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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 7-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of Claim 7, reading: “wherein the opening portion is a portion of the second area and is concave in a direction opposite to a direction facing the second gripper” is indefinite. Concave is usually understood in the art to include a curved indentation. For example, in Merriam Webster’s Dictionary the word concave is defined as being “hollowed or rounded inward like the inside of a bowl”. However, as disclosed in the present application, the area 500 which comprises the opening that is claimed to be concave, does not appear to include a curvature. In par. 0070 it is noted that “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the opening portion 500 may have a groove shape that is concave from a bottom surface (e.g., a surface facing the second direction D2) of the gripper plate 312 toward a top surface (e.g., a surface facing the first direction Dl) of the gripper plate 312”. Fig. 5 showing “concave” area 500 is illustrated in fig 5. As seen in fig 5, the area 500 does not appear to have any curvature. Instead, this area is simply an indent. For purposes of advancing prosecution, said limitation will be interpreted as
being concave to the extent that it is indented, whether or not this indentation includes curves, as the limitation is best understood in light of the specification and figures.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20090038144, Teramoto.
Regarding Claim 1, Teramoto discloses:
an apparatus for cutting an electrode (electrode 1, see abstract), comprising:
a cutter 11 configured to cut an electrode sheet into unit electrodes (par 0031, portion shown being cut-off by part 11 in fig 5C); and
a first gripper 12 and a second gripper (pressing protrusion 13b) that are disposed in front of the cutter (see annotated fig 5A below) and configured to fix the electrode sheet 1 at both sides, respectively (of the sheet, fig 5B), wherein the first gripper comprises a first area and a second area (see annotated fig 5A below) disposed at at least one side of the first area (see annotated fig 5A below), wherein the first area of the first gripper protrudes further toward the second gripper than the second area (see annotated fig 5A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, in Teramoto the first gripper is configured to press a top surface of the electrode sheet, and the second gripper is configured to presses a bottom surface of the electrode sheet (fig 5B).
Regarding Claim 3, in Teramoto the electrode sheet comprises a central area and a peripheral area disposed at at least one side of the central area, wherein the first area of the first gripper is configured to presses a central area of the electrode sheet in addition to and at least a portion of the peripheral area of the electrode sheet disposed at at least one side of the central area of the electrode sheet (see figs 9A-9B, annotated below, par. 0041).
PNG
media_image2.png
814
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, in Teramoto the first gripper comprises a protrusion disposed at at least a portion of the first area and that protrudes in a direction facing the second gripper (See annotated fig 5A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
961
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, in Teramoto, a length of the protrusion is less than a length of each of the unit electrodes (see annotated fig 5C below).
PNG
media_image4.png
656
836
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, in Teramoto the first gripper comprises an opening portion that is disposed at the at least one side of the first area, wherein the opening portion is a portion of the second area and is concave in a direction opposite to a direction facing the second gripper (see annotated fig 5A below, see also interpretation of the term “concave” discussed in the 112b section above, where concave is interpreted as being met by a non curvilinear indent).
PNG
media_image5.png
738
840
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Teramoto discloses a method for cutting an electrode (abstract, electrode 1), comprising:
pressing and fixing an electrode sheet 1 at both sides by a first gripper 12 and a second gripper 13b, respectively; and
cutting the electrode sheet into unit electrodes (electrode plate 2, par. 0039) by a cutter 11 disposed behind the first gripper and the second gripper, (see annotated fig 5A below) wherein the first gripper comprises a first area and a second area disposed at at least one side of the first area, wherein the first area of the first gripper protrudes further toward the second gripper than the second area does (see annotated fig 5A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, in Teramoto wherein the electrode sheet comprises a central area and a peripheral area disposed at at least one side of the central area, wherein the fixing of the electrode sheet comprises pressing the central area without pressing the peripheral area of the electrode sheet by a protrusion disposed on the first area of the first gripper (See annotated fig 5C below).
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 of this title, 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramoto as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Teramoto as evidenced by legal precedent.
Teramoto lacks the apparatus having wherein a height difference between a bottom surface of the protrusion and a bottom surface of the second area of the first gripper is in a range of 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm.
It would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teramoto by having height difference between a bottom surface of the protrusion and a bottom surface of the second area of the first gripper is in a range of 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm, since the changing of a shape of an element of an invention was held to be in the realm of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and MPEP 2144.04-IV.B. Further, Applicant has not established any criticality to the particular proportions claimed with regard to the height difference between a bottom surface of the protrusion and a bottom surface of the second area of the first gripper is in a range of 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm.
Also, Teramoto, teaches that in cutter of electrodes, that the resulting thickness of the compressed electrode, defined by the height difference between a bottom surface of the protrusion and a bottom surface of the second area of the first gripper is a result effective variable for preventing burrs in the resultant electrode unit, par 0061.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teramoto by having the height difference between a bottom surface of the protrusion and a bottom surface of the second area of the first gripper is in a range of 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since Brown discloses that blade opening width to be a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramoto as applied to claim 7, above, and further in view of Teramoto as evidenced by legal precedent.
Teramoto lacks the apparatus having wherein a height difference between a bottom surface of the opening portion and a bottom surface of the first area of the first gripper is in a range of 4 mm to 6 mm.
It would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teramoto by having wherein a height difference between a bottom surface of the opening portion and a bottom surface of the first area of the first gripper is in a range of 4 mm to 6 mm, since the changing of a shape of an element of an invention was held to be in the realm of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and MPEP 2144.04-IV.B. Further, Applicant has not established any criticality to the particular proportions claimed with regard to the a height difference between a bottom surface of the opening portion and a bottom surface of the first area of the first gripper is in a range of 4 mm to 6 mm.
Also, Teramoto, teaches that in cutter of electrodes, that the resulting thickness of the compressed electrode, defined by the difference in the distance between the bottom surface of the opening and the bottom surface of the first area is a result effective variable for preventing burrs in the resultant electrode unit, par 0061.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teramoto by having the height difference between a bottom surface of the opening portion and a bottom surface of the first area of the first gripper is in a range of 4 mm to 6 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since Brown discloses that blade opening width to be a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 6174309 7799027 11065778 20160223752 20180259711 KR102363870B1 20060081106 20120064301 20160214266 disclose state of the art electrode pressing and cutting apparatuses. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 on 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724