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.
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 “wherein there is an absence of holes in the punch” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The newly added language of claim 1 “wherein there is an absence of holes in the punch” does not appear to be provided for within the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein there is an absence of holes in the punch” is new matter. Examiner notes the specification does not utilize the term “hole or holes” within the specification. As the specification does not use the term hole. It is unclear as to the bounds of what can and cannot be considered a hole, to read upon the phrase “an absence of holes in the punch”. Is the absence of holes a through hole, gap,, divot, or merely just an opening between two structural components? For example, Figure 2 is noted to be a punch. However, there appears to be several small holes, in addition to an entire middle section missing structural components (See arrows on annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes the punch of the initial prior art (118) appears to have similar “holes”. For the purposes of examination, the punch of Rohls will be treated as having an absence of holes” as best understood.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 1-10 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 1, the phrase “wherein there is an absence of holes in the punch” is unclear. Examiner notes the specification does not utilize the term “hole or holes” and it is unclear as to the bounds of what can and cannot be considered a hole, to read upon the phrase “an absence of holes in the punch”. For example, Figure 2 is noted to be a punch. However, there appears to be several small holes, in addition to an entire middle section missing structural components. Figure 15 is another example of a punch, however, there appears to be a hole between the two tips.
PNG
media_image3.png
370
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As such, it is unclear how to interpret the limitation as claimed, because the term “hole” is merely just an absence of structure, and the drawings appear to have a plurality of different portions that can be considered “holes”. It is also unclear if attachment means, such as rivets and screws, that would “fill” a hole read upon such limitations. If the structural elements are combined in such a way that a majority of the cavity, recess or hole are filled, does the attachment component fill the “hole”? For the purposes of examination, the limitation of “absence of hole” will be treated as an entire hole, and attachment means that fill a hole do not constitute “a hole”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as, best understood in light of the 112 rejections above, and being anticipated by Rohl (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2005/0120548)
Rohl teaches a battery electrode substrate notching device (100)( Figures 1-2; Abstract), comprising:
a die (106)(Paragraph 0021); and
a punch (118) notching an electrode substrate into an electrode having a straight part and a round part by being lifted toward the die while the electrode substrate is installed on the die, wherein the punch includes a round shear part (406) corresponding to the round part, wherein the punch further includes a straight shear part (416) corresponding to the straight part (Figures 1-2 and 4A-4B; Paragraphs 0023-0029)
wherein there is an absence of holes in the punch (As best understood in light of the 112 rejections above).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohl (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2005/0120548) in view of Negishi (U.S. Patent Pub. No, 2001/0042430) in view of Yotsumoto (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0014625).
Regarding claim 2, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, and wherein the punch may have a different shape corresponding to the final desired shape of the workpiece (Paragraph 0026 and 0028).
Rohl does not provide wherein the straight part includes four straight parts and wherein the round part includes four round parts, the round shear part is formed on at least one of the four round parts, and the straight shear part is formed on at least one of the four straight parts.
Negishi teaches it is known in the art of punching to incorporate a punch using a variety of different punch shapes (Figures 1, 2, 5-7, 9 and 11) having a plurality of different straight parts.
Yotsumoto teaches it is known in the art of electrode plate manufacturing to incorporate a punch (37) having multiple straight and rounded portions (371, 372 (Figure 7; Paragraphs 0054-0055).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi and Yotsumoto to provide the punch with a different shape including multiple round parts and straight parts. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece shape to be made as desired by the user and changes the overall profile of the punch to reduce imperfections in the workpiece material.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl, in view of Negishi and Yotsumoto provides the straight part includes four straight parts and wherein the round part includes four round parts, the round shear part is formed on at least one of the four round parts, and the straight shear part is formed on at least one of the four straight parts.
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohl (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2005/0120548) in view of Negishi (U.S. Patent Pub. No, 2001/0042430).
Regarding claim 3, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not provide wherein the round shear part has a convex shear angle higher than the straight shear part having the same height as a reference height along the straight part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the round shear part has a convex shear angle higher than the straight shear part having the same height as a reference height along the straight part.
Regarding claim 4, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not provide wherein the round shear part has a concave shear angle lower than the straight shear part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the round shear part has a concave shear angle lower than the straight shear part.
Regarding claim 5, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not provide wherein the straight shear part has a convex shear angle higher than a reference height along the straight part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the straight shear part has a convex shear angle higher than a reference height along the straight part.
Regarding claim 6, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 5, but does not provide wherein the round shear part has a convex shear angle higher than the reference height along the round part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the round shear part has a convex shear angle higher than the reference height along the round part.
Regarding claim 7, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 5, but does not provide wherein the round part includes a round shear part, the round shear part having a concave shear angle lower than the reference height along the round part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the round part includes a round shear part, the round shear part having a concave shear angle lower than the reference height along the round part.
Regarding claim 8, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not provide wherein the straight shear part has a concave shear angle lower than a reference height along the straight part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the straight shear part has a concave shear angle lower than a reference height along the straight part.
Regarding claim 9, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 8, but does not provide wherein the round shear part has a convex shear angle higher than the reference height along the round part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the round shear part has a convex shear angle higher than the reference height along the round part.
Regarding claim 10, Rohl teaches the device as claimed in claim 8, and the round part includes a round shear part (See cutting edge as shown Figures 4A-4B) but does not provide the round shear part having a concave shear angle lower than the reference height along the round part.
Negishi teaches it is known to set desired shear angles between various punch surfaces (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0005, 0027-0032).
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 Rohl to incorporate the teachings of Negishi to provide the punch with various shear angles. Doing so decreases undesired defects when punching the workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Rohl in view of Negishi provides wherein the round shear part having a concave shear angle lower than the reference height along the round part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the current rejections applied above. Examiner notes that the new limitations have created a plurality of issues, as the language appears to be new matter. As best understood, the prior art still reads upon the claim language, as the drawings of the application appear to have similar “holes”. As such, the rejection of the prior art remains the same in light of the specification, drawing objections and new 112 rejections above.
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 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/ 06/08/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights