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 Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments, see page 6, lines 17-18, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to amendments to claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Liu et al. and in further view of Sun et al..
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
. In the present instance, claim 1 recites “the second end portion has an equal distance to the axis of the shaping portion”, and further claim 7 recites “the shaping portions are of a cone structure”. The claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear how a second end portion having an equal distance to the axis of the shaping portion can be of a cone structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. CN 113305147 A. CN 113305147 A is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Sun patent. The Sun patent discloses elements of the applicant’s device as claimed, thus anticipating the applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a device (See Sun FIG. 4 Below) for repairing burrs of an elector plate (intended use), the device comprising a plurality of shaping rollers arranged in sequence along a conveying direction of the electrode plate, wherein each of the shaping rollers comprises a main body portion and a shaping portion (See Sun FIG. 4 Below) which are coaxially connected to each other, a shaping surface is formed on an outer surface of the shaping portion, the shaping surface comprises a first end portion connected to the main body portion and a second end portion located away from the main body portion, the second end portion is closer to an axis of the shaping portion than the first end portion or has an equal distance to the axis of the shaping position as the first end portion, and along the conveying direction of the electrode plate, included angles between shaping surfaces of the plurality of shaping rollers and a surface of the electrode plate decrease in sequence, the plurality of shaping rollers includes a starting shaping roller and a terminal shaping roller (See Sun FIG. 4 Below) at a starting position and an ending position along the conveying direction of the electrode plate respectively, the shaping portion of the terminal shaping roller is of a cylindrical structure, and a diameter of the cylindrical structure of the terminal shaping roller is equal to that of the main body portion of the terminal shaping roller (See Sun FIG. 4 Below). A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CPA 1963). See MPEP 2115.
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 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sun FIG. 4
Regarding claim 2, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electrode plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein along the conveying direction of the electrode plate, the included angle between a terminal shaping surface of the terminal shaping roller and the surface of the electrode plate is equal to 0° (See Sun FIG. 4 above). A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CPA 1963). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electro plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein there are four shaping surfaces (Sun – 309,310,311,313; FIG. 4), and along the conveying direction of the electrode plate the included angles between the four shaping surfaces and the surface of the electrode plate decrease with a constant gradient (See Sun FIG. 4 above).
Regarding claim 5, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electrode plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the plurality of shaping rollers are configured to be on upper and lower sides of the electrode plate (See Sun FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electrode plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the each of the shaping rollers comprises two shaping portions and the main body portion, and the two shaping portions are symmetrically arranged at two axial ends of the main body portion (See Sun FIG. 4 above).
Regarding claim 7, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electroplate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the shaping portions are of a cone structure (See Sun – 309; FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electrode plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the shaping portion corresponding to the shaping surface which has an included angle of 0° with the surface of the electrode plate is of a cylindrical structure, wherein the diameter of the cylindrical structure is equal to that of the main body portion, and the shaping surface is formed at an outer circumferential surface of the cylindrical structure (Sun – 313; FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 9, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electrode plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the main body portion is a circular shaft body, the main body portion is configured to abut against the surface of the electrode plate, the shaping portion is coaxially connected to at least one end of the main body portion, and at least part of the shaping portion is configured to protrude from an edge of the electrode plate to repair and flatten the burrs on a side of the electrode plate (Sun – 309,310,311).
A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CPA 1963). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 13, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electroplate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the plurality of shaping rollers comprise a pair of one upper shaping roller on an upper side of the electrode plate (Sun – 313) and one lower shaping roller on a lower side of the electrode plate (Sun – 314; FIG. 4), the pair of the upper shaping roller (Sun – 313) and the lower shaping roller (Sun – 314) are vertically symmetrically arranged (See Sun FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electrode plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein each of the plurality of shaping rollers comprises two shaping portions, which are symmetrically arranged at two axial ends of the main body portion, and the two shaping portions have the same included angle between the shaping surface and the surface of the electrode plate (See Sun FIG. 4 above). A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CPA 1963). See MPEP 2115.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun. Regarding claim 4, Sun does not specifically teach wherein along the conveying direction of the electrode plate, the included angles between the four shaping surfaces and the surface of the electrode plate are respectively 45°, 30°, 15° and 0°, however, Sun does teach the shaping roller having an angle (Sun Para [0078]: the bottom profile is an isosceles trapezoid whose bottom angle is less than 60 degrees) . MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) states "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." (In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)). Applicant has not disclosed a critical function of the invention, wherein the included angle is set to 45°, 30°, 15° and 0°. Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of the particular angles that results in an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the angles of the shaping surfaces to 45F, 30°, 15° and 0° because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Yang et al. CN 110788208 A. CN 110788208 A is a published patent application to be referred to as the Yang patent.
Regarding claim 10, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electroplate (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Sun fails to disclose wherein the plurality of shaping rollers are rotated at the same speed by a driving component, and a linear speed of the plurality of shaping rollers is equal to a conveying speed of the electrode plate.
Yang teaches a plurality of shaping rollers (Yang – 4,5,21; FIG. 4) rotated at the same speed by a driving component (Yang – 8; FIG. 2), and a linear speed of the plurality of shaping rollers (Yang – 4,5,21) is equal to a conveying speed of the electrode plate (Yang Para [0010]: A drive assembly is provided on the machine body for simultaneously rotating the folding rollers and groove forming rollers on the same horizontal plane.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device for repairing burrs of an electroplate disclosed by Sun, to have the plurality of shaping rollers rotated at the same speed by a driving component, and a linear speed of the plurality of shaping rollers equal to a conveying speed of the electrode plate, as taught by Yang, to rotate the plurality of shaping rollers synchronously, thus achieving the effect of driving the plurality of shaping rollers to rotate more conveniently (See Yang Para [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Sun in view Yang discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electroplate (See claim 10 rejection above), wherein the driving component (Yang – 8) comprises a driving motor (Yang – 81; FIG.2) a driving shaft (Yang – 84; FIG. 2) and driven shafts, there are a plurality of driven shafts, which correspond to the plurality of shaping rollers on a one-to-one basis, the shaping rollers are each concentrically fixed to the respective driven shaft (Yang FIG. 2), an output end of the driving motor (Yang – 81) is drivingly connected to the driving shaft (Yang – 84), and the driving shaft is drivingly connected to the plurality of driven shafts (Yang Para [0022]: drive assembly includes a rotating motor, a transmission chain, and a rotating gear. Both ends of the folding roller are coaxially connected to a rotating shaft. The rotating gear is coaxially mounted on the rotating shaft. The transmission chain meshes with the rotating gear. The rotating motor is mounted on the machine body and coaxially connected to the rotating shaft.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Cheng et al. CN 111952534 B. CN 111952534 B to be referred as the Cheng patent.
Regarding claim 12, Sun discloses the device for repairing burrs of an electroplate (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Sun fails to disclose wherein the shaping rollers are made of stainless steel or rubber. Cheng teaches wherein the shaping rollers (Cheng – 21,22; FIG. 2) are made of stainless steel or rubber (Cheng Para [0027]: Each compression roller of the upper compression roller group (21) and the lower compression roller group (22) can be steel rollers or compression rollers of other materials.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify shaping rollers of the device for repairing burrs of an electrode plate as disclosed by Sun, to form the shaping rollers out of steel, as taught by Cheng, to yield the predictable result of a steel roller. Moreover, it is well known in the art to form rollers out of steel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights