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 the round shear parts and or the straight shear parts convexly protrude toward the die such that a side of the punch facing the die is not planar” 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 the round shear parts and or the straight shear parts convexly protrude toward the die such that a side of the punch facing the die is not planar” 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 and 3-9 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 the round shear parts and or the straight shear parts convexly protrude toward the die such that a side of the punch facing the die is not planar” is new matter. Examiner notes the specification does not utilize the terminology within the specification. As the specification does not use the term planar, it is unclear as to the bounds of what can and cannot be considered a side of the punch facing the die is not planar. What portions are considered “a side of the punch” to face the die and which viewpoint is to be considered? Examiner notes a pkuraity of different sides entirely or partially face the die, and many are planar and have portions that appear planar.
Examiner notes the punch of the initial prior art (118) appears to have similar side portions that face the die and “are not planar”. For the purposes of examination, the punch of Rohls will be treated as having at least one side of the punch as facing the die that is not planar” as best understood.
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 the round shear parts and or the straight shear parts convexly protrude toward the die such that a side of the punch facing the die is not planar” is unclear. Examiner notes the specification does not utilize the term planar and it is unclear as to the bounds of what can and cannot be considered a planar side. For example, Figure 15 is provided with annotations noting side portions that “face” the die and appear to be planar.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, it is unclear how to interpret the limitation as claimed, because the phrase “a side facing the die is not planar” does not detail what side, and if the side includes portions, or how the punch is to “face” the die, and the drawings appear to have a plurality of different portions that can be considered “planar”.
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 1 and 3-9 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) in view of Yotsumoto (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0014625).
Rohl teaches a battery electrode substrate notching device (100)( Figures 1-2; Abstract), comprising:
a die (106)(Paragraph 0021); and
a punch (118) for notching an electrode substrate into an electrode having four straight parts and four round parts by being lifted toward the die while the electrode substrate is installed on the die, wherein the punch includes four round shear parts (406,408,410,412) corresponding to the round parts, wherein the punch further includes four straight shear parts (see annotated Figure 4A below noting 4 straight portions on the punch) corresponding to the straight parts (Figures 1-2 and 4A-4B; Paragraphs 0023-0029)
wherein the round shear parts and/or the straight shear parts protrude towards the die such that a side of the punch facing the die is not planar (As best understood in light of the 112 rejections above; Examiner notes the sides and portions of the punch shown in the annotated Figure below protrude towards the die to some degree, however, the prior art is silent as to “convexly protrude”).
PNG
media_image2.png
406
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 wherein the punch includes four round shear parts corresponding to the round parts, wherein the punch further includes four straight parts corresponding to the straight parts, wherein the round shear parts and or the straight shear parts “convexly” protrude toward the die such that a side of the punch facing the die is not planar (Rohl Figure 4A, Negishi Figures 1, 2 and 5-7 and Yotsumoto Figure 7)
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of 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, the modified device of 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, the modified device of 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, the modified device of 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, the modified device of 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, the modified device of 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, the modified device of 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.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-E on page 1 establish the state of the art with a punch systems including various punch shapes and designs to create the desired workpieces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-9 have been considered. 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 “sides that are not planar”. As such, the rejection of the prior art remains the same in light of the specification, drawing objections and new 112 rejections above.
In response to applicant's argument that the punch surface of Rahl cannot be modified, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant cites that the punch surface 404 has a “substantially planar material” contact surface. Examiner notes the term substantially does not provide the punch surface as planar and the prior art cited is capable of modifying the surface of Rohl to incorporate the desired effects and workpieces outlined above. Examiner also notes that as cited by Applicant, the prior art of Rohl does provide a compound shear angle (Col. 3, Lines 38-47) “The compound shear angle of the punch surface 404 is oriented such that the highest point 414 on punch surface 404 is located along larger radii 406 and the lowest point 416 on the surface is located along the other larger radii 408. (24) When punching an electrode layer out of a sheet of material, high stress points develop around radii 410 and 412, while there is less stress around large radii 406 and 408. The present compound shear angle allows the punch surface to first meet the material at a low-pressure point 414 and leave at a low-pressure point 416.” but is silent as to the exact angle. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to any reasonable shape and angle to provide for the desired punch, and workpiece to be punched within their desired parameters.
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/ 09/08/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights