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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024 and 01/08/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electrode plate transfer device insertable in the aligned open side portions of the die and the first stripper” of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-Examiner notes that while an electrode plate transfer device is shown in the Figures, there does not appear to be any drawings showing the device inserted into the die and first stripper. As shown in Figure 9, the transfer device only touches the workpiece, and does not appear to be capable of entering the die and stripper.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: electrode plate transfer device in claim 14.
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 § 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.
Claims 4-5 are 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 “the punch has a closed structure, as viewed in a top view, the first horizontal portion and the second horizontal portion of the first stripper overlapping edges of the punch, as viewed in the top view” is unclear. It is unclear what can and cannot be considered a “closed structure” when viewed in a top view. What structural elements of the punch provide for the closed structure? Is the stripper element requires as part of the “closed structure function? It is also unclear how the punch may be in a “closed state” when only viewed from a specific viewpoint. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as “closed” as the remaining structural elements of the blanking device “when viewed from a top view” provide a closed structure for the punch.
Claim 5 dependent from claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenleaf (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/00193747).
Regarding claim 1, Greenleaf teaches a blanking device for a secondary battery electrode plate, the blanking device comprising:
a first mold including a die (72) and a first stripper (74), the die surrounding the first stripper and having a structure with one open side portion (Figure 1), and the first stripper having a structure with one open side portion aligned with the one open side portion of the die (Figure 1; and Paragraph 0030)
a second mold facing the first mold, the second mold including a punch (38) and a second stripper (42)(Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0029-0032), and the first mold being moveable toward the second mold (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the die and the first stripper respectively face the second stripper and the punch (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first stripper includes a vertical portion (X1) perpendicular to a longitudinal direction (D1) of the one open side portion of the first stripper,
a first horizontal portion and a second horizontal portion (X2, X3) extending in the longitudinal direction of the one open side portion of the first stripper at both ends of the vertical portion, and
a tab portion (X4) protruding from an outer portion of the first horizontal portion, and the first horizontal portion and the second horizontal portion are separated from each other, the one open side portion of the first stripper being between the first horizontal portion and the second horizontal portion (See annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the die surrounds only outer portions of the first horizontal portion, the tab portion, the vertical portion, and the second horizontal portion of the first stripper (See annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 7, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 6, wherein: the die and the first stripper are configured to be moveable together toward the second stripper and the punch, and the die and the second stripper are configured to be moveable together toward a bottom of the punch, such that the die is misaligned with the first stripper (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first mold further includes: a die plate (32) accommodating the die and the first stripper; and a first base plate (18) coupled to the die plate (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0028; Coupled via screws 34).
Regarding claim 9, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the second mold further include: a punch plate (52) accommodating the punch and the second stripper; and a second base plate (60) coupled to the punch plate (Figure 1; Paragraph 0030; Noting coupling via bolts 62).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenleaf (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/00193747) in view of Chun (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 5,438,897).
Regarding claim 4, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 3, but does not provide wherein the punch has a closed structure, as viewed in a top view, the first horizontal portion and the second horizontal portion of the first stripper overlapping edges of the punch, as viewed in the top view.
Chen teaches it is known in the art of stripper and punch arrangements to provide a stripper with stripper openings are closely matched to the punch shape so as to maintain the flat shape of the workpiece about the perimeter of the punched opening such that strippers may be changed to accommodate punches in order to match the stripper punch opening to the particular punch shape (Col. 1, Lines 21-31).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue punch structures with stripper structures which are known to be useful for a particular blanking function. There are a finite number of punch shapes which pertain to blanking devices and allow for the punch to pivot providing the punching function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable punching shape when viewed from a top view in an attempt to provide an improved punching function for the device, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 5, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the second stripper surrounds an outer portion of the punch (Greenleaf Figures 1 and 2).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenleaf (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/00193747) in view of Nishijima (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0200773).
Regarding claim 10, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 9, further comprising: a main guide post (54, 56 left side as shown in Figure 1) connecting the first base plate to the second base plate; a sub-guide post connecting the die plate to the second base plate (54, 56 right side as shown in Figure 1).
Greenleaf does not provide a punch guide post connecting the second stripper to the second base plate.
Nishijima teaches it is known in the art of punching devices (abstract) to incorporate a moveable top cutting portion (3) with a corresponding bottom cutting portion (10) wherein the top and bottom portions are connected via a guide post (36)(Figures 1A and 1B and Paragraphs 0054-0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Greenleaf to incorporate the teachings of Nishijima to provide a guide pin connecting the top and bottom cutting elements. Doing so provides for appropriate guiding of the cutting elements during use.
Thus, the modified device of Greenleaf provides a punch guide post (36 Figures 1A and 1B of Nishijima) connecting the second stripper to the second base plate Greenleaf Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the main guide post and the sub-guide post are configured to guide the first mold toward the second mold (Greenleaf Figures 1-2; Paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 12, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the sub-guide post is configured to guide the die plate and the die toward a bottom of the punch from a state where the die and the first stripper are aligned and are respectively in contact with the punch and the second stripper (Greenleaf Paragraph 0030 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the punch guide post is configured to guide the second stripper toward a bottom of the punch from a state where the die and the first stripper are aligned and are respectively in contact the punch and the second stripper (Greenleaf Figures 1-2 Paragraph 0030 and Nishijima Figures 1A and 1B).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenleaf (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/00193747) in view of Mathias (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0306653).
Regarding claim 14, Greenleaf teaches the blanking device as claimed in claim 1, but does not provide further comprising an electrode plate transfer device insertable in the aligned open side portions of the die and the first stripper.
Mathis teaches it is known in the art of cutting tools to incorporate a gripping device (27) to remove a workpiece after cutting has occurred (Paragraphs 0037-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Greenleaf to incorporate the teachings of Mathias to provide a workpiece transfer device. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be appropriately removed after cutting has been completed.
Thus, the modified device of Greenleaf provides an workpiece transfer device (27)(Greenleaf) insertable in the aligned open side portions of the die and the first stripper (Greenleaf Figures 1-2).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references D-M on page 1 and A-J on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of die and punch mechanisms using a variety of driving mechanisms and stripping elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 11/26/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724