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 § 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, 4, 6, and 13-15 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, see Annotated Figure 1, below) 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,
wherein the die comprises:
a die body (body of 151) fixed to the lower body (110);
a first extension (see Annotated Figure 1, below) extending from the die body and comprising a first surface;
a second extension (see Annotated Figure 1, 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,
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,
wherein the punch hole further includes a notching hole (see Annotated Figure 1) extending from the third hole in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and the notching hole extends to the second surface along the first direction.
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. Further, the notching hole extends to the second surface along the first direction, in as much as Applicant’s notching hole.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
697
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 4, wherein
longitudinal directions of the first extension, the second extension, the first tab support, and the second tab support extend in a direction parallel to the second direction (as shown in Annotated Figure 1, above), and
a length of the first tab support in the longitudinal direction thereof and a length of the second tab support in the longitudinal direction thereof are smaller than a length of the first extension in the longitudinal direction thereof and a length of the second extension in the longitudinal direction thereof (as shown in Annotated Figure 1, above).
In re claim 6, wherein longitudinal directions of the first punch hole, the second punch hole, and the third punch hole are parallel to the second 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
403
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 13, wherein a surface of the notching hole (as shown in Annotated Figure 1, above) is in contact with the second surface.
Note, a surface of the notching hole is in contact with the second surface via at least one line of the slope of the V which intersects the second surface.
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.
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 (capable of being) 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 (Claim 3) and
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.
Response to Arguments
The 112, second paragraph rejection in the Office Action mailed March 26, 2026 has been overcome by the amendments field June 9, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Yun does not appear to disclose the punch hole further including a notching hole extending from the third punch hole in a second direction interesting a first direction in which the first punch hole, the second punch hole, and the third punch hole are sequentially arranged, and the notching hole extending to the second surface along the first direction.
Yun teaches a punch hole further includes a notching hole, which is the V shape hole which is disposed with in the third punch hole. The notching hole extends in a second direction, as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1 on Page 4, above. The second direction also intersects the first direction.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., first punch hole, the second punch hole, and the third punch hole are sequentially arranged,) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In an effort to advance prosecution, while the above feature is not claimed, Yun teaches first punch hole, the second punch hole, and the third punch hole are sequentially arranged, which is shown in at least Annotated Figure 1 on Pg. 4, above.
Yun further teaches the notching hole extending to the second surface along the first direction, as shown in at least Figure 3 and Annotated Figure 1. The notching hole of Yun extends along a positive slope and then along a negative slope along a first direction. The negative slope of the notching hole extends to the second surface along the first direction. In other words, if a parallel line (as shown below) extends in a first direction, the notch intersects the line in at least two points, with one point being along the second surface.
PNG
media_image6.png
277
440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 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
Prosecution Insights