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
Claims 2-8, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made via telephone on 9/4/2026.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Claim 1 is a linking claim, examined with the elected group, containing no special technical feature, as shown in the action following.
Group I, claim(s) 2-5, drawn to a manufacturing device including detection of defective cutting—and requiring a separate text search for those concepts.
Group II, claim(s) 6, drawn to a manufacturing device including a display unit—and requiring a separate text search for those concepts.
III. Claims 7 and 8, drawn to a manufacturing device including a device with hole in vibrator or hole in support—and requiring a separate text search for those concepts.
IV. Claims 9-12 and 14, drawn to a damage prevention layer—and requiring a separate text search for those concepts.
During a telephone conversation with Andrew Cannell on 9/4/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group IV, claims 9-12, and 14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 2-8 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 9-12 and 14 are 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.
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, 9-12, and 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, “secondary battery manufacturing device” is unclear, because the nature of the use of the battery is not relevant to the structure of the device. That is to say, there is no structure in the device which is understood to have its scope modified or constrained by the intended use of the battery (whether it is secondary or not--). The device cannot know what type of battery it is making, and the scope of the claim is unclear as a result. IF the claim is to a method of making a type of battery, that would be clearer (though distinct from this application). Similarly, if a device is intended, the scope of the actual device should be clear—perhaps “a manufacturing device for making batteries having layers of XYZ, etc./…).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and / or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Child (US 2022/0048121).
Regarding claim 1, Child discloses a secondary battery manufacturing device (device capable of cutting for a battery work; “lithium” [0002], “battery” Abstract or [0029])), comprising: a substrate wherein a sheet containing a secondary battery material (E.g. Li; [0029], etc. inter alia)is located on one surface of the substrate (figures 2-3, inter alia); a cutting member that includes a knife configured to ultrasonically cut the sheet (figures 2-3).
Child discloses a support part to which the knife is mounted and fixed (Schematics in figures 2-3, reality shown in figure 9, and as discussed throughout this is a machine or assembly).
Child discloses a vibrator configured to receive transmission of power from a power source and apply ultrasonic vibration to the cutting member (e.g. [0043]), wherein the cutting member is configured to apply ultrasonic vibration to the sheet to cut the sheet (Eg. Figure 2a figure 3B).
Regarding claims 9-12, the damage prevention layer of the device as a whole is discussed in Child—as at [0087-0090]). The layer may be comprised at least of “silicone” as claimed in claim 11,a nd as recited is on the substrate before and with the metal battery layer, and is therefore apparently of shore hardness 5-85 and having a tensile strength as set forth in the claims.
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) 9-12 and 14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child as applied to claims 1, 9-12 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2023/0133623).
Regarding claim 14, Child does not discuss the use of aramid layer. Aramid layer is known to be a protective layer in a cutting step in the manufacture of Battery elements, as set forth in Hwang—e.g. “ The surface protection layer 1352 may be made of at least one or more materials selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic polymer, polyacrylonitrile, polyimide, polyamide, cellulose, aramid, nylon, polyester, polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole, polyarylate, teflon, and glass fiber….” [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a spe4cific known material (aramid; encompassing paraaramid) as a protective layer since the art recognized that specific use and the application could be implemented with no undue experimentation or unexpected results.
With respect to the material properties and materials in claims 9-12 and 14; In the same field of endeavor it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Child by Selecting an appropriate protective layer-- as taught by Child throughout—the need for protection for the blade engagement during the cut step being known and 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.). 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 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
