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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8-11-2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 were amended. New Claim 11 was presented. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are pending and examined in this action.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2336558 C in view of US 2,823,960 to Blazek, 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);
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:
guide pins; and
guide holes into which the guide pins are inserted,
using the guide pins and the guide holes,
an angle of a blade portion of the at least one 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 at least one cutting blade tool, of the placement stand is from 20 µm to 50 µm.
However, Blazek teaches that it is known in the art of fixtures for cutting objects to provide guide pins (see Figs. 1/3, #5) and guide holes into which the guide pins are inserted (see Figs. 1/3, #9), as well as using the guide pins and the guide holes (see Figs. 1-2, #5/9).
In the same field of invention, fixtures for cutting objects, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide guide pins and corresponding guide holes, as taught by Blazek. Doing so precisely aligns the two plates during movement to ensure that the assembly is properly aligned (see Blazek, Col. 1,16-22).
Further, 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 which encompasses 5° to 15°).
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 at least one 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).
In re Claim 11, modified Can 2336558 C, in re Claim 1, teaches the guide pins are mounted at the upper die holder (see Blazek, Fig. 1, #5); and the guide holes are formed in the lower die holder (see Blazek, Fig. 1, #9).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over r CA 2336558 C in view of US 2,823,960 to Blazek, 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 ate least one 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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2336558 C in view of JP 2015-153538, JP 2008257962, US 2003/0131699 to Lai and US 2002/0017173 to Li.
In re Claim 7, CA 2336558 C, a method of manufacturing a workpiece (see CA 2336558 C. Figs. 1a/b), the method comprising:
preparing the workpiece (see CA 2336558 C. Figs. 1a/b, “w”);
placing the workpiece on a placement stand (see CA 2336558 C. Figs. 1a/b, “w” on #5);
pressing the layered electrode sheet against the placement stand by a contacting member (see CA 2336558 C, Fig. 1a/b, #5);
at least one breaking tool (see Figs. 1a/b, #1/7)
moving the at least one cutting blade tool relative to the placement stand along the first direction, pushing and bending 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 the second direction and breaking the workpiece.
CA 2336558 C, does not teach the workpiece as a layered electrode sheet which is formed by a first active material sheet, a solid electrolyte sheet and a second active material sheet being layered in this order along a first direction on both surfaces of a first collector sheet; and
wherein: an angle of a blade portion of at least one cutting blade tool with respect to a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction is from 15° to 30°,an angle of the blade portion with respect to the first direction is an acute angle, anda length, in the second direction, of a clearance between the blade portion and an end, at a side of the at least one cutting blade tool, of the placement stand is from 10% to 35% of a length of the layered electrode sheet in the first direction.
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 the same field of invention, workpieces being cut by shears, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the earliest effective filing date, to utilize a shear to cut battery electrodes. Doing so is the use of a known tool to cut a known workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, A/C).
Additionally, JP 2008257962 teaches that it is known in the battery art to provide a layered electrode sheet which is formed by a first active material sheet (See Figs. 1-5 #101), a solid electrolyte sheet (see Figs. 1-3, #103) and a second active material sheet (see Figs. 1-3, #102) being layered in this order along a first direction on both surfaces of a first collector sheet. IN the same field of invention, manufacturing of electrodes for batteries it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to cut a solid electrolyte sheet, as taught by JP 2008257962. Doing so is the substation of one known workpiece for another known workpiece to manufacture a battery (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Further, 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 at least one cutting blade tool with respect to a second direction that is orthogonal to the first 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 percent and at least 10 percent of the thickness. Doing so provides satisfactory cut edges (see Li, Para. 0027). The Examiner notes that at least 10 percent reads on 10-25 percent.
In re Claim 8, modified CA 2336558 C, in re Claim 7, does not teaches layering a second collector on a second active material layer obtained from the second active material seat as a result of implementation of the push-breaking (see JP 2008257962, #105/107 and 106/108).
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 ).
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.
In re Claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior references did not teach the guide pins and guide holes. The Examiner agrees; however, as noted above Blazek teaches that this construction is old and well known in the punching/die art.
In re Claim 7, Applicant argues that JP 2015-153538 does not teach a solid electrolyte sheet. The Examiner notes that JP 2008257962 teaches it is known in the battery making field to make electrodes with solid electrolyte sheets (see Figs. 1-3, #103).
Conclusion
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