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 04/15/2024, 01/24/2025 and 03/27/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 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)).
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 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).
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.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-H on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of different cutting elements/punches using a variety of driving mechanisms.
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/ 12/19/2025 Examiner, Art Unit 3724