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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 2nd, 2025.
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 2-13 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cutting module constituting the thickness cutter unit" and “the moving module constituting the thickness cutter unit” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 2. A singular moving module and a singular cutting module are disclosed in claim 1, however they are disclosed to be part of “the cutting unit”, and it is not disclosed that there is a multitude of these moving and cutting modules belonging to multiple cutting units such as the thickness cutter unit.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cutting module constituting the longitudinal cutter unit" and “the moving module constituting the longitudinal cutter unit” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 4. A singular moving module and a singular cutting module are disclosed in claim 1, however they are disclosed to be part of “the cutting unit”, and it is not disclosed that there is a multitude of these moving and cutting modules belonging to multiple cutting units such as the longitudinal cutter unit.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cutting module constituting the width cutter unit" and “the moving module constituting the width cutter unit” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 7. A singular moving module and a singular cutting module are disclosed in claim 1, however they are disclosed to be part of “the cutting unit”, and it is not disclosed that there is a multitude of these moving and cutting modules belonging to multiple cutting units such as the width cutter unit.
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 1-3, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ya-ying Wang et al. (CN 207233780 U – hereinafter Wang) in view of Xin Liu
(CN 113363608 A – hereinafter Liu), Josef Bäumer (EP 2974835 A2 – hereinafter
Bäumer), and Yu Han et al. (CN 218241952 U – hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a battery cutting device (Fig. 1, device shown)
comprising: a jig unit (Fig. 1, jig unit comprising Polishing Sheet 18 and Base 3, left and right
Clamping Plate 6, and left and right Hydraulic Rod 13) including a longitudinal jig unit (Fig. 1,
longitudinal jig unit comprising Polishing Sheet 18 and Base 3), a thickness jig unit (Fig. 1,
thickness jig unit comprising left and right Clamping Plate 6), and a width jig unit (Fig. 1, width
jig unit comprising left and right Hydraulic Rod 13); and a cutter unit (Fig. 1, cutter unit
comprising Blade 15 and Rod 14) coupled to the jig unit to form a plurality of cutting lines intersecting the secondary battery case (Fig. 1, the cutter unit is designed to rotate to cut the whole top outer portion off the battery, and the cutting lines of the two blades 15intersect during this process), wherein the longitudinal jig unit includes a first longitudinal jig module (Fig. 1, Polishing Sheet 18) and a second longitudinal jig module (Fig. 1, Base 3) that are arranged in a longitudinal direction and approach or move away from each other (Fig. 1; Page 3 Last Para, First Hydraulic Rod 2 moves Base 3 up and down), wherein the thickness jig unit includes a first thickness jig module (Fig. 1, left Clamping Plate 6) and a second thickness jig module (Fig. 1, right Clamping Plate 6) that approach or move away from each other (Fig. 1; Page 3 Last Para, Push Rod 5 moves Plates 6 in and out), wherein the width jig unit includes a first width jig module (Fig. 1, left Hydraulic Rod 13) and a second width jig module (Fig. 1, right Hydraulic Rod 13) that are arranged in a width direction and approach or move away from each other (Page 4 Para 2, Hydraulic Rods 13 move in and out), wherein the cutter unit includes: a cutting module (Fig. 1, cutting module comprising Rod 14 and Blade 15), the cutting module including a cutting blade (Fig. 1, Blade 15).
Wang fails to teach that the first thickness jig module and the second thickness jig
module are arranged in a thickness direction, that the cutter unit include a moving module fixed
to the jig unit, that the cutting module is coupled to a moving module to be moveable in one
direction, and that each of the width jig unit, the longitudinal unit, and the thickness jig unit are arranged in different directions for a rectangular secondary battery case.
However, Liu teaches a first thickness module and a second thickness module (Fig. 1,
Driving Connecting Rods 75) arranged in a thickness direction. Additionally, Bäumer teaches a
moving module (Fig. 4, moving module comprising Rail 66 and Gripper 63) fixed to a jig unit
(Fig. 4, plate at the bottom of Stand 62), and a cutting module (Fig. 5, Knife 25) coupled to the
moving module to be movable in one direction (Page 8 Para 5; Rail 66 allows for vertical
displacement of Gripper 63, which holds Knife 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang such that the second thickness module is
arranged in a thickness direction as taught by Liu, as it has been held that the position of a
feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not
modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and
In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery cutting device of
Wang such that there is a moving module fixed to the jig unit, and the cutting module is coupled
to the moving module to be moveable in the one direction as taught by Bäumer. Modifying
Wang to include the limitations of claim 1 as taught by Bäumer is beneficial as it allows for
vertical displacement of the knife while still securely gripping the knife (Bäumer, Page 8 Para 3-
5). As a result of this modification, each of the width jig unit, the longitudinal unit, and the thickness jig unit are arranged in different directions for a secondary battery case.
The existing combination of Wang, Liu, and Bäumer does not teach that the jig unit is for a rectangular secondary battery case. However, Han teaches a jig unit for a rectangular secondary battery case. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, and Bäumer such that the jig unit is shaped to accommodate a rectangular secondary unit as taught by Han as it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Wang further teaches the battery cutting device of claim 1, wherein
the cutter unit further includes a thickness cutter unit (Fig. 1, leftmost Blade 15) coupled to the
width jig unit (Fig. 1, Hydraulic Rod 13).
The existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Han does not teach wherein a cutting module of the thickness cutter unit is coupled to a moving module of the thickness cutter unit to be movable in the thickness direction.
However, Bäumer teaches a cutting module (Fig. 5, Knife 25) coupled to a moving
module (Fig. 4, moving module comprising Rail 66 and Gripper 63), the moving module
allowing for the cutter unit to be moveable in a thickness direction if implemented on the width
jig unit of Wang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Han to include the limitations of claim 2 above as taught by Bäumer. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for displacement of the knife while still securely gripping the knife (Bäumer, Page 8 Para 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further teaches the battery cutting device of claim 2, wherein
the thickness cutter unit (Fig. 1, leftmost Blade 15) is coupled to an inner surface (Fig. 1, surface
of leftmost Hydraulic Rod 13 closest to leftmost Blade 15) of the first width jig module (Fig. 1,
leftmost Hydraulic Rod 13), and wherein the inner surface of the first width jig module faces the
second width jig module (Fig. 1, rightmost Hydraulic Rod 13).
Regarding claim 14, the existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Han already
teaches the battery cutting device of claim 1, wherein the moving module includes: a frame
(Bäumer; Fig. 10, Stand 62) fixed to the jig unit; a guide rail (Bäumer; Fig. 10, Rail 66) installed
on the frame and forming a shape extending in the one direction; a guide block (Bäumer; Fig. 12, block which is in contact with the top, right, and left sides of Rail 66 as viewed from above in
Fig. 12) installed on the frame and coupled to the guide rail to be movable in the one direction;
and a guide table (Bäumer; Fig. 12, plate immediately to the right of the guide block as viewed
above in Fig. 12) coupled to the guide block and coupled to the cutting module (Bäumer; Fig. 8,
Blade 25).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Han already
teaches the battery cutting device of claim 14, wherein the moving module further includes: a
moving rod (Bäumer; Fig. 8, Ball Screw 68) installed on the frame and forming a shape
extending in the one direction; and a rod coupler (Bäumer; Fig. 7, coupler located midway down
Ball Screw 68) coupled to at least one of the guide block or the guide table and movably coupled
to the moving rod, wherein, based on the moving rod rotating, the cutting module moves in the
one direction (Bäumer; Page 8 Para 5).
Claims 4-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ya-ying Wang et al. (CN 207233780 U – hereinafter Wang) in view of Xin Liu
(CN 113363608 A – hereinafter Liu), Josef Bäumer (EP 2974835 A2 – hereinafter
Bäumer), and Yu Han et al. (CN 218241952 U – hereinafter Han) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jingoo Kwak (KR 20210068861 A – hereinafter Kwak).
Regarding claim 4, Wang further teaches the battery cutting device of claim 3, wherein
the cutter unit further includes a cutter unit (Fig. 1, rightmost Blade 15) coupled to the width jig
unit (Fig. 1, Hydraulic Rod 13).
The existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Han does not teach that the cutter unit is a longitudinal cutter unit, and that the cutting module of the longitudinal cutter unit is coupled to the moving module of the longitudinal cutter unit to be movable in the longitudinal direction.
However, Kwak teaches a battery cutting device with a longitudinal cutter unit (Fig. 2, Upper Jig 210). Additionally, Bäumer teaches a cutting module (Fig. 5, Knife 25) coupled to a moving module (Fig. 4, moving module comprising Rail 66 and Gripper 63), the moving module allowing for the cutter unit to be moveable in a longitudinal direction if implemented on the width jig unit of Wang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Han to include the limitations of claim 4 above as taught by Bäumer. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for displacement of the knife while still securely gripping the knife (Bäumer, Page 8 Para 3-5). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cutter unit of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Han to be a longitudinal cutter unit as taught by Kwak. Doing so is beneficial as gravity can assist in moving the blade to perform a cut (Kwak; Page 3 Para 7).
Regarding claim 5, Wang further teaches the battery cutting device of claim 4, wherein
the longitudinal cutter unit (Fig. 1, rightmost Blade 15) is coupled to the inner surface (Fig. 1,
surface of rightmost Hydraulic Rod 13 closest to rightmost Blade 15) of the second width jig
module (Fig. 1, rightmost Hydraulic Rod 13), and wherein the second width jig module
approaches or moves away from the first width jig module (Page 4 Para 2, Hydraulic Rods 13
move in and out). Wang does not teach that the longitudinal cutter unit is located on the inner
surface of the first width jig module, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak such that the longitudinal cutter unit is coupled to the inner surface of the first width jig module as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an
obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7
(CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han and Kwak does not teach the battery cutting device of claim 5, wherein the first width jig module is positioned above the second width jig module.
However, Han teaches a battery cutting device where the first width jig module is
positioned above the second width jig module (Fig. 2, Second Limiting Block 92 is higher than
the block across from it and on the other side of Battery 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak to include the
limitations of claim 6 as taught by Han, as it has been held that the position of a feature may be
in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the
operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak does not teach the battery cutting device of claim 4, wherein the cutter unit further includes a width cutter unit coupled to the thickness jig unit, and wherein the cutting module of the width cutter unit is coupled to the moving module of the width cutter unit to be movable in the width direction.
However, Liu teaches the battery cutting device of claim 4, wherein a cutter unit further
includes a width cutter unit (Fig. 4, Cutter 53) coupled to a thickness jig unit (Fig. 7, Driving
Connecting Rod 75), and wherein the cutting module of the width cutter unit is moveable in the
width direction (Fig. 4; [], knives 53 rotate, and therefore at some point in their rotation path
have a tangential component of movement in the width direction). Additionally, Bäumer teaches
a cutting module (Fig. 5, Knife 25) coupled to a moving module (Fig. 4, moving module
comprising Rail 66 and Gripper 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak to include the
limitations of claim 7 as taught by Liu. Doing so is beneficial as it assists in automatic
disassembly of the battery (Liu; Page 6 Para 6). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu,
Bäumer, Han, and Kwak to include the limitations of claim 7 as taught by Bäumer. Doing so is
beneficial as it allows for displacement of the knife while still securely gripping the knife
(Bäumer, Page 8 Para 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, Wang further teaches the battery cutting device of claim 7, wherein
the inner surface of the first thickness jig module (Fig. 1, inside surface of leftmost Clamping Plate 6) faces the second thickness jig module (Fig. 1, inside surface of rightmost Clamping Plate
6). Liu already teaches wherein the width cutter unit is coupled to an inner surface of the first
thickness jig module (Liu, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Wang further teaches the battery cutting device of claim 8, wherein
the second thickness jig module approaches or moves away from the first thickness jig module
(Fig. 1; Page 3 Last Para, Push Rod 5 moves Plates 6 in and out).
Regarding claim 12, Wang further teaches the battery cutting device of claim 7, wherein
the first thickness jig module is positioned behind the second thickness jig module (Fig. 1). The
existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak does not teach wherein the first width jig module is positioned above the second width jig module.
However, Han teaches a battery cutting device where the first width jig module is
positioned above the second width jig module (Fig. 2, Second Limiting Block 92 is higher than
the block across from it and on the other side of Battery 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, and Kwak to include the
limitations of claim 12 as taught by Han, as it has been held that the position of a feature may be
in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the
operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ya-
ying Wang et al. (CN 207233780 U – hereinafter Wang) in view of Xin Liu (CN 113363608 A – hereinafter Liu), Josef Bäumer (EP 2974835 A2 – hereinafter Bäumer), Yu Han et al. (CN 218241952 U – hereinafter Han), and Jingoo Kwak (KR 20210068861 A – hereinafter Kwak) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Atsushi Mizusawa (US 9160043 B2 – hereinafter Mizusawa).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak does not teach the battery cutting device of claim 7, wherein a movement path of the cutting module of the width cutter unit meets a movement path of the cutting module of the thickness cutter unit.
However, Mizusawa teaches wherein a movement path of a cutting module of a width
cutter unit (Fig. 5, Cut 512) meets the movement path of the cutting module of a thickness cutter
unit (Fig. 5, leftmost Cut 506).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak to include the
limitations of claim 10 as taught by Mizusawa. Doing so is beneficial as it facilitates removal of
the exterior of the battery (Mizusawa; Col 5 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han and Kwak does not teach the battery cutting device of claim 7, wherein a movement path of the cutting module of the thickness cutter unit meets a movement path of the cutting module of the longitudinal cutter unit.
However, Mizusawa teaches wherein a movement path of a cutting module of a thickness
cutter unit (Fig. 5, Cut 506) meets the movement path of the cutting module of a longitudinal
cutter unit (Fig. 5, rightmost cut 412).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak to include the
limitations of claim 11 as taught by Mizusawa. Doing so is beneficial as it facilitates removal of
the exterior of the battery (Mizusawa; Col 5 lines 1-4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ya-ying Wang
et al. (CN 207233780 U – hereinafter Wang) in view of Xin Liu (CN 113363608 A –
hereinafter Liu), Josef Bäumer (EP 2974835 A2 – hereinafter Bäumer), Yu Han et al. (CN 218241952 U – hereinafter Han), and Jingoo Kwak (KR 20210068861 A – hereinafter Kwak) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chang-yuan Huang (CN 218425952 U – hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak does not teach the battery cutting device of claim 7, wherein the first longitudinal jig module forms an opening.
However, Huang teaches a cutting device with a first longitudinal jig module that forms
an opening (Fig. 1, Clamping Seat 15 – an opening is formed on Clamping Seat 15 by Clamping
Blocks 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the battery cutting device of Wang, Liu, Bäumer, Han, and Kwak to include the
limitations of claim 13 as taught by Huang. Doing so is beneficial as it assists in fixing the
battery in place (Huang, Page 5 Para 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that a rectangular secondary battery is not taught. However applicant’s arguments with respect to this limitation have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Han is brought into the rejection of claim 1 to teach the features of a device which handles a rectangular rather than a cylindrical battery.
Applicant additionally argues that the hydraulic rods (13) of Wang do not correspond to a width direction since they rotate during their operation, and therefore the rods extend in directions other than the width direction. However, Wang clearly states that the rods actuate to move the blades in the width direction as shown in Fig. 1 before any rotation occurs (Wang; Page 4, Para 2).
Applicant further argues that Liu does not teach that rod (75) of Liu is not arranged in the thickness direction since they are designed to impart pressure in a radial direction of a battery. However, the plain meaning of the claim language only requires that there is a first thickness module and a second thickness module arranged in a thickness direction. The rods (75) of Liu as described in the rejection of claim 1 above are arranged in a thickness direction, and although the specific shape of the battery held by Liu is not disclosed, the examiner finds that the structure of the rods of Liu is such that a rectangular battery could be held between them.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724