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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0086388) in view of Watkins (US 2020/0377420).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a notching device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising:
a die (110) configured to support an electrode (Figure 1; Paragraph 0062);
a first stripper (121) configured to move toward the die, and configured to press a mixture portion of the electrode and a second stripper (122) configured to move toward the die, and configured to press an uncoated portion of the electrode (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0060-0066); and
a pattern portion (140) configured to move toward the die, and configured to form a pattern on the uncoated portion (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0060).
Lee does not provide multiple pattern protrusions configured to form a pattern on the uncoated portion.
Watkins teaches it is known in the art of forming batteries to incorporate a plurality of pattern protrusions with various sizes and shapes (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0096-0099 and 0103-0105).
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 Lee to incorporate the teachings of Watkins to provide multiple pattern protrusions. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be imprinted as desired in the appropriate size and shape.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Lee teaches the notching device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second stripper is configured to interlock with the first stripper (120)(Lee Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Lee teaches the notching device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pattern portion is coupled to the second stripper (Lee Figures 1 and 4; Paragraphs 0082-0084 noting coupling via holder 132).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Lee teaches the notching device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pattern portion is attachable to, or detachable from, the second stripper (Lee Paragraph 0088; See Figure 15).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Lee teaches the notching device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the pattern portion comprises: a pattern body coupled to the second stripper; and the pattern protrusions at a lower portion of the pattern body (Lee Figure 1, and Watkins Figures 1-2)
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Lee teaches the notching device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pattern has a concave-convex shape (Lee Figures 1-2; Watkins Figures 1-2; Paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Lee teaches the notching device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a support portion (111a) on the die, and configured to support the uncoated portion (Lee Figure 1; Paragraph 0062).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the current combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to show the specifics of claim 6, including “a body insertion portion configured to be slidingly inserted into a second groove
defined by the second stripper; and a body base portion at the body insertion portion, in close contact with a bottom surface of the second stripper, and having a lower portion at which the pattern protrusion is located” in combination with the remaining claim language. Claims 7-12 are allowed as they depend from an allowed claim
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/ 06/09/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights