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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-18) and subgroup 1C (claims 8-18) in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 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)).
2. Claims 3-7 and 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a restoring member” recited in claim 2; and
“a pressing member” recited in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 10 is 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 10, “as the second body moves upward by a certain distance or greater” is unclear because the term ‘a certain distance” is indefinite. The claim does not specify what constitute the “certain distance” or how the “greater” distance is determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuk et al. (KR 102515516 B1), hereinafter Kuk, provided with the IDS submitted on 02/26/2025. Regarding claim 1, Kuk teaches an electrode plate notching apparatus comprising: a first mold 20 (Fig. 2) comprising a punch hole 24; a second mold 32 configured to vertically move above the first mold 16 and comprising a punch 36; a first body 16 (Fig. 2) coupled to the first mold 20 and spaced apart from the punch hole 24; a second body 34 coupled to the second mold 32 and facing the first body; a scrap pusher 120 movably arranged on the second body 34 and configured to discharge a scrap (S; Fig. 5) from the punch hole 24; and a trigger 110 arranged on the first body 16 and configured to move the scrap pusher in conjunction with vertical movement of the second body 34. See Figs. 1-6 in Kuk.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McGill (0557,142). Regarding claim 1, McGill teaches an electrode plate notching apparatus comprising: a first mold (defined by the plate, nut numbered on the die D; Fig. 1) comprising a punch hole (shown in Fig. 2); a second mold (defined by the horizontal wall of the support B that accommodates the punch C; Fig. 1) configured to vertically move above the first mold and comprising a punch (C); a first body (D) coupled to the first mold (C) and spaced apart from the punch hole; a second body (defined by the lower section of the support B extending from the horizontal wall; Fig. 1) coupled to the second mold and facing the first body; a scrap pusher (E) movably arranged (via the punch C) on the second body and configured to discharge a scrap from the punch hole; and a trigger (G) arranged on the first body (D) and configured to move the scrap pusher in conjunction with vertical movement of the second body. See Figs. 1-4 in McGill.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quericia (7,360,475 B2) in view of Harhay et al. (5,896,795), hereinafter Harhay. Regarding claim 1, Quercia teaches an electrode plate notching apparatus comprising: a first mold 18 comprising a punch hole; a second mold 16 configured to vertically move above the first mold and comprising a punch 22 (Fig. 5); a scrap pusher 28 movably arranged in the first mold 28 and configured to discharge a scrap from the punch hole; and a trigger 204 (Fig. 6a-6d) arranged on the second mold 16 and configured to move the scrap pusher 28 in conjunction with vertical movement of the second mold 16. See Figs. 1-6a in Quericia.
Quercia does not explicitly teach a first body coupled to the first mold 18 and spaced apart from the punch hole; a second body coupled to the second mold 16 and facing the first body. Harhay teaches a mold 110 comprising a punch hole (Fig. 2); a first body (defined by eth body bolded to the first mold 110 (Fig. 2); a second mold 120 configured to vertically move above the first mold and comprising a punch 121; and a second body (defined the body bolted to the second mold 120 (Fig. 2) could to the second mold 120 and facing the first mold 110. Harhay also teaches a scraper pusher 150 arranged on the first body. It should be noted that the trigger 204 of Quercia, which is arranged adjacent the punch 22 on the second mold 16 (see Figs. 6A-6D of Quercia), would correspond to and be supported by the second body as taught by Harhay. Harhay discloses a second body bolted to the second mold 120 and positioned adjacent the punch 121, the second body facing the first body across the working interface (see Fig. 2 of Harhay). Because Quercia’s trigger 204 is mounted proximate the punch and moves in conjunction with the second mold, incorporation of Harhay’s second body into Quercia would inherently result in the trigger being arranged on, or supported by, the second body. Similarly, since Harhay teaches a scraper pusher 150 arranged on the first body, the scrap pusher of Quercia would reasonably be supported by the first body when the structures are combined. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Quercia to include the first and second bodies as taught by Harhay in order to provide modular structural support members that facilitate assembly, disassembly, maintenance, and replacement of the molds and associated components.
Furthermore, to the extent the claimed invention requires the trigger to be arranged on the first body and the scrap pusher to be arranged on the second body, it would have been obvious to reverse the mounting locations of these cooperating components. Both references demonstrate that the trigger and scrap pusher are mechanically linked elements that operate in response to relative vertical movement between upper and lower mold structures. Relocating one element to the opposing body would merely involve reversing the attachment locations while preserving the same functional interaction. Such a reversal amounts to a rearrangement of known parts performing the same functions they were known to perform and would have been within the routine skill of an ordinary artisan. See In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. The modification would have yielded no unexpected results and would have maintained predictable operation of the notching apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Quercia, as modified by Harhay, teaches everything noted above including that scrap pusher 28 comprises: a pusher body (defined by the curved section of the scrap pusher 28; Fig. 6b in Quercia) rotatably (as pivots back and forth during operation; Figs. 6a-6d in Quercia) connected to the second body; a blade (defined by the projecting leg of the scrape pusher 28 having a free end that contacts the scrap piece 12; Fig. 6b in Quercia) extending from the pusher body and configured to press the scrap 12 to the outside of the punch hole as the pusher body is rotated in a forward direction; and a restoring member (defined by the spring like or resilient leg attached to the second body by a fastener; Fig. 6b in Quercia) connected to the pusher body and configured to rotate the pusher body in a reverse direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 8-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Vossen et al. (5,181,640) and Higgins (10,974,410 B20 teach a notching apparatus with a waste material ejector.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
February 23, 2026