 0041-43, Fig. 2 & 3).
Note, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham. 2 USPQ F 2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the statement that the “cutting device” is “for cutting a sheet-shaped separator with which at least one electrode is laminated” does not impart any structural difference in the claimed device as claimed. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, “the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2111.02, II.
Regarding claim 3, Yamanashi discloses the separator cutting device of claim 1, wherein a height of the end mirror 33 above the separator W, when the separator is positioned for cutting by the separator cutting device (Fig. 1-3), is greater than that of at least a portion of the scanner 32 with respect to the separator (Fig. 2, the end mirror 33 is at a higher position than the mirror 321 of the scanner 32, hence at a height greater than at least a portion of the scanner 32).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi, further in view of Alpay (US 2008/0272096 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamanashi discloses the separator cutting device of claim 1, wherein a focus spot of the laser beam focused onto the separator W is variable within a processing area on the separator by the scanner (Fig. 3, Para. 0041-45, the galvano scanner 32 controls the angle of the laser beam and thus defines a processing area on the workpiece W).
Yamanashi fails to disclose wherein a surface area of the end mirror is less than or equal to half of a surface area of the processing area.
Alpay teaches an analogous laser machining device comprising a scanner 12 (which can be a pair of galvanometers, Para. 0018), a condensing lens 16 (f-theta/scan lens, Para. 0018), and an end mirror 20 (fixed tilt mirror, Para. 0018-19, Fig. 2), wherein the focus spot of the laser beam on a workpiece 18 is variable within a processing area by the scanner 12 (Para. 0018), and discusses that “the work zone on the work piece 18… is limited by the mounting location and surface area of fixed tilt mirror 20” (Para. 0019). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the surface area of the end mirror is recognized is a result-effective variable, since such a variable affects the size of the working area/processing area of the workpiece.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have discovered the optimal surface area of the end mirror of Yamanashi, such as a surface area of the end mirror is less than or equal to half of a surface area of the processing area, in order to optimize the working/processing area of the device that the laser beam can act on, to achieve a desired processing area within which the laser beam can be focused by the scanner (Alpay Para. 0018-19).
Claims 4, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger (US 2022/0143756 A1, cited in the 10/24/2024 Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 4, Yamanashi discloses the separator cutting device of claim 1, wherein the scanner 32 comprises:
a first scanning mirror 321 rotating about a first rotation axis (axis of a driver 322, Fig. 2, Para. 0038-39);
a second scanning mirror 323 rotating about a second rotation axis (axis of driver 324, Fig. 2, Para. 0038-39), configured to reflect the laser beam reflected by the first scanning mirror 321, and disposed at a position higher than that of the first scanning mirror relative to the separator W when the separator is positioned for cutting by the separator cutting device (Fig. 2, the second scanning mirror is positioned vertically higher than the first scanning mirror as shown); and
a condensing lens 34 (“focusing lens”, Fig. 2 & 3) configured to condense the laser beam reflected by the second scanning mirror 323 (after the laser beam has reflected off end mirror 33, Para. 0036, 0041-43).
Yamanashi fails to explicitly disclose the second rotation axis is perpendicular to the first rotation axis.
Scheidiger teaches a scanner 20 having a first mirror 30 and a second mirror 30 rotating about respective first and second rotational axes that are perpendicular to each other (Para. 0071, “The machining beam 15 is moved by a mirror 30 in one axis perpendicular to its direction of propagation and by the other mirror 30 in another axis perpendicular to the direction of propagation. For example, the two axes are arranged perpendicular to one another”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Yamanashi such that the second rotational axis is perpendicular to the first rotational axis, as taught by Scheidiger, in order to provide a scanner that can achieve any intensity distribution by means of dynamic beam shaping (Scheidiger Para. 0071). A scanner (particularly galvanometer type scanners) with two mirrors that rotate about perpendicular axes is also well-known in the art to achieve dynamic beam shaping (see for further example, Miller US 2015/0343561 A1; Kim US 2016/0263705 A1, US 10005157 B2; Gawa US 6090330).
Regarding claim 8, Yamanashi discloses the separator cutting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the end mirror comprises copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), gold (Au), silver (Ag), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), or silicon (Si).
Scheidiger teaches the separator cutting device of claim 1, wherein the end mirror 22 comprises copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), gold (Au), silver (Ag), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), or silicon (Si) (Para. 0064, “the second laser beam guiding device 22 has a non-movable deflection device 23, which is designed as a dichroic mirror. In the presently described examples, it is, by way of example, a glass mirror (e.g. SiO2, fused silica)”, the mirror thus comprises silicon in the form of fused silica SiO2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the device of Yamanashi, the end mirror comprising silicon (e.g. in the form of SiO2, fused silica), as taught by Scheidiger, in order to provide the end mirror as a dichoric mirror that can reflect the laser beam in a known manner (Scheidiger Para. 0064). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Yamanashi discloses the separator cutting device of claim 1, wherein the end mirror 33 comprises:
a mirror body (Fig. 2, Para. 0036, 0041-43, naturally the mirror has a “mirror body”).
Yamanashi fails to disclose a coating layer applied to the mirror body to reflect the laser beam and having a reflectance greater than that of the mirror body
Scheidiger teaches an end mirror 22 having a mirror body and a coating layer (“dielectric coating”) applied to the mirror body to reflect the laser beam and having a reflectance greater than that of the mirror body (Para. 0064, “The dichroic mirror is provided, at least on one side, i.e. on the side facing the laser source, with a dielectric coating”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the device of Yamanashi a coating layer applied to the mirror body, as taught by Scheidiger, in order to provide the mirror with a high reflectance surface with which to deflect the laser beam towards the workpiece/separator (Scheidiger Para. 0064).
Regarding claim 11, Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger teaches the separator cutting device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the mirror body comprises copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), or silicon (Si), and the coating layer comprises a dielectric or silver.
Scheidiger discloses the separator cutting device of claim 10, wherein the mirror body 22 comprises copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), or silicon (Si) (Para. 0064, “the second laser beam guiding device 22 has a non-movable deflection device 23, which is designed as a dichroic mirror. In the presently described examples, it is, by way of example, a glass mirror (e.g. SiO2, fused silica)”, the mirror thus comprises silicon (Si) in the form of fused silica SiO2), and the coating layer comprises a dielectric or silver (Para. 0064, “The dichroic mirror is provided, at least on one side, i.e. on the side facing the laser source, with a dielectric coating”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the device of Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger the mirror body comprising silicon (e.g. in the form of SiO2, fused silica) and the coating as a dielectric coating, as taught by Scheidiger, in order to provide the end mirror as a dichoric mirror that can reflect the laser beam in a known manner while also being transparent to a process light (Scheidiger Para. 0064). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger, further in view of Alpay.
Regarding claim 5 & 6, Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger teaches the separator cutting device of claim 4, and Yamanashi further teaches wherein the end mirror 33 has a height greater than that of the first scanning mirror 321 relative to the separator W when the separator is positioned for cutting by the separator cutting device (Fig. 2, the end mirror 33 is at a higher vertical position than the first mirror).
Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger fails to teach wherein the condensing lens has a height greater than that of the first scanning mirror relative to the separator when the separator is positioned for cutting by the separator cutting device; wherein the condensing lens is disposed between the end mirror and the second scanning mirror.
Alpay teaches an analogous laser machining device comprising a scanner 12 (which can be a pair of galvanometers, Para. 0018), a condensing lens 16 (f-theta/scan lens, Para. 0018), and an end mirror 20 (fixed tilt mirror, Para. 0018-19, Fig. 2), wherein the condensing lens 16 is disposed between the end mirror 20 and the scanner 12 (Fig. 2, Para. 0018, the end mirror is a “post-scan lens mirror”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger such that the condensing lens is between the end mirror and a second mirror of the scanner (i.e. downstream of the scanner in general) as taught by Alpay, in order to provide the device with an arrangement that allows the end mirror to act as a post-scan lens mirror to reflect a focused beam across a working area directly instead of through the condensing lens, allowing the focused laser beam to be oriented along a different axis towards the workpiece than the axis of the focused beam from the condensing lens (Alpay Para. 0018-19). The condensing lens could be rearranged to upstream of the end mirror shown in Yamanashi Fig. 2, such that the end mirror 33 receives the focused beam from the condensing lens 34, similar to the analogous arrangement shown in Alpay Fig. 2. Note, it has been held that merely rearranging parts of an invention to achieve a predictable result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. By rearranging the condensing lens to upstream the end mirror in the device of Yamanashi in view of Scheidiger, the condensing lens would be between the second scanning mirror and the end mirror, and the condensing lens would also be at a same height as the end mirror and thus at a height greater than the first scanning mirror (Yamanashi Fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi in view of Sakurai (US 2019/0160596 A1, cited in the 10/24/2024 Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 7, Yamanashi discloses the separator cutting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the laser generator emits the laser beam having a wavelength band of 9 micrometers to 10.6 micrometers.
Sakurai teaches a laser cutting device 62 that includes a laser generator 65 that can be a CO2 laser with a wavelength of 10,400 nm (or 10.4 micrometers, Para. 0099).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Yamanashi such that the laser generator is a CO2 laser having a wavelength band of 10.4 micrometers, as taught by Sakurai, since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the laser generator of Yamanashi) for another (in this case, the CO2 laser with wavelength 10.4 micrometers, taught by Sakurai) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to provide a laser beam for use in cutting a workpiece) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. See KSR, MPEP 2141 III B. One skilled in the art would know to select from the known types of laser oscillators to achieve a desired level of performance, combining known elements to yield a predictable result (Yamanashi discusses CO2 and fiber laser oscillators, Para. 0006, and other laser oscillators in Para. 0030, and uses a fiber laser oscillator as an example of one type of laser that can be used, Para. 0031).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi in view of Totsuka (US 5,303,081 A, cited in the 10/24/2024 Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 9, Yamanashi discloses the separator cutting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a heatsink extending at least partially in the end mirror.
Totsuka teaches an end mirror 8 (“mirror plate”) having a heatsink 9, 12 (a cooling plate 9 with water 12 in a water terminal 11, Fig. 1, Col. 6, ln. 10-15) at least partially in the end mirror (Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the device of Yamanashi a heat sink into the end mirror as taught by Totsuka, in order to provide cooling for the mirror that is reflecting the laser beam towards the workpiece (Totsuka, Col. 6, ln. 10-15).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai in view of Scheidiger.
Regarding independent claim 12, Sakurai discloses an electrode cell manufacturing system (Fig. 11, 12) comprising:
a laminator configured to roll an electrode stack 51 (Fig. 4 & 10 showing the electrode stack; Fig. 9 showing the rolling of the electrode sheet stack 51, Para. 0090-91; Fig. 8, step S20, Para. 0089) comprising a pair of sheet-shaped separators 13, 15 (“plurality of separators”) and a plurality of electrodes 12, 14 (“electrode sheets”) each disposed at a predetermined interval from an adjacent one or ones of the electrodes and disposed between the pair of separators (Fig. 2, 3, 4, the separators and electrodes are stacked alternatingly as shown); and
a separator cutting device 62 (“laser cutting device”, Para. 0094-97, Fig. 11-12) disposed behind the laminator relative to a moving direction of the electrode stack 51 (Fig. 11, see the arrow showing the direction of the stack moving from the roll 50) and configured to cut a portion of each of the pair of separators 13, 15 at locations corresponding to the predetermined intervals between the plurality of electrodes 12, 14 (Para. 0093-96, 0107-0125, 0152-158), wherein the separator cutting device 62 comprises:
a laser generator 65 (“first laser oscillator”) configured to emit the laser beam L1 (Fig. 12, Para. 0098-99);
a scanner (“galvanoscanner”) configured to control an optical path of the laser beam emitted from the laser generator (using mirrors 68, 69, Para. 0098, 0106-110).
Sakurai fails to disclose the separator cutting device comprising an end mirror configured to reflect the laser beam passing through the scanner toward the separator and disposed at a side of the scanner.
Scheidiger teaches a laser cutting device 200 (Fig. 3a) having a laser generator 82 emitting a laser beam 15, a scanner 20 configured to control an optical path of the laser beam (Para. 0071, “laser beam guiding device 20 contains as a deflection device a galvanometer scanner having two mirrors 30, each of which is individually dynamically movable by means of controllable galvanometers (not shown)”), and an end mirror 22 (Para. 0072, “second laser beam guiding device 22”) configured to reflect the laser beam passing through the scanner toward the workpiece 12 and disposed at a side of the scanner (Fig. 3a, the mirror 22 is off to one side of the scanner 20, Para. 0064, “the second laser beam guiding device 22 has a non-movable deflection device 23, which is designed as a dichroic mirror… the second laser beam guiding device 22 is thus designed such that it deflects the dynamically moved machining laser beam 15 and guides it onto the workpiece 12 through the outlet opening 18”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Sakurai an end mirror configured to reflect the laser beam passing through the scanner toward the separator and disposed at a side of the scanner, as taught by Scheidiger, in order to provide a non-moveable dichoric mirror that can deflect the laser beam emitted by the scanner along a desired axis towards the separator/workpiece (Scheidiger Para. 0064, 0071-72). During operation of the scanner, the angle of the laser beam deviates as the scanner adjusts the laser’s optical axis as desired, and the end mirror would receive and reflect the laser towards the separator/workpiece along a desired final angle. Use of end mirrors reflecting a laser beam from a scanner is well-known in the art (see for further example, Yamanashi US 2020/0122274 A1 cited above; Okada US 6410882 B1).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 10005157 B2) teaches a cathode sheet cutting device using a laser beam with scanner having two mirrors.
Kondo (US 2013/0270240 A1, US 10081075 B2) teaches a laser beam processor device including use of a plurality of end mirrors to reflect a beam from a scanner towards a work surface.
Muller (US 20080035616 A1) teaches a laser marking system including a scanner, condensing lens, and end mirrors reflecting the laser beam from the condensing lens towards an arcuate workpiece.
Miller (US 20150343561 A1, US 9511448 B2) teaches a laser machining system including a scanner, a plurality of condensing lenses, and a plurality of end mirrors that allow machining by laser beam of three-dimensional objects form a plurality of directions.
Okada (US 6410882 B1) teaches a laser welding device similar to Yamanashi cited above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on 571 272 7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741