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 .
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 4 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. Regarding claim 4, the phrase “lengths of the first tab support and the second tab support are smaller than lengths of the first extension and the second extension” is indefinite. It is unclear how the length of the first and second support tabs is being measured? In other words, is the length measured with respect to the longitudinal direction or with respect to the second intersecting direction?
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, 2, 4-6, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR101121650 to Yun.
In re claim 1, Yun teaches a notching apparatus (100) for a secondary battery, the notching apparatus comprising:
a lower body (110) configured to support an electrode plate which comprises a first area coated with an active material and a second area not coated with the active material, the electrode plate to be transferred in a first direction;
an upper body (10) configured to vertically move above the lower body (along 70,160)
a die (151) on the lower body and arranged to face the second area;
a punch hole passing through the die (as shown in at least Figure 3) and comprising a first punch hole (see Annotated Figure 1), a second punch hole (see Annotated Figure 1), and a third punch hole sequentially arranged in the first direction; and
a punch (61) on the upper body, insertable into the punch hole as the upper body moves downward, and configured to cut the second area.
Per the state of the art, notching is defined as cutting of a discrete product from a workpiece through the thickness of the workpiece with the line of cut starting at an edge of the workpiece and returning to the same edge. The edge of the workpiece may be either an exterior edge or an interior edge. A cut which extends solely along a single straight line is not considered to be a notching cut. It has been interpreted Yun performs this particular cutting of a workpiece and is a notching apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, wherein the die comprises: a die body (body of 151) fixed to the lower body (110); a first extension (see Annotated Figure 2, below) extending from the die body and comprising a first surface;
a second extension (see Annotated Figure 2, below) extending from the die body and comprising a second surface arranged to face the first surface in the first direction;
a first tab support (see Annotated Figure 2) arranged between the first extension and the second extension; and
a second tab (see Annotated Figure 2) support arranged between the first extension and the second extension and spaced apart from the first tab support in the first direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
697
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 4, as best understood wherein longitudinal directions of the first extension, the second extension, the first tab support, and the second tab support extend in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and lengths of the first tab support and the second tab support are smaller than lengths of the first extension and the second extension.
Note, the length has been measured in the longitudinal direction, and the length of the first and second tab supports is smaller than the length of the first and second extensions.
In re claim 5, wherein the first punch hole (see Annotated Figure 1) is arranged between the first extension and the first tab support, the second punch hole (see Annotated Figure 1) is arranged between the first tab support and the second tab support, and the third punch hole (see Annotated Figure 1) is arranged between the second tab support and the second extension.
In re claim 6, wherein longitudinal directions of the first punch hole, the second punch hole, and the third punch hole are parallel to a second direction intersecting the first direction, and a length of the first punch hole is smaller than a length of the third punch hole (see Annotated Figure 3, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 12, wherein the punch hole further includes a notching hole (see Annotated Figure 3, above) extending from the third punch hole in a direction parallel to the second direction.
In re claim 13, wherein a surface of the notching hole (as shown in Annotated Figure 4, Pg. 7, below) is in contact with the second surface.
Note, a surface of the notching hole is in contact with the second surface via a line connecting the two surfaces.
In re claim 14, wherein a width of the notching hole (as shown in Annotated Figure 4, above) becomes narrower in the second direction (the width tapers in the second direction).
PNG
media_image4.png
433
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re claim 15, wherein the electrode plate further comprises a third area not coated with the active material and arranged on a side opposite to the second area, and the notching apparatus further comprises a sub die (132,133) on the lower body and arranged to face the third area, a sub punch hole (as shown in at least Figure 3) passing through the sub die, and a sub punch (60) on the upper body, insertable into the sub punch hole as the upper body moves downward, and configured to cut the third area.
Note, the preamble is directed to a notching apparatus and not the workpiece. Therefore, the electrode plate merely has to be capable of comprising a third area.
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 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 3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101121650 to Yun in view of KR20190112379 to Yeo et al. or KR20160076139 to Shin.
In re claim 8, wherein the upper body (10) is (capable of being) movable downward after the electrode plate is transferred by a distance in the first direction.
In re claim 9, wherein the distance is (capable of being) smaller than a gap between the first punch hole and the third punch hole (as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1)
Note, the distance is directed to the electrode plate, which is the workpiece. The preamble is directed to a notching apparatus, not the workpiece.
In re claim 10, wherein a surface of the first punch hole (see Annotated Figure 1) is in contact with the first surface (of the first extension, see Annotated Figure 2), and a surface of the third punch hole (see Annotated Figure 1) is in contact with the second surface (of the second extension, see Annotated Figure 2), and the distance (is capable of being) is smaller than a gap between the first surface and the second surface.
Note, the distance is directed to the electrode plate, which is the workpiece. The preamble is directed to a notching apparatus, not the workpiece.
In re claim 11, wherein the second tab support is arranged to face the second surface (of the second extension, see Annotated Figure 2) in the first direction and includes a third surface (as shown in at least Annotated Figure 2) in contact with another surface of the third punch hole (as shown in at least Figure 1) and the distance is greater than a gap between the first surface and the third surface.
Note, the distance is directed to the electrode plate, which is the workpiece. The preamble is directed to a notching apparatus, not the workpiece.
Regarding claim 3, Yun teaches wherein widths of the first tab support and the second tab support, which are parallel to the first direction, but does not teach the widths are the same.
Yeo provides a teaching with a die having a first tab having a width to form an electrode tab (32) in a workpiece.
Shin provides a teaching in the art of notching of a press (110) having a shape corresponding to a die (120) in which the electrode tab forming parts (of the press which correspond to the die) have the same length. Shin provides a teaching of sizing the tab forming parts of the punch to having the same length which is advantageous for a simplifying how the tabs are manufactured. Based on the teachings of Shin one would recognize the advantage of sizing the first and second tab supports to have the same widths, as the advantages would be the same as sizing the lengths the same.
In light of the teachings of Yeo and Shin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size the first and second tab supports of Yun to have the same widths which is advantageous for simplifying how tabs are manufactured.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101121650 to Yun in view of Yeo et al.
In re claim 7, Yun teaches wherein a width of the third punch hole parallel to the first direction is greater than a width of the first punch hole parallel to the first direction.
Yeo teaches a die having a punch hole (52), a tab (see Annotated Figure 4, below) and another punch hole on the opposite side of the tab having a width that is smaller than a width of the other punch hole (as shown in at least Figure 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
364
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size the punch holes of Yen for the width of the third punch hole to be greater than a width of the first punch hole (parallel to the first direction) as taught by Shin which is advantageous for obtaining a desired final cut. Changing the size of the punch holes does not alter the function of the die, which in conjunction with the punch, is to remove material to achieve a desired final product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2020218891 teaches a notching apparatus. KR20170027993 teaches a notching apparatus with a die and sub die arrangement. KR 20180014560 teaches a punch having a plurality of holes for punching an electrode plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724