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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified species are not patentably distinct. This is not found persuasive because certain structures are not included in each embodiment or are configured differently. As discussed in the restriction requirement dated 4/3/2026, examination of multiple species would require searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or employing different search strategies or queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 1/2/2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed certified copies of the CN201920005984.0 or CN201920885112.8 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference characters 61, 62 are indicated as representing the first and second restraining components (see at least paragraph [0040] of instant specification), however in fig. 1, it appears these reference characters indicate the arrows of the conveying direction. Further, it is not clear what structure dust extracting device 82 is intended to be based on fig. 2 and in view of the specification. 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.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
• “conveying mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “conveying”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “conveying” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “cutting mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “restraining component” as recited in at least claim 6 (first, “component” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “restraining”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “restraining” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the component)
• “blowing mechanism” as recited in at least claim 7 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “blowing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “blowing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “dust collecting mechanism” as recited in at least claim 8 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “dust collecting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “dust collecting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “dust extracting device” as recited in at least claim 10 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “dust extracting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “dust extracting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device)
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
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10, the term “dust extracting device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description does not provide any corresponding structure to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art what this term is intended to encompass.
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.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation “dust extracting device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Thus, it is unclear what structure is intended to perform the function of extracting dust and other impurities generated by cutting (see paragraph [0042]). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (CN 208214954).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a pole piece cutting device, comprising a pole piece conveying mechanism for conveying a pole piece (transmission device 3 conveys electrode sheet 4; see paragraph [0033]), a pole piece cutting mechanism for cutting the pole piece (cutting device 1 cuts electrode sheet 4; see paragraph [0033]) and an adsorption mechanism for adsorbing a scrap material generated during cutting of the pole piece (adsorption device 2 separates cut electrode 4 from waste material 6; see paragraph [0034]), wherein the adsorption mechanism comprises a conveying belt provided with an adsorption hole for adsorbing the scrap material (adsorption device 2 comprises adsorption belt 22, which has through holes 221 for adsorbing waste material 6; see paragraphs [0036-0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 208214954) in view of Zhang (CN 107745192).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the adsorption mechanism comprises a drive roller, a first driven roller, a second driven roller and an actuator for driving the drive roller to rotate, and the conveying belt is sleeved on the drive roller, the first driven roller and the second driven roller.
Zhang discloses wherein the adsorption mechanism comprises a drive roller (a power roller is provided on second mounting plate 305 near the base; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2), a first driven roller (a driven roller is provided on the end of second mounting plate 305, away from the power roller; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2), an actuator for driving the drive roller to rotate (drive mechanism 301 is a servomotor for driving synchronous belt 304 via coupling 302; see paragraph [0032]), and the conveying belt is sleeved on the drive roller, the first driven roller (synchronous belt 304 is supported by the power roller and driven roller; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao in view of Zhang to include a drive roller, driven roller, and actuator. Zhao discloses a conveying belt as part of its adsorption mechanism, but does not explicitly recite the roller components. It is known within the art to use rollers to actuate a conveying belt as evidenced by Zhang. Thus, the technique of using rollers to actuate a conveying belt can be applied to the device of Zhao in order to provide a moving conveying belt.
Zhao as modified does not explicitly disclose a second driven roller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zhao to include an additional driven roller since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, including as many or as few driven rollers as desired would be obvious since it allows for the conveyor to be supported along its entire length.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the first driven roller and the second driven roller are located at one end of the adsorption mechanism (the driven roller is located opposite the power roller; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2), and the drive roller is located at another end of the adsorption mechanism (the power roller is connected to coupling 302 at a first end of synchronous belt 304; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2); each of the first driven roller and the second driven roller has a diameter smaller than that of the drive roller (the driven roller appears to have a smaller diameter than that of the driven roller; see fig. 2).
Assuming arguendo, in the event Applicant does not agree that Zhang as modified discloses the first and second driven rollers having a smaller diameter than the drive roller, Examiner provides the following modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zhao in view of Zhang to make the first and second driven rollers have a smaller diameter than the drive roller. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that changing the size of the rollers affects the portion of the conveying belt that is capable of adsorbing scrap pieces. For example, a larger driven roller could better support the conveying belt, but at the cost of reduced adsorption (since the space taken up by the roller blocks the scrap from being adsorbed). Therefore, it would be obvious to try varying sizes of the driven rollers until the desired balance is achieved between conveying belt support and adsorption effectiveness.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the conveying belt comprises an adsorption region located between the first driven roller and the second driven roller (an adsorption region is defined as the space between the first and second driven rollers; see paragraph [0034]), the adsorption region being provided with the adsorption hole (a plurality of adsorption pores/through holes are provided on synchronous belt 304; see paragraph [0035] and fig. 2); the adsorption mechanism further comprises a mounting seat which is hollowed out and in communication with a vacuum equipment (a cavity is formed by first mounting plate 307 and second mounting plate 305 – first mounting plate 307 is in communication with vacuum air pipe 303; see paragraphs [0032-0034]), and the adsorption hole is in communication with the mounting seat (the adsorption pores are in communication with the cavity formed by first mounting plate 307 and second mounting plate 305; see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zhao in view of Zhang to include a mounting seat. Zhang discloses that first and second mounting plates 307, 305 form a cavity in communication with vacuum air pipe 303 (see paragraphs [0027-0029]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this configuration allows material to be sufficiently adsorbed to the conveying belt, thus removing debris from the cutting area. In order to further contribute to improved cleaning, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the first driven roller and the second driven roller are provided in alignment along a conveying direction of the pole piece (the driven rollers are aligned along the conveying direction; see fig. 1), and the pole piece cutting device comprises a blowing mechanism for blowing gas to an outer surface of the second driven roller (air-blowing knife 306 is located near the rollers and is configured to blow air near the cutting position; see paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zhao in view of Zhang to include a blowing mechanism. Zhang discloses a blowing mechanism (air-blowing knife 306) which is configured to dislodge debris from the cutting position so that debris is adsorbed by vacuum air pipe 303 (see paragraph [0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of including this component being that debris can be efficiently removed from the cutting area during operation. Thus, it is not necessary to pause the operation for cleaning or have an operator manually clean the device. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the pole piece cutting device is provided with a first blowing hole and a second blowing hole, which are both used for connection to a blowing mechanism, wherein the first blowing hole and the second blowing hole each has a blowing direction parallel to a conveying direction of the pole piece, and the first blowing hole and the second blowing hole are respectively located at two sides of the pole piece in a thickness direction of pole piece.
Zhang discloses wherein the pole piece cutting device is provided with a first blowing hole, which is used for connection to a blowing mechanism (air-blowing knife 306 is located near the rollers and is configured to blow air near the cutting position; see paragraph [0032]), wherein the first blowing hole has a blowing direction parallel to a conveying direction of the pole piece (air-blowing knife 306 is positioned to blow air along the conveying direction; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao in view of Zhang to include a blowing mechanism. Zhang discloses a blowing mechanism (air-blowing knife 306) which is configured to dislodge debris from the cutting position so that debris is adsorbed by vacuum air pipe 303 (see paragraph [0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of including this component being that debris can be efficiently removed from the cutting area during operation. Thus, it is not necessary to pause the operation for cleaning or have an operator manually clean the device. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency, such a modification would be obvious.
Zhao as modified does not explicitly disclose a second blowing hole and the first blowing hole and the second blowing hole are respectively located at two sides of the pole piece in a thickness direction of pole piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zhao in view of Zhang to include a second blowing hole since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). Further, it would be obvious to position the second blowing hole on the opposite side of the pole in order to effectively clean both sides of the pole.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 208214954) in view of Barsotti Giovanni (US 20150102545).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the pole piece cutting device further comprises a first restraining component and a second restraining component for restraining the pole piece before cutting of the pole piece, the first restraining component and the second restraining component being respectively provided on two sides of the pole piece in a thickness direction of the pole piece.
Barsotti Giovanni discloses wherein the pole piece cutting device further comprises a first restraining component (clamp 141; see fig. 2) and a second restraining component (clamp 142; see fig. 2) for restraining the pole piece before cutting of the pole piece (clamps 141, 142 are configured to secure log 100 for facilitating the cutting process; see paragraph [0013]), the first restraining component and the second restraining component being respectively provided on two sides of the pole piece in a thickness direction of the pole piece (clamps 141, 142 are located on opposing sides of log 100; see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao in view of Barsotti Giovanni to include first and second restraining components. Barsotti Giovanni discloses that clamps 141, 142 cooperate to secure the workpiece for a cutting operation (see paragraph [0013]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that securing the workpiece prior to cutting increases stability of the workpiece during the cutting operation, leading to reduced movement and thus improved cut quality. Therefore, in order to improve workpiece stability and cut quality in the device of Zhao as modified, such a modification would be obvious.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 208214954) in view of Toshiaki (WO 03095733).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the pole piece cutting device comprises a dust collecting mechanism for removing dust from an outer surface of the conveying belt.
Toshiaki discloses wherein the pole piece cutting device comprises a dust collecting mechanism for removing dust from an outer surface of the conveying belt (cleaning device 10 is configured to remove material from belt 3; see paragraph [0041] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao in view of Toshiaki to include a dust collecting mechanism. Toshiaki discloses a dust collecting mechanism (cleaning device 10) comprising brush 11 and air suction mechanism 13 which allows material to be removed from belt 3 (see paragraph [0041]). Toshiaki further discloses that this configuration allows for the removal of attached cutting debris. Therefore, in order to improve a cleaning process, such a modification would be obvious.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 208214954) in view of Vits (EP 0468254).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the pole piece cutting device further comprises a cutting hood, inside which a cutting region of the pole piece is provided.
Vits discloses wherein the pole piece cutting device further comprises a cutting hood (suction hood 12; see fig. 1), inside which a cutting region of the pole piece is provided (cutting is performed by knife roller 3 in a region surrounded at least partially by suction hood 12; see paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao in view of Vits to include a cutting hood where cutting is performed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cutting operation generates dust and debris that can be harmful to an operator and create messes that lead to machinery problems. In order to provide efficient cleaning, the dust removal components should be located where cutting is performed. Therefore, in order to provide improved cleaning and dust removal, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Zhao as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Vits further discloses wherein one side of the cutting hood is connected to a blowing device (air nozzles 13 are located on one side of suction hood 12; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1), another side of the cutting hood is connected to a dust extracting device (duct located at the top of suction hood 12; see fig. 1), airflow generated by the blowing device is in a direction parallel to a surface of the pole piece and perpendicular to conveying direction of the pole piece (airflow generated by air nozzles 13 flows along the direction of arrows 11, 14 and is at least partially parallel to sheet 6 and partially perpendicular to a conveying direction of sheet 6 (which is understood to be the leftward/rightward direction as shown in fig. 1); see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1), the blowing device is used for blowing dust on the surface of the pole piece (air nozzles 13 are configured to remove debris from the cutting area; see paragraph [0018]), and the dust extracting device is used for collecting dust generated by cutting the pole piece (debris is blown into the duct by airflow from air nozzles 13; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zhao in view of Vits to include a blowing device and a dust extracting device. Vits discloses a blowing device (air nozzles 13) which directs debris towards a dust extracting device (the duct at the top of suction hood 12) using airflow (see paragraph [0018]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both the blowing and dust extracting devices are necessary for proper cleaning of the workpiece and cutting area. That is, the blowing device is required to dislodge material from the workpiece/cutting area, and the dust extracting device is required to collect waste material and remove it from the cutting area. Therefore, in order to improve cleaning of the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights