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 .
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.
Claim 3 limitation “a quick release mechanism…configured to lock the double-edged cutter between the first shaft and the second shaft sleeve”, claim 8 limitations “a first lifting mechanism…a second lifting mechanism…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation 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.
For claim 3, first, "mechanism" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "mechanism" is modified by functional language including “configured to lock the double-edged cutter between the first shaft and the second shaft sleeve”; and third, the "mechanism" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "quick release" preceding mechanism describes the function, not the structure of the mechanism.
For claim 8, first, "assembly" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "assembly" is modified by functional language including “configured to adjust a distance between the upper shaft and the lower cutter shaft”; and third, the "assembly" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "first and second lifting adjustment" preceding assembly describes the function, not the structure of the assembly.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 3, 8 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 04/23/2026 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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (as requested from the previous non-final). Therefore, the dust collector in claims 5-6 and 19-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
However, the new Figures 1A, 1B shows sizes, shapes, and locations of first and second dust collectors 1050, 1060 are new matter since the original specification and claims do not support the Figures.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 215358628U and Translation) in view of Li (CN 107283484A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yu shows an electrode plate slitting cutter device (Figure 1), comprising:
a frame (310);
an upper cutter holder including an upper shaft (335), an upper shaft sleeve (337), a single cutter, two ends of the upper cutter holder being rotatably connected to the frame (Figure 1); and
a lower cutter holder including a lower shaft (117) and a lower shaft sleeve (115) arranged on a peripheral side of the slower cutter shaft (Figure 1) and a cutter groove is on the lower holder;
However, Yu silently discusses that the lower cutter holder is provided with the single cutter and the upper cutter holder is provided with the cutter groove (currently, a single blade is on the upper holder and the cutting groove is on the lower holder).
The cutter blade on the lower holder and the cutter groove on the upper holder are well-known in the art, for an example,
Li shows a cutting device (Figure 1) having a lower cutter holder is provided with a cutter and an upper cutter holder is provided with a cutter groove (Figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cutter device of Yu to have the cutter (blade) on the lower cutter holder and a cutter groove on the upper cutter holder, as taught by Li, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose.
Further, as per MPEP 2144.04(VI)C, this constitutes a rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device. therefore, rearranging the upper cutter holder and the lower cutter holder within the cutting device to a location where the cutter (blade) on the lower cutter holder and the cutter groove on the upper cutter holder have no effect on how the device performs, and thus this is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Yu shows that each of the upper cutter shaft and the lower cutter shaft is rotatably connected to the frame (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Yu shows that the frame comprises:
a bottom plate extending in a lengthwise direction of the upper cutter shaft (see Figure 1);
a lower cutter mount comprising a first cutter mount and a second cutter mount (left and right parts for receiving the shaft 117, Figure 2) that are arranged at two ends of the bottom plate in a lengthwise direction of the bottom plate; and
an upper cutter mount comprising a third cutter mount (upper right part 333, Figure 1) arranged above the first cutter mount and a fourth cutter mount (the left 333) arranged above the second cutter mount;
two ends of the upper cutter shaft are rotatably connected to the third cutter mount and the fourth cutter mount, respectively (see Figure 1), and two ends of the lower cutter shaft are rotatably connected to the first cutter mount and the second cutter mount, respectively (see Figure 1, there are 2 upper mounts and 2 lower mounts respectively on the upper and lower rollers).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Yu shows that the single cutter is circular, the single cutter is coaxially arranged with the lower shaft sleeve, and a diameter of the cutter is greater than a diameter of the lower shaft sleeve (see Figure 1 of Yu and the discussion of the rearrangement of parts in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Yu shows that projections of axes of the upper cutter holder and the lower cutter holder in a vertical direction coincide with each other (see ends shafts of the upper and lower rolls, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Yu shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Yu shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 2 above.
Claims 3-4, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 215358628U and Translation) in view of Li (CN 107283484A and Translation) and Holohan, Jr (US 4936818).
Regarding claims 3-4,17-18 the modified device of Yu shows all of the limitations as stated above including left and right sleeves (left and right spacers 337, Figure 1 of Yu) such that the blade (350) is sandwiched between the left and right sleeves (spacers), but it is clear how the blade is secured on the roller.
Holohan, Jr shows comprises “a quick release mechanism” of a scoring device (50, Figure 3) having a first thread sleeve (46) and a second thread sleeve (54) in threaded fit with the first thread sleeve (figure 6); and the first thread sleeve and the second thread sleeve are provided over a lower cutter shaft in a sleeved manner (Figures 4-6) for locking the scoring device in a threaded connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mounting means for securing the cutter or blade of Yu to have a thread connection, as taught by Holohan, Jr, in order to allow the cutters and grooves can be removably respectively mounted on the lower and upper shafts and adjusted the grooves and disks on the shafts accordingly.
Claims 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 215358628U and Translation) in view of Li (CN 107283484A and Translation), Holohan, Jr (US 4936818) and Saito (WO 2013089009 A1 and Translation).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 19-20, the modified device of Yu shows all of the limitations as stated above except a dust removal port, in cooperation with a dust collector, is configured to adsorb powder falling off during electrode plate slitting.
Saito shows a cutting roll (2) having a cutter blade (21, Figure 1) and ports (6), communicating with a suction port (25, Figure 10), is configured to adsorb dusts or particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cutting roll of Yu to have suction ports communicating with a suction port, as taught by Saito, in order to allow the cuts stably separating the trim from the strip after cutting. In doing so, some dust or particle can be sucked therein.
Claims 8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 215358628U and Translation) in view of Li (CN 107283484A and Translation) and Ichikawa (US 6158316)
Regarding claim 8, the modified cutter device of Yu shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the first lifting adjustment assembly (screw and elastic member) is coupled between the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount; the second lifting adjustment assembly (screw and elastic member) is coupled between the second cutter mount and the fourth cutter mount; and the first lifting adjustment assembly and the second lifting adjustment assembly are configured to adjust a distance between the upper cutter shaft and the lower cutter shaft.
Ichikawa shows a cutter (Figure 1) having two toggle mechanisms (50) at ends of upper and lower rollers (30, 40) for properly adjusting pressure between the rollers, wherein the toggle mechanisms comprises first and second lifting adjustment assemblies (50, 60…Figures 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cutter of the modified cutter device of Yu to have toggles, as taught by Ichikawa, in order to properly adjust a contact pressure between the upper and lower rollers (abstract of Ichikawa).
Regarding claims 11-12, the modified cutter device of Yu shows that one of the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount is provided with a guide connecting member (70, Figure 2 of Ichikawa), and another one of the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount is provided with a connecting post (pin for slot 70a); the guide connecting member is provided with a guide groove extending in a vertical direction (slot 70a); and the connecting post is inserted in the guide groove (Figure 2 of Ichikawa), and regarding claim 12, there is another member 70 on another side of the cutter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 9-10 are free of prior art because the prior art does not teach two lifting mechanisms on each side of the holders and each of the lifting mechanism includes screws in threaded connection with the first cutter mount and is in threaded connection with the 3rd cutter mount through the first threaded hole and elastic members between upper cutter mounts and lower cutter mounts (similar to claim 10, the other lifting mechanism is on other side of the cutter device), with combination of many limitations as set forth in claims 1-2, 7-8, 9-10.
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 matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new reference above.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at (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 6/30/2026
Prosecution Insights