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
Applicant’s 2-19-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 were amended. New Claim 10 was presented. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending and examined in this action.
Applicant’s drawing amendments cured the previous Drawing Objections.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The 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 understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a contacting member in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing 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.
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, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2336558 C in view of US 2003/0131699 to Lai and US 2002/0017173 to Li.
In re Claim 1, CA 2336558 C claims a push-breaking device (see Figs. 1a/b), comprising:
a placement stand configured to receive a layered electrode sheet is placed (see Figs. 1 1a/b, #2, which is capable of cutting a workpiece that is a layered electrode sheet);
a contacting member configured to press the layered electrode sheet placed on the placement stand (see Figs. 1a/b, #5); and
at least one cutting blade tool (see Figs. 1a/b, #1/7),
the push-breaking device configured such that by the at least one cutting blade tool, which moves relative to the placement stand along a first direction, the push-breaking device pushes and bends, and breaks, a portion of a protruding region, which protrudes outward from the placement stand and the contacting member, of the layered electrode sheet, which is pressed by the contacting member in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (see Figs. 1a/b, ), wherein:
CA 2336558 C is silent as to:
an angle of a blade portion of the cutting blade tool with respect to the second direction is from 15° to 30° ( a rake angle),
an angle of the blade portion with respect to the first direction is an acute angle (a relief angle), and
a length, in the second direction, of a clearance between the blade portion and an end, at a side of the cutting blade tool, of the placement stand is from 20 µm to 50 µm.
However, Lai teaches that it is known in the shearing art to provide a rake angle between 0 and 20 degree and 30-70 (see Lai, Para. 0014), which reads on “an angle of a blade portion of the cutting blade tool with respect to the second direction is from 15° to 30°,” and a relieve angle in the range of 0 to 30 degrees (see Lai, Para. 0014), which reads on “an angle of the blade portion with respect to the first direction is an acute angle.”
In the same field of invention, shearing blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the blade design of Lai which includes rake angle in Applicant’s claims. Doing so tightly controls the cut preventing hair-like debris and other defects (see Lai, Para. 0005 and 0011) while providing a clear cut and enhanced tool life (see Lai, Para. 0010/0012).
Additionally, Li teaches that it is known in the art to provide “a clearance the clearance C is at least about 10 percent of the thickness T of the aluminum sheet 20. In contrast, the clearance used for trimming steel sheet is conventionally kept below about 8 percent of the steel sheet thickness in order to obtain satisfactory cut edges.” (See Li, Para. 0027). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to adjust the clearance to between 8-10 percent of the thickness. Doing so provides satisfactory cut edges (see Li, Para. 0027).
The Examiner notes that in shearing, the clearance is a result effective variable that depends on the thickness of the workpiece. As an example, a workpiece of 200 µm thickness would have a 20 µm clearance at 10 percent and a workpiece of 500 µm would have a 50 µm clearance at 10 percent. Further, a workpiece of 250 µm thickness would have a 20 µm clearance at 8 percent and a workpiece of 625 µm would have a 50 µm clearance at 8 percent.
In other words, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide a clearance from 20 µm to 50 µm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re Claim 3, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the acute angle is from 5° to 15° (see Lai, Para. 0014 teaching a relief angle between 0 and 30 degrees).
In re Claim 5, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a lower die holder (see CA 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b, #4/2), and an upper die holder (see CA 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b, #3) disposed so as to face the lower die holder and configured to move along the first direction relative to the lower die holder (see CA 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b, see arrows), wherein: the first direction is parallel to a gravitational direction (see CA 2336558 C, Fig. 1a/b, see arrows which are in a direction parallel to the gravitational direction of “up/down”), the blade and the contacting member are mounted at the upper die holder (see CA 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b, #5/7/1/7 are mounted on #3), and the placement stand is mounted at the lower die holder (see CA 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b, #2 on #4).
In re Claim 6, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein: the cutting blade tool comprises an upper blade (see CA 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b, #7), and the placement stand comprises a lower blade (see CA 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b, #8).
In re Claim 10, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the push-breaking device is configured such that the at least one cutting edge tool moves relative to the placement stand only along the first direction (see CN 2336558 C, Figs. 1a/b).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2336558 C in view of US 2003/0131699 to Lai and US 2002/0017173 to Li, and further in view of JP 2013099817 A
In re Claim 2, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein:
in the second direction, an end of the contacting member is at a same position as a position of the end of the placement stand, or is at a position that is further toward the cutting blade tool than the position of the end of the placement stand.
However, JP 2013099817 A teaches wherein: in the second direction, an end of the contacting member is at a same position as a position of the end of the placement stand (see JP 2013099817 A, Fig. 1, d, the edges of upper #2 and lower #2 aligned). In the same field of invention, dies for shearing workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to align the edge of the contacting member and the placement stand as taught by JP 2013099817 A. Doing so allows the user to cut flat workpieces, as opposed to shaped workpieces.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2336558 C in view of US 2003/0131699 to Lai and US 2002/0017173 to Li, and further in view of JP 2015-153538 A.
In re Claim 7, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, teaches: a method of manufacturing a workpiece by using the push-breaking device of claim 1 (see CA 2336558 C. Figs. 1a/b, in view of Lai and Li), the method comprising:
preparing the workpiece (see CA 2336558 C. Figs. 1a/b, “w”);
placing the workpiece on the placement stand such that the protruding region is formed (see CA 2336558 C. Figs. 1a/b, “w” on #5); and moving the at least one cutting blade tool in the first direction, pushing and bending a portion of the protruding region, and breaking the workpiece (see CA 2336558 C, Fig. 1(b)).
Modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, does not teach the workpiece of a layered electrode.
However, JP 2015-153538 A teaches that it is known in the shearing art to shear battery electrodes. In other words, battery electrodes are the type of material used by the shearing device of Claim 1 (see JP 2015-153538 A, Figs. 1-2, illustrating the shearing by #1/#2 of an electrode #3/4).
In re Claim 9, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 7, teaches manufacturing a plurality of layered electrodes by the method of manufacturing a layered electrode of claim 7 (The die assembly of modified CA 2336558 C is intended to make cut multiple workpieces – see Pg. 1 of CA 2336558 C ).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2336558 C in view of US 2003/0131699 to Lai, US 2002/0017173 to Li, and JP 2015-153538 A, and further in view of JP 2000315525 A.
In re Claim 8, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 7, does not teach the particular layered electrode sheet. As such, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 7, does not teach wherein: the layered electrode sheet is formed by a first active material sheet, a solid electrolyte sheet and a second active material sheet being layered in this order along the first direction on both surfaces of a first collector sheet, and the method further comprises layering a second collector on a second active material layer obtained from the second active material sheet as a result of implementation of the push-breaking.
However, JP 2000315525 A teaches that it is known to make batteries out of a layered electrode sheet with a first active material sheet (see JP 2000315525 A, Fig. 5, #22 in view of Applicant’s Fig. 8 and Para. 0056), a solid electrolyte sheet (see Fig. 5, #21) and a second active material sheet (see JP 2000315525 A, Fig. 5, #22) being layered in this order along the first direction on both surfaces of a first collector sheet (see JP 2000315525 A, Fig. 5, in view of Applicant’s Fig. 8), and the method further comprises layering a second collector on a second active material layer obtained from the second active material sheet as a result of implementation of the push-breaking (see JP 2000315525 A, Fig. 5, #24/23/22/21/22/23/24 in view of Applicant’s Fig. 8, #45/44/43/42/44/45 and Applicant’s Para 0089/93-96).
In the same field of invention, shearing electrodes for batteries, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to shear the material disclosed in JP 2000315525 A with the tool of modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 7. Doing so is the substation one known shear device/blade type for another known shear device / blade type to shear a known workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so allows the user to manufacture an electrode material formed by coating and forming a gel electrolyte layer to provide secondary battery used as such a driving power source is required to be small, light, and high in capacity with the miniaturization and high performance of portable electronic devices (see JP 2000315525 A, Para. 0001-0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments have obviated the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
The claims remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) – see above.
Li teaches that the clearance when shearing is between 10 and 8 percent depending on the material being sheared. As such, it would have been obvious to provide a clearance between 20µm and 50µm depending on the thickness of the material being cut (see Li, Para. 0027). Doing so provides satisfactory cut edges (see Li, Para. 0027).
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights