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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakai (US 2013/0152757).
Regarding claim 1, Nakai discloses a marking device, configured for making scores on an electrode sheet,( See In re Schreiber 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where a oil funnel was held capable of funneling popcorn even though there was no disclosure in the reference to popcorn, and the use as an oil funnel was wholly different to the alleged invention of popcorn dispensing. Here, the ability to score electrode sheet is claimed, and shown by the device of Nakai—which is capable of scoring such a sheet). Nakai discloses the marking device comprises: a vibration mechanism (24, 29, 42, inter alia, figure 1; or oscillator 22, figure 2; See [0099]: “Under the control of the controller 6, the oscillator 22 produces ultrasonic vibrations.”) , provided on a side of the electrode sheet provided with the active material layer along the thickness direction (statement of intended use—met here because the electrode sheet is workpiece and the device shown is capable of acting on that side thereof); and a cutter head (See [0100]: “the cutting edge 23a of the cutting blade 23 mounted to the resonator 21” and figures 1-2 inter alia), connected to the vibration mechanism (see figure 1 and 2), wherein the cutter head extends in a width direction of the electrode sheet (23 figure 2); and the vibration mechanism is configured to drive the cutter head to vibrate in the thickness direction and to allow the cutter head to contact the electrode sheet(See figures 3, 4, 11C inter alia), to form a score on the electrode sheet (depth controlled, scoring is possible/ therefore the capability is shown).
Regarding claims 2-6, please see the elements shown plainly in figures 1-4 of Nakai.
Regarding claim 9, Nakai discloses the device further comprises: a support member, provided in one-to-one correspondence with the cutter head (31, as discussed for supporting work in [0100]), wherein the support member and the cutter head are oppositely arranged (See figure 1) on two sides of the electrode sheet (workpiece) along the thickness direction, and the support member is configured to support the electrode sheet (see [0100]; this is a capability requirement plainly met by the stage 31).
Regarding claim 11, a conveyor as claimed is taught in Nakai, at 403-405 figure 19A.
Regarding claim 12-13, The dust removal is also taught by Nakai, as at Fig. 16 and [0173].
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai as set forth above, in view of (US 2005/0034582), to De Marco.
Regarding claim 7, Nakai does not disclose two vibration mechanisms, each provided on each side of the electrode sheet along the thickness direction; and two cutter heads, each connected to one of the two vibration mechanisms to form the score on both sides of the electrode sheet.
In the art of scoring or perforating work, it is well known to provide the features claimed in claims 7, 8, 10 and 11—namely to have the device set up with a conveyance system leading both to and away from perforation positions of the cutter members. See for instance 20050034582, De Marco, which discusses perforating on both sides of a web with two successive perforating mechanisms (“The perforating mechanisms 197 and 198 include each one a contrast roller or anvil 224 and a perforation blade 226 or 227 with fine teeth and notches, controlled by servomechanisms 228 and 229.”) and motivates the addition or duplication of the perforator of Nakai to both sides, so that cuts may be made sequentially and optionally at either side of the workpiece thereof.
Regarding claim 8, DeMarco shows two cutter heads are provided at intervals along a conveying direction of the electrode sheet, and this motivates the change noted above to Nakai.
Regarding claim 10, as discusse above, the presence of perforator cutter heads oppositely provided along the thickness direction shown at both locations in the DeMarco case and the distance between the two cutter heads along the thickness direction is greater than a thickness of the electrode sheet (intended use—but the spacing is broadly shown in DeMarco, and the adjustment of size would be within the level of ordinary skill to make an optimal spacing for the material being processed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 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. The claims each contain additional limitations which are not seen in, nor obvious to add or combine with Nakai or the other known art to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724