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
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zublin 5,405,053.
In Re Claim 1, Zublin teaches an apparatus for introducing an active material for use in a secondary battery, the apparatus comprising: a cutting unit (62) positioned on an upper side of an introducing portion of a main hopper (48) and provided for cutting a bottom portion of a packaging material (22) in which a powder is accommodated; (Column 6, Lines 42-46) and a sealing unit (72) provided around an outside of the cutting unit and configured to block leakage of the powder by bringing the introducing portion (76) of the main hopper and an opening portion of the packaging material formed by cutting to be in communication with each other. (Column 6, Lines 52-59)
In Re Claim 2, Zublin teaches wherein the cutting unit comprises a knife member that protrudes toward the bottom portion of the packaging material. (Column 6, Lines 42-46) (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 4, Zublin teaches wherein the knife member comprises a peak portion for cutting a bottom portion of an inner layer of the packaging material. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 5, Zublin teaches wherein the sealing unit comprises: a lower flange (70) portion provided on the outside of the cutting unit so as to surround the cutting unit, the lower flange portion being provided such that a lower side of a skirt portion of an outer layer of the packaging material is positioned outside the lower flange portion; (Column 6, Lines 52-59) and an upper flange portion (72) positioned above the lower flange portion, the upper flange portion being provided with a penetration portion such that the lower side of the skirt portion of the outer layer of the packaging material is passing through and is positioned inside the penetration portion. (Column 6, Lines 52-59)
In Re Claim 12, Zublin teaches wherein a mesh portion (mesh portion of 70, Column 6, Lines 20-23) for filtering out foreign substances contained in the powder is provided between the cutting unit and the introducing portion of the main hopper.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zublin and in view of Haas et al. 4,527,716.
In Re Claim 3, Zublin teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Zublin does not teach wherein the knife member is provided such that a height of the knife member is capable of being adjusted.
However, Haas et al. teach wherein the knife member (62a) is provided such that a height of the knife member is capable of being adjusted. (Fig. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a knife member capable of height adjustment in the apparatus of Zublin as taught by Haas et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to perform maintenance without the blade causing a danger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 and 13 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Riemersma et al., Schmidt et al. and Wittes et al. teaches an apparatus for introducing material comprising a bag, a cutting device collection system for unloading material from the bag.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights