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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Child et al. (US 2022/0048121 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Child discloses a knife (Child; Figs. 1B-1C; 140) comprising a blade (140), the knife comprising:
a first surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below) and a second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below) each extending at a predetermined angle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below) from a first direction (Child; Figs. 1B-1C; 120), which is a cutting direction (Child; P. 0035), and a third surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below) extending in a second direction (Child; Figs. 1B-1C; 130) perpendicular to the first direction (Child; Figs. 1B-1C; 120),
wherein a first end of the first surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below) and a first end of the second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below) contact each other at a vertex (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below), which is the blade (140), and
wherein a first end and a second end of the third surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below) contact a second end of the first surface and a second end of the second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1B (Child) below), respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Child discloses a secondary battery manufacturing device (Child; P. 0043-0044) comprising the knife (Child; Figs. 1B-1C; 140) according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 Child (US 2022/0048121 A1) in view of Lim (KR 10-1632228 B1) and Betacourt et al. (US 2020/0139563 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Child teaches the knife according to claim 1.
Child does not teach the knife wherein: the first surface and the second surface each comprise a protrusion part, which is a protruding area.
Lim teaches a knife (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1100), wherein a first surface (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1120) comprises a protrusion part (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1130), which is a protruding area (Lim; Fig. 7; 1130). Such protrusion parts help to allow air to vent to help prevent sticking during use (Lim; P. 0073).
Betancourt teaches a knife (Betancourt; Figs. 1-3; 10), wherein a first surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) below) and a second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above) each comprises a protrusion part (Betancourt; Figs. 1-3; 24), which is a protruding area (Betancourt; Figs. 1-3; 24; P. 0025). Such protrusion parts help to reduce sticking during use (Betancourt; P. 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the knife taught by Child to include protrusion parts like the protrusion parts taught by Lim on both a first surface and a second surface as evidenced by Betancourt as such protrusion parts help to allow air to vent which help to prevent material sticking to the knife during use
PNG
media_image2.png
346
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Child in view of Lim and Betancourt teaches the knife according to claim 2, wherein: the protrusion part (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1130) comprises a protrusion starting part (Lim; Fig. 4; 1131 and 1133), which is an area where the protrusion part starts relative to the vertex (Lim; Fig. 4; 1110), and a length from the vertex to the protrusion starting part is shorter than a height of the a sheet to be cut (Lim; Fig. 7; 1 and 1130).
Regarding claim 4, Child teaches the knife according to claim 1.
Child does not teach wherein the first surface and the second surface each comprise a recessed part, which is an area that is recessed from the first surface or the second surface.
Lim teaches a knife (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1100), wherein a first surface (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1120) comprises a recessed part (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1140), which is an area that is recessed from the first surface (Lim; Fig. 4; 1140; P. 0044). Such recessed parts help to allow air to vent to help prevent sticking during use (Lim; P. 0073).
Betancourt teaches a knife (Betancourt; Figs. 1-3; 10), wherein a first surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above) and a second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above) each comprises a recessed part (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the knife taught by Child to include recessed parts like the recessed parts taught by Lim on both a first surface and a second surface as evidenced by Betancourt as such recessed parts help to allow air to vent which help to prevent material sticking to the knife during use.
Regarding claim 5, Child in view of Lim and Betancourt teaches the knife according to claim 4, wherein: the recessed part (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1140) comprises a recess starting part (Lim; Fig. 4; 1133) which is an area where the recessed part starts relative to the vertex (Lim; Fig. 4; 1110), and a length from the vertex to the recess starting part is shorter than a height of a sheet to be cut (Lim; Fig. 7; 1 and 1140).
Regarding claim 7, Child teaches the knife according to claim 1.
Child does not teach wherein: the first surface and the second surface each comprise a protrusion part, which is an area protruding from the first surface or the second surface, and the first surface and the second surface each comprise a recessed part, which is an area dug to be recessed from the first surface and or the second surface.
Lim teaches a knife (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1100), wherein a first surface (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1120) comprises a protrusion part (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1130), which is a protruding area (Lim; Fig. 7; 1130) and a recessed part (Lim; Figs. 1-4 and 7-8; 1140), which is an area that is recessed from the first surface (Lim; Fig. 4; 1140; P. 0044). Such parts help to allow air to vent to help prevent sticking during use (Lim; P. 0073).
Betancourt teaches a knife (Betancourt; Figs. 1-3; 10), wherein a first surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above) and a second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above) each comprises a protrusion part (Betancourt; Figs. 1-3; 24), which is a protruding area (Betancourt; Figs. 1-3; 24; P. 0025) and wherein the first surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above) and the second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above) each comprises a recessed part (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Betancourt) above). Such parts help to reduce sticking during use (Betancourt; P. 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the knife taught by Child to include protrusion parts and recessed parts like the protrusion parts and recessed parts taught by Lim on both a first surface and a second surface as evidenced by Betancourt as such parts help to allow air to vent which help to prevent material sticking to the knife during use
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US 2022/0048121 A1) in view of Lim (KR 10-1632228 B1) and Betacourt (US 2020/0139563 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Imanishi (JP 2019-63961 A).
Regarding claim 6, Child in view of Lim and Betancourt teaches the knife according to claim 4.
Child in view of Lim and Betancourt does not teach wherein: a radius of the recessed part is 0.01 mm or more.
Imanishi teaches a knife (Imanishi; Figs. 1-6; 1) wherein: a radius of the recessed part is 0.01 mm or more (Imanishi; P. 0008). Imanishi specifically teaches recessed parts of an ellipse shape with diameters (Imanishi; Fig. 4; L1 and L2) which range from 5 to 15 mm for L1 and 15 to 25 mm for L2 (Imanishi; P. 0019). As a radius is half of the diameter Imanishi teaches radii taught by Imanishi is in a range of 2.5 to 7.5 mm and 7.5 to 12.5 mm or more generally 2.5 mm or more (Imanishi; P. 0008). Such an arrangement helps to prevent material from sticking to the blade and thus prevents a decrease in cutting performance (Imanishi; P. 0012).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the knife taught by Child in view of Lim and Betancourt such that the radius of the recessed part were 0.01 mm or more or were any desirable radius as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to specify the dimensions of a device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, Imanishi shows that it is well known in the art to have recessed parts within the claimed range to help manage sticking during cutting but also shows that it is well known in the art of knives to dimension such structures however may be desirable or expedient at the time. Further, the result of such dimensions, to provide larger recessed areas in an effort to further reduce sticking, is a known benefit of such structures.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US 2022/0048121 A1) in view of Warner et al. (US 5,077,901 A).
Regarding claim 8, Child teaches the knife according to claim 1.
Child does not teach wherein an angle of the vertex is 120 degrees or less. While Child does not specifically teach an angle of the vertex, Child does teach blades with different vertex (Child; Figs. 1B, 5A-6D and 8; 140, 510, 610 and 810).
Warner teaches a knife (Warner; Figs. 1-15) wherein an angle of the vertex is 120 degrees or less (Warner; Figs. 3, 7 and 9; b, d and b1) the angled being between 20 to 50 degrees (Warner; Col. 2; lines 49-54). Such an angle helps to increase the tip strength of the blade (Warner; Col. 3; lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the knife taught by Child such that the angle of the vertex were less than 120 degrees like the vertex angle taught by Warner as such an angle helps to improve the tip strength of the blade.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US 2022/0048121 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2021/0057728 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Child teaches the knife according to claim 1.
Child does not teach wherein the knife is cermet.
Song teaches a knife (Song; Fig. 1; 1) wherein the knife is cermet (Song; P. 0048). Such a material is preferred to avoid deformation during cutting (Song; P. 0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the knife taught by Child such that the knife was made of a cermet material like the material taught by Song since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Since Song teaches that it is known in the art to use a cermet material as a material for a knife and that it is known in the art to select said material due to its ability to avoid deformation during cutting, the designation of a specific material does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights