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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/08/2026 in which claims 1, 4-11 are pending, claim 1 is amended, and claims 7-11 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 11 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a cutting device with a punch and die
Claim 11 is directed to a distinct combination comprising the cutting device and an automated manufacturing facility performing a metal lead strip unwinding process, flattening process, cutting process, etc. These additional manufacturing operations are not required by the cutting device invention originally presented and require a separate field of search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1, 4-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 21-23 recites, “a protruding extension surface of the protrusion, protruding to the other side of the pocket on the one side of the pocket”. It is unclear what portions of the pocket constitutes “the one side” and “the other side” what direction is indicated by “protruding to” and what structural relationship exists among the protruding extension surface and the recited sides of the pocket. Accordingly, the location and configuration of the first fixed blade cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1, lines 24-26 recites “ protruding edge sides of the protrusion, extending smoothly with a curvature radius to the one side of the pocket from both ends of the protruding extension surface”. The term “protruding edge sides” is not defined, and it is unclear whether the term refers to edges, sides surface or portions of the protrusion extension surface. It is also unclear what is required by the edge sides “extending smoothly… to the one side of the pocket”. Accordingly, the location and configuration of the second fixed blades cannot be determined with reasonably certainty.
Claim 1 lines 28-29 recites, “a sinking surface, sinking to the other side of the blade tip on the one side of the blade tip”. Applicant has amended the specification to define “sinking portion” as a concave or recessed portion and “sinking surface” as a concave or recessed surface. However, these definitions do not clarify the recited spatial relationship. In particular, it is unclear what constitutes “the one side” and “the other side” of the blade tip, in what direction the sinking surface allegedly sinks, or what structural relationship is imparted by the phrase “sinking to the other side of the blade tip”. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined with reasonably certainty.
Claim 1, lines 31-33 recites “sinking edge sides, extending smoothly from both ends of the sinking surface to an edge where the one side of the blade tip and each end surface meet.” The term “sinking edge sides” has no recognized structural meaning and is not defined in the specification. It is unclear whether the term refers to edges, side surfaces, or portions of the sinking surface, and recited relationship between “the sinking edge sides”, the “one side” and “each end surface” cannot be determined. Accordingly, the locations and structures of the second movable blades are unclear.
Claim 8 recites that “the one side of the pocket and the one side of the blade tip are each a side adjacent to a preceding process.” However, claim 8 does not identify the recited “proceeding process”, its location, or any structure performing the process. It is therefore unclear how a side of the pocket or blade tip can be spatially “adjacent to” a process. Furthermore, the phrase “among two sides facing a supply direction of the metal lead strip” does not clearly identify the two sides or their orientation relative to the supply direction. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 8 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 9 recites that “the other side of the pocket and the vertical other side of the blade tip are each a side adjacent to a subsequent process”. However, claim 9 does not identify the recited “subsequent process”, its location or any structure performing the process. It is therefore unclear how a side of the pocket or blade tip can be spatially “adjacent to” a process. Additionally, the meaning of “the vertical other side of the blade tip” is unclear because no reference direction or corresponding “vertical side” is previously defined. Furthermore, the phrase, “among two sides facing a supply a direction of the metal lead strip” does not clearly identify the two sides or their orientation relative to the supply direction. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 9 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
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, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (CN 205463833). In regards to claim 1, Jiang discloses a cutting device for manufacturing lead tabs of a secondary battery, which cuts a continuously supplied band-shaped metal lead strip, comprising:
a punch (upper die 100) having a stud part (upper seat 1), and a blade tip (punch 2) integrally at a lower portion of the stud part (1); and a die (lower die plate 3) having an upper surface (flat top surface) to which the metal lead strip is supplied, and a pocket (hole; 31) into which the blade tip (2) of the punch enters and exits when cutting the metal lead strip supplied to the upper surface, wherein the punch and the die cut the metal lead strip to form metal terminals (battery pole ears), and at the same time, cut both edges of the cut surface to have a smooth curvature (via the arc shaped curvature of the punch at 21).
wherein the die (3) and the punch (1/2) include a first fixed blade (edge of hole 31) and a first movable blade (straight part of 2; annotated below) which form a first cut surface orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the metal lead strip at a fore-end side of the metal lead strip formed when cutting the metal lead strip, and second fixed blades (curved section of slot 31; annotated below) and second movable blades (21; annotated below) which form a pair of second cut surfaces connecting both ends of the first cut surface and both sides of the metal lead strip with a smooth radius of curvature.
PNG
media_image1.png
713
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first fixed blade (annotated above) and the second fixed blade (annotated above) are formed via a protrusion (convex portion indicated below) provided on one side of the pocket, the first movable blade and the second movable blade are formed via a sinking portion (21 / annotated below) provided on one side of the blade tip, the first fixed blade is formed at an edge where a protruding extension surface of the protrusion protruding to the other side of the pocket on the one side of the pocket, and an upper surface of the protrusion meet, the second fixed blades are formed at an edge where a protruding edge side of the protrusion extending smoothly to the one side of the pocket with a curvature radius, and the upper surface of the protrusion meet at both ends of the protruding extension surface of the protrusion, the first movable blade is formed at an edge where a sinking surface which sinks to the other side of the blade tip on the one side of the blade tip, and a lower surface of the blade tip meet, and the second movable blades are formed at an edge where a sinking edge side which smoothly extends to an edge side where the one side of the blade tip and each end surface meet at both ends of the sinking surface of the protrusion, and the lower surface of the blade tip meet, and
(the first movable blade and the second movable blades have concave transitions and the first fixed blade and the second fixed blades have convex transitions that mate with the concave transitions of the movable blade; in a similar manner as Applicant’s invention).
wherein the first moveable blade is formed at an edge where a sinking surface, sinking to the other side of the blade tip on the one side of the blade tip, and a lower surface of the blade tip meet, and the second movable blades are formed at edges where sinking edge sides, extending smoothly from both ends of the sinking surface to an edge where the one side of the blade tip and each end surface meet, and the lower surface of the blade tip meet, and wherein the upper surface of the protrusion is parallel to the upper surface of the die.
PNG
media_image2.png
713
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Jiang discloses wherein the die (3) and the punch (1/2) include a third fixed blade and a third movable blade which form a third cut surface orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the metal lead strip at one side of the metal terminal cut and formed in the metal lead strip when cutting the metal lead strip (the opposite edge of the slot 31 that mates with the opposite side of the blade 2 as annotated by the first moving and fixed blade)
In regards to claim 5, Jiang discloses wherein the third fixed blade (opposite edge of 31) is formed at an edge where the other side of the pocket (31) and the upper surface (top surface) of the die (3) meet, and the third movable blade (back edge of the straight portion of 2) is formed at an edge where the vertical other side of the blade tip and a lower surface of the blade tip meet.
In regards to claim 6, Jiang discloses the cutting device for manufacturing lead tabs of a secondary battery is installed in an automated facility which manufactures the lead tabs for the secondary battery (“This utility model technical problem to be solved is to provide a kind of battery pole ear cutting device, which can effectively improve the cutting precision and cutting efficiency of the ear, and it is propitious to realize automatic production”; see Background technology).
In regards to claim 7, Jiang discloses wherein the punch (2) and the die (3) cut the continuously supplied band-shaped metal lead strip (10a) to a preset length along the longitudinal direction of the metal lead strip to form the metal terminals.
In regards to claim 8, as best understood, Jiang discloses wherein the one side of the pocket (31) and the one side of the blade tip (2) are each a side adjacent to a preceding process, among two sides facing a supply direction of the metal lead strip.
In regards to claim 9, as best understood, Jiang discloses wherein the other side of the pocket (31) and the vertical other side of the blade tip (2) are each a side adjacent to a subsequent process, among two sides facing a supply direction of the metal lead strip.
In regards to claim 10, Jiang discloses wherein the first, second and third movable blade (annotated above) maintain a preset clearance with the first fixed blade, the second fixed blade and the third fixed blade (annotated above), respectively, and cut the metal lead strip while entering and exiting from the pocket (31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant contends that Jiang fails to disclose (1) the claimed protrusion and sinking portion structure and (2) the claimed second cut surfaces. Regarding the protrusion, Applicant’s characterization of Jiang’s opening 31 as a through hole does not distinguish the claimed structure. Claim 1 does not require the pocket to be a blind recess or require the protrusion to be a separately formed component. As illustrated in Figure 6 of Jiang, material of lower template 3 extends laterally into through hole 31 and thereby forms a protrusion on one side of the pocket. The long internal wall of this inwardly extending material constitutes the protruding extension surface, and the radiused internal walls extending from the ends of the long internal wall constitute the protruding edge sides. The portion of the upper surface of lower template 3 located on the inwardly extending material constitutes the upper surface of the protrusion. That surface is coplanar with, and therefore parallel to the upper surface of lower template 3. The Examiner’s annotations do not create an otherwise absent structure but merely identify portions of Jiang’s expressly illustrated structure using the terminology of claim 1.
Regarding the sinking portion, Applicant amended paragraph [0044] to define a “sinking portion” as a concave or recessed portion and a “sinking surface” as a concave or recessed surface. Jiang’s I-shaped punch 2 includes a narrowed central region that is recessed relative to its wider end regions and therefore constitutes the claimed sinking portion under Applicant’s express definition. Curved corners 21 define the transitions between the recessed central region and the wider end regions. Claim 1 requires a sinking portion “provided on one side” of the blade tip but does not require the sinking portion to be provided only on one side. Thus, the presence of corresponding recessed regions on both sides of Jiang’s punch does not distinguish the claimed structure.
Regarding the second cut surfaces, Applicant’s argument relies upon an asserted requirement that the second cut surfaces form “convex outer corners”. Claim 1, however, does not recite that the second cut surfaces are convex or that they form outer comers. Moreover, Applicant’s characterization of Jiang as disclosing only concave transitions considers only punch 2 and disregards the complementary geometry of through hole 31. Although corners 21 are concave when viewed relative to the body of punch 2, the corresponding radiused portions of through hole 31 are convex when viewed relative to the adjoining material of lower template 3. Jiang therefore illustrates complementary concave and convex radiused cutting portions.
Claim 1 merely recites that the second cut surfaces connect the ends of the first cut surface to the sides of the metal lead strip with a smooth radius of curvature. When punch 2 cuts lug material strip 10a, Jiang’s radiused transitions 21 extend from the ends of the straight central cutting portion to the opposing longitudinal sides of lug material strip 10a and thereby form the claimed second cut surfaces connecting the first cut surface to both sides of the lead strip with a smooth radius of curvature. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Furthermore, to the extent Applicant intends the disputed language to require a more particular structure or curvature orientation, such requirement is not clearly expressed in claim 1. The prior art rejection is applied based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language presently of record. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights