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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because new figure 3 shows two references “41, 42” as two edges in the amendment specification is new matter or the two edges at the specific location are not described in the original specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the double-edged cutter (currently show a cutter 40 that is not a double-edged cutter; it appears a V-shaped cutting edge or tapered edge cutter) in claims 1-20;
the first lifting mechanism is arranged between the 1st cutter mount and the 3rd cutter mount and the second lifting mechanism is arranged between the 2nd cutter mount and the 4th cutter mount in claim 8 is objected because the original specification, para. 80 “the first lifting adjustment assembly comprises a first screw 141 and a first elastic member, the first elastic member is arranged between the first cutter mount 12 and the third cutter mount 14” (emphasis added), therefore, as claim 8 are written, drawing must be shown the 1st screw and the 1st elastic member between the first cutter mount 12 and the third cutter mount 14. There is similarly issue of the 2nd lifting adjustment assembly.
the first and second thread sleeves in claims 4, 9-10, 18 (currently figures are not shown threads of the 1st and 2nd thread sleeves), the first and second threaded holes in claims 9-10;
the dust collector in claims 5-6 and 19-20; and
the projections of axes in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification (28) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification, for an example, in the paragraph 80 recites “the first lifting adjustment assembly comprises a first screw 141 and a first elastic member, the first elastic member is arranged between the first cutter mount 12 and the third cutter mount 14”. It is clearly that only the first elastic member is between the first and third cutter mounts, (not the first lifting adjustment assembly “screw and elastic member” is between the first and third cutter mounts), and there is a similarly issue of the second lifting adjustment assembly.
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 8-10 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 8-10 state that “the first lifting adjustment assembly… comprises a screw and an elastic member, and the elastic member is arranged between the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount… the first threaded hole…the second threaded hole…the screw is in threaded connection with the first cutter mount and is in threaded connection with the third cutter mount through the second threaded hole” is unclear. Figure 1 shows crews 141 and 151 in the threaded holes (143, 153), however, they are not between the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount (or the 2nd cutter mount and the 4th cutter mount) and Applicant’s specification is not clearly discussed how the first and second lifting mechanisms between cutter mounts since the screws are NOT between the cutter mounts;
In the paragraph 80, it discusses a spring (elastic member) between the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount (or the 2nd cutter mount and the 4th cutter mount), not first and second lifting mechanisms. Therefore, 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 not understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the scope of these claims are unclear. Verification is required.
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, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 203830819 U and Translation) in view of Chen (CN 111014799A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lin shows an electrode plate slitting cutter device (Figure 1 and abstract “battery pole piece dividing cutter”), comprising:
a frame (110, 121, 165);
an upper cutter holder (upper cutter shaft 200 and a main shaft extending out the support 110), two ends of the upper cutter holder being rotatably connected to the frame (Figure 1); and
a lower cutter holder (a lower shaft 400 and a main shaft extending out the support 110), the lower cutter holder being located below the upper cutter holder and arranged parallel to the upper cutter holder, and two ends of the lower cutter holder being rotatably connected to the frame (Figure 1);
wherein the upper cutter holder is provided with a double-edged cutter (see a disk adjacent to a disk 300 that has at least two edges: a cutting edge and a side edge), and the lower cutter holder is provided with a cutter groove (see grooves 500 for the disks 400 of the upper roller, Figure 1 below) corresponding to a position of the double-edged cutter and configured to cooperate with the double-edged cutter.
However, if one is argues that it is unclear whether this cutter device has a double-edge cutter and a cutter groove or not,
see Chen’s Figure 3 that shows a cutting device (Figure 3) including an upper holder (6) that includes cutting disks (8), wherein the disks are double-edge cutters (see the edges 83, Figure 3, are at least two edges) and a lower holder (3) that includes grooves for cooperating the double-edge cutters.
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 Lin to have double-edge cutters and grooves, as taught by Chen, in order to allow cutting a ferrous metal material (see the summary of the invention of Chen).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Lin shows that the upper cutter holder comprises an upper cutter shaft (see the upper main shaft being out the support 110, Figure 1) and an upper shaft sleeve (200) arranged on a peripheral side of the upper cutter shaft, and the lower cutter holder comprises a lower cutter shaft (see the lower main shaft being out the support 110, Figure 1) and a lower shaft sleeve (400) arranged on a peripheral side of the lower cutter shaft; each of the upper cutter shaft and the lower cutter shaft is rotatably connected to the frame (Figure 1); and
the upper shaft sleeve is fixedly connected to the double-edged cutter (Figure 1, the disks 300 are fixedly relative with the sleeves 200), and a peripheral side of the lower cutter shaft is provided with the cutter groove (Figure 1 and see the discussion of groove(s) in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Lin shows that the frame comprises: a bottom plate extending in a lengthwise direction of the upper cutter shaft (121, Figure 1); a lower cutter mount comprising a first cutter mount and a second cutter mount (left and right parts 140, Figure 1) 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 140, Figure 1) arranged above the first cutter mount and a fourth cutter mount arranged above the second cutter mount (see the upper left part 140); 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 14, Lin 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, Lin shows an electrode plate slitting machine (Figure 1 and see claims above), comprising: an electrode plate slitting cutter holder (see the discussion in claim 1 above) comprising:
“a frame; an upper cutter holder, two ends of the upper cutter holder being rotatably connected to the frame; and a lower cutter holder, the lower cutter holder being located below the upper cutter holder and arranged parallel to the upper cutter holder, and two ends of the lower cutter holder being rotatably connected to the frame; wherein one of the upper cutter holder and the lower cutter holder is provided with a double-edged cutter, and another one of the upper cutter holder and the lower cutter holder is provided with a cutter groove corresponding to a position of the double-edged cutter and configured to cooperate with the double-edged cutter” (see the modification of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Lin shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 1-2, 7, 14-15 above.
Claims 3-4, 13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 203830819 U and Translation) in view of Chen (CN 111014799A and Translation) and Zhang (CN 112338264 A and Translation).
Regarding claims 3-4,17-18 Lin shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the cutter at the lower shaft sleeve and a quick release mechanism comprises a first thread sleeve and a second thread sleeve in threaded fit with the first thread sleeve; and the first thread sleeve and the second thread sleeve are provided over the lower cutter shaft in a sleeved manner, and are fixedly connected to the first shaft sleeve and the second shaft sleeve, respectively, for locking the double-edged cutter in a threaded connection.
With regards to “the cutter at the lower shaft sleeve”, as per MPEP 2144.04(VI)C, this constitutes a rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device. Having the cutter grooves on the upper holder and the cutters on the lower holder has no effect on how the device works, and thus this is considered to be an obvious design choice.
With regards to “a quick release mechanism”, Zhang shows comprises a cutting device (Figure 2) having a first thread sleeve and a second thread sleeve in threaded fit with the first thread sleeve (figure 5, threads on sleeves 14-15); and the first thread sleeve and the second thread sleeve are provided over the lower cutter shaft in a sleeved manner (Figures 2 and 5), and are fixedly connected to a first shaft sleeve and a second shaft sleeve (15, 8), respectively, for locking the double-edged cutter 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 compressing means (for stacking disks on the upper and lower rollers) of Lin to have a thread connection, as taught by Zhang, 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.
Regarding claim 13, Lin shows that the double- edged cutter is circular, the double-edged cutter is coaxially arranged with the lower shaft sleeve, and a diameter of the double-edged cutter is greater than a diameter of the lower shaft sleeve (see Figure 1 and the discussion of the rearrangement of parts in claim 3 above).
Claims 5-6, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Chen and Saito (WO 2013089009 A1 and Translation).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 19-20, Lin 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 Lin 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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Chen and Ichikawa (US 6158316).
Regarding claim 8, Lin shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the first lifting adjustment assembly (screw and elastic member) is arranged between the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount; the second lifting adjustment assembly (screw and elastic member) is arranged 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 Lin 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 9-10, since there is the issue above that is unclear what the scope of these claims are interpreted. As best understood, there are two lifting mechanism on each side of the holders (see Figure 1 of Ichikawa) and each of the lifting mechanism includes a screw (82) and an elastic member (60, Figure 2 of Ichikawa) between upper cutter mounts and lower cutter mounts.
Regarding claims 11-12, Lin 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below:
The 112 (f) in claims 3 and 8 remain the same since these limitations meet the 3-prong analysis (see the discussion above). See MPEP. 2181(A) for “mechanism for”. 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.
With regards to the drawing objections, the arguments are acknowledged, however, the examiner lacks authority to interpret 35 USC 113 in a manner that removes the requirement that every claimed feature be shown in the drawing as is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claims 4, 9-10, 18 discussed above MUST be shown in drawing.
With regards to claim 9 in page 21 of the remarks “the elastic member is arranged between the first cutter mount and the third cutter mount…", this argument is corrected, however, claim 9 depends on claim 8 that inherently requires the screw and the elastic member (see Applicant’s specification, para. 80, for an example, the first lifting adjustment assembly including the screw and the elastic member) is between the 1st cutter mount and the 3rd cutter mount that is not corrected and causes to confusing.
With regards to the previous rejections of claims 1-20, especially claim 1, see new art, Lin in view Chen above. Please note that this is a Non-Final Rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached 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 1/21/2026