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 February 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the specification previously set forth in the Non -Final Office Action mailed October 15th, 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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the length of the first extension surface" and “the thickness of the electrode plate”, with first introducing a length of the first extension surface or a thickness of the electrode plate. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-5, 10-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
unpatentable over Hyeon Jin Lee et al. (US 20230173705 A1– hereinafter Lee) in view of Ji Young Hwang et al. (KR 20220081562 A – hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode,
comprising: an inflow region (Fig. 5, region before Upper Cutter 110 where Gripper 500 lies)
where an electrode plate flows in; an outflow region (Fig. 5, region including Upper Cutter 110
as well as the space behind Upper Cutter 110) where an electrode plate ([0047]) is cut into a
preset size and flows out; a first cutter (Fig. 3, Upper Cutter 110) including a first cutting surface
(Fig. 3, bottom surface of Upper Cutter 110) extending side by side along a movement direction
of the electrode plate moving from the inflow region to the outflow region and an obliqued
surface (Fig. 3, surface extending up and to the left from the bottom surface of Upper Cutter 110)
extending obliquely from one edge of the first cutting surface in a direction away from the
electrode plate; and a second cutter (Fig. 1, Lower Cutter 210) supporting the electrode plate,
wherein the first cutter moves along a direction in which the second cutter is positioned to
pressurize the electrode plate to the first cutting surface ([0052]), and wherein the first cutter (Fig. 3, Upper Cutter 110) further includes a first extension surface (Fig. 3, surface extending upwards from the right side of the bottom surface of Upper Cutter 110) extending perpendicular to the first cutting surface at one edge and the other edge of the first cutting surface.
Lee does not teach an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode wherein along the movement direction of the electrode plate, the first cutter and the second cutter is positioned to be spaced apart from each other in a preset interval, and wherein the preset interval is formed to be smaller than the length of the first extension surface and greater than the thickness of the electrode plate.
However, Hwang teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode wherein along the
movement direction of the electrode plate, the first cutter (Fig. 3, Second Cutting Member 120)
and the second cutter (Fig. 3, First Cutting Member 110) is positioned to be spaced apart from
each other in a preset interval (Fig. 3, d1), and wherein the preset interval is formed to be smaller than the length of the first extension surface and greater than the thickness of the electrode plate (Fig. 3, Electrode 10. It can be clearly seen that the first extension surface (vertically extending surface seen in the side view of Figure 3 of Cutting Member 120) has a length which is greater than the preset interval, and that the preset interval is also greater than the thickness of the Electrode 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of Lee to include the limitations of claim 1 as taught by
Hwang. Doing so is beneficial as it applies a shear force to the electrode (Hwang, Page 6 Para 1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 1, wherein the first cutting surface faces the electrode plate when the
electrode plate is pressurized (Fig. 3, the electrode plate is meant to pass below the Upper Cutter
110, so the bottom surface of 110 would face the electrode plate).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 1, wherein the first cutting surface includes a tunnel-shaped recession portion
(Fig. 3, bottom surface of Upper Cutter 110 inclines upwards at both ends to create a tunnel-
shaped recession portion, in a direction away from the electrode plate) that is recessed away from
the electrode plate and is formed side by side with the movement direction.
Regarding claim 5, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 4, wherein the recessed portion includes a first obliqued portion (Fig. 3, left
portion of the bottom surface of Upper Cutter 110 which inclines upwards) and a second
obliqued portion (Fig. 3, right portion of the bottom surface of Upper Cutter 110 which inclines
upwards), wherein each of the first obliqued portion and the second obliqued portion is formed to
have an angle formed with the electrode plate at a preset first angle (Fig. 3, the electrode plate
sits plate on top of Lower Cutter 210, so each obliqued portion forms an angle with the electrode
plate).
Regarding claim 10, Lee fails to teach the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 5, wherein the first angle is 0.5 degrees to 1.5 degrees.
However, Hwang teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode wherein the first
angle is 1 degree (Fig. 4, Theta and Second Cutting Member 120; Page 9, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of Lee to include the limitations of claim 10 as taught by
Hwang. Doing so is beneficial as it increasing cutting speed (Hwang, Page 11 Para 3).
Regarding claim 11, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 1, wherein the second cutter includes a second cutting surface (Fig. 1, top
horizontal surface of Lower Cutter 210) extending along the movement direction of the electrode
plate.
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 11, wherein the second cutter further includes a second extension (Fig. 3,
front vertical surface of Lower Cutter 210) surface extending perpendicular to the second cutting
surface at one edge of the second cutting surface.
Regarding claim 13, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 1, further comprising: a pusher (Fig. 5, First Gripper 510) pressurizing an
electrode plate ([0068]), wherein the pusher may be positioned closer to the inflow region than
the first cutter (Fig. 5, the First Gripper 510 is in the inflow region, while the Upper Cutter 110 is
not. Therefore, the First Gripper 510 is closer to the inflow region).
Regarding claim 14, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 13, wherein the pusher is movable side by side with the movement direction
of the first cutter ([0068] and [0052], the First Gripper 510 moves up and down in the same
direction as and parallel to Upper Cutter 110).
Regarding claim 18, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 13, wherein, when the movement of the electrode plate stops, the pusher
pressurizes the electrode plate ([0068] – the electrode sheet is gripped between the First and
Second Grippers 510 and 520, therefore the electrode plate is not moving when pressurized by
the Grippers).
Regarding claim 20, Lee further teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode
according to claim 1, wherein movement of the electrode plate from the inflow region toward the
outflow region is intermittent ([0047]).
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon Jin
Lee et al. (US 20230173705 A1– hereinafter Lee) in view of Ji Young Hwang et al. (KR 20220081562 A – hereinafter Hwang) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sin Young Park et al. (US 2023112473 A1 – hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Lee and Hwang fails to teach the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode according to claim 5, further comprising: a first auxiliary obliqued portion obliquely connected to have an angle formed with the electrode plate at a preset second angle in a direction away from the electrode plate at one end of the first obliqued portion; and a second auxiliary obliqued portion that is oblique to have an angle formed with the electrode plate at a preset second angle in a direction away from the electrode plate at one end of the second obliqued portion and that extends toward the first auxiliary obliqued portion.
However, Park teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode, further comprising:
a first auxiliary obliqued portion (Fig. 10b, the bottom edge which is second from the left and
ends at the midpoint of Upper Knife 1) obliquely connected to have an angle formed with the
electrode plate (Fig. 8, the electrode plate runs parallel to the top edge of Upper Knife 1) at a
preset second angle in a direction away from the electrode plate at one end of the first obliqued
portion (Fig. 10b, leftmost bottom edge); and a second auxiliary obliqued portion (Fig. 10b, the
bottom edge which is second from the right and ends at the midpoint of Upper Knife 1) that is
oblique to have an angle formed with the electrode plate at a preset second angle in a direction
away from the electrode plate at one end of the second obliqued portion (Fig. 10b, rightmost
bottom edge) and that extends toward the first auxiliary obliqued portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of Lee and Hwang to include the features of claim 6 as taught by Park. Doing so is beneficial as it minimizes the stroke of the knife needed to complete a cut (Park; [0078] and [0079]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee, Hwang, and Park already teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode according to claim 6, wherein the first auxiliary obliqued portion (Park; Fig. 10b, the bottom edge which is second from the left and ends at the midpoint of Upper Knife 1) and the second auxiliary obliqued portion (Park; Fig. 10b, the bottom edge which is second from the right and ends at the midpoint of Upper Knife 1) are connected.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee, Hwang, and Park already teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode according to claim 7, wherein in the first cutter, the distance from a connection line where first auxiliary obliqued portion and the second auxiliary obliqued portion meet to the first obliqued portion is the same as the distance therefrom to the second obliqued portion (Park; Fig. 10b, the Upper Knife is symmetrical about a vertical midline).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee, Hwang, and Park already teaches the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode according to claim 6, wherein the second angle is smaller than the first angle (Park; Fig. 10b, the middle two bottom edges are closer to the horizontal than the outer two bottom edges).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon Jin Lee
et al. (US 2023173705 A1– hereinafter Lee) in view of Ji Young Hwang et al. (KR 20220081562 A – hereinafter Hwang) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in
view of Namyoung Kim (CN 115398692 A – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Lee and Hwang does not explicitly teach the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode according to claim 13, wherein along the width direction of the electrode plate perpendicular to the movement direction of the electrode plate, the length of the pusher is equal to or longer than the length of the first cutter.
However, Kim teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode wherein along the
width direction of the electrode plate (Fig. 2, Electrode Sheet 310) perpendicular to the
movement direction of the electrode plate, the length of the pusher (Fig. 2, Holder 210) is equal
to or longer than the length of the first cutter (Fig. 2, Cutter 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of Lee and Hwang to include the limitations of claim 15 as taught by Kim. Doing so is beneficial as it ensures stability of the electrode sheet (Kim, Page 6 Para 13).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hyeon Jin Lee et al. (US 2023173705 A1– hereinafter Lee) in view of Ji Young Hwang et al. (KR 20220081562 A – hereinafter Hwang) as applied to claims 13 and 18 above, and further in view of Jung Young Tae et al. (KR 102363870 B1 – hereinafter Tae).
Regarding claim 16, the existing combination of Lee and Hwang does not explicitly teach the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode according to claim 13, wherein along a direction in which the first cutter moves from a virtual surface formed side by side to be spaced apart from the electrode plate in a preset distance, the length in which the first cutter is movable is longer than the length in which the pusher is movable.
However, Tae teaches and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode wherein along a
direction in which the first cutter (Fig. 7a-7d, Upper Cutter 31) moves from a virtual surface
formed side by side to be spaced apart from the electrode plate in a preset distance, the length in
which the first cutter is movable is longer than the length in which the pusher (Fig. 7a-7d, First
Gripper 32) is movable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of Lee and Hwang to include the limitations of claim 16 as taught by Tae. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the electrode sheet to be closely adhered to the grippers when a cut is made (Tae, Page 3 Para 2).
Regarding claim 19, the existing combination of Lee and Hwang does not explicitly teach the apparatus for manufacturing an electrode according to claim 18, wherein, after the pusher pressurizes the electrode plate, the first cutter pressurizes the electrode plate.
However, Tae teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode wherein, after the
pusher (Fig. 7a-7d, First Gripper 32) pressurizes the electrode plate (Fig. 7a-7d, Electrode F), the
first cutter (Fig. 7a-7d, Upper Cutter 31) pressurizes the electrode plate (In Fig. 7a-7d it can be
seen that the pusher and the first cutter descend at the same rate, and the pusher is located closer
to the electrode plate, therefore making contact with the plate and pressurizing it before the first
cutter is able to make contact and pressurize the electrode plate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of Lee and Hwang to include the limitations of claim 19 as taught by Tae.
Doing so is beneficial as it allows the electrode sheet to be closely adhered to the grippers when
a cut is made (Tae, Page 3 Para 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Hwang does not teach that the preset interval is formed to be smaller than the length of the first extension surface and greater than the thickness of the electrode plate since Hwang does not define any specific range of the item d1 used to teach the preset interval. While no numeric value is disclosed by Hwang in the specification, it can be clearly seen from Fig. 3 that d1 is larger than the thickness of electrode 10, and smaller than the vertical length of 120. Therefore, Hwang teaches this limitation of claim 1. Hwang is not required to teach any specific condition, range, value, function, or benefit associated with the preset interval, since none of these things are mentioned in the claim language. It is shown in the rejection of claim 1 above that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Hwang due to the teaching in Hwang that having such a preset interval allows a shear force to be applied to cut the electrode (Hwang, Page 6 Para 1).
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
Prosecution Insights