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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
preset position on the electrode plate (see at least claim 2)
initial position on the electrode plate (see at least claim 5)
first length threshold (see at least claim 5)
second length threshold (see at least claim 14)
third length threshold (see at least claim 17)
the first distance is less than/equal to/greater than the third length threshold (see at least claim 17)
fourth length threshold (see at least claim 20)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at line 9, “adefect” should be amended to read “a defect”
Claim 2: at line 6, “detectimg” should be amended to read “detecting”
Claim 5: at line 5, “a first visual detection ,” should be amended to read “a first visual detection,”
Claim 7: at line 2, “the defect detection unit ,” should be amended to read “the defect detection unit,”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“defect detection unit” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “defect detection”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “defect detection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“die-cutting unit” as recited in at least claim 2 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “die-cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “die-cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“identification unit” as recited in at least claim 3 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “identification”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “identification” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“visual detection unit” as recited in at least claim 5 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “visual detection”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “visual detection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 2-20, it is unclear what is intended by the terms “preset position” and “initial position”. Examiner notes that paragraph [0081] of the instant specification describes Ls in fig. 2 as extending between the preset and initial positions, but it remains unclear as to exactly where each position is located. The same paragraph also states that the preset position may be selected as required – thus it appears that the preset position is determined by an unclaimed user input. Since it is unclear what parameters factor into this unclaimed user input, it appears as though the placement of the preset position may be arbitrarily selected by the user. Likewise, the initial position is noted as being represented by the rightmost tab 910 as shown in fig. 2 – however, this is noted to be exemplary. As a result, it is unclear how the location of the initial position is determined. Therefore, the written description does not provide clear support for the location of the preset position, the initial position, or any related limitations.
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 1-20 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 claims 1-20, the claim limitations “die-cutting unit” and “identification unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, no structure is provided that clearly discloses how the die-cutting or identification functions are performed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 2-20, it is unclear what is intended by the terms “preset position” and “initial position”. Do these refer to specific positions on the electrode plate? Or are these positions of the electrode plate as a whole? As noted above, the preset position and initial position do not appear to be shown in the drawings. Examiner notes that paragraph [0081] of the instant specification describes Ls in fig. 2 as extending between the preset and initial positions, but it remains unclear as to exactly where each is. The same paragraph also states that the preset position may be selected as required – thus it appears that the position is determined by an unclaimed user input. Since it is unclear what parameters factor into this unclaimed user input, it appears as though the placement of the preset position may be arbitrarily selected by the user. Further, the placement of the initial position is also unclear because paragraph [0081] of the instant specification states that it is represented by the rightmost tab 910 as an example. It is not made explicitly clear how the location of the initial position is determined otherwise. Therefore, since the locations of the preset position and the initial position (or how these locations are determined) are unclear, claims requiring these limitations are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-20, it is unclear how the “first distance” is defined. Paragraph [0007] of the instant specification states that the first distance extends between the defect and the preset position. Since the preset position is selected “as required” (see at least paragraph [0081] of the instant specification), it appears that the first distance is likewise defined “as required”. In other words, it appears that the first distance is dependent on an unclaimed user input. Since it cannot be determined where the preset position is, it is also unclear how the first distance is defined – thus, claims reciting the first distance are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 13, 16, and 19, it is unclear what is intended by the term “corresponds”. Specifically, it is not understood if limitations that “correspond” to one another are required to be structures/steps that are equivalent, interact with one another, etc.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “the visual detection unit comprises performing, by a first visual detection unit located in front of the die cutting unit in the first direction, a first visual detection”. Specifically, it is unclear how the structure of the visual detection unit comprises a method step.
Regarding claims 17-19, it is unclear how the first distance can be greater than the third length threshold. As discussed above, at least the preset position appears to be arbitrarily selectable “as required”, and the first distance extends between the defect and the preset position (see at least paragraph [0007] of instant specification). It is therefore unclear how the first distance is defined. In other words, it appears that the first distance is likewise dependent on an unclaimed user input designating the location of the preset position. Further, according to paragraph [0094], the third length threshold can be defined by the following: Lt3=L0-Ls+Lc2. Ls is defined as the distance between the preset and initial positions. Since Ls also depends on the location of the preset position, it is further unclear how to define the third length threshold. In view of the above, it appears that the ability of the first distance to be greater than the third length threshold is entirely dependent on where the preset position is. Because the precise location of the preset position cannot be determined and it is unclear how to define the first distance and the third length threshold as a result, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the first distance is greater than or equal to the third length threshold” was made optional in claim 17, from which it depends. Since claim 19 explicitly requires this limitation, the claim is rendered indefinite. Examiner recommends amending claim 17 to require this limitation.
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 1-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 114799573).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a die cutting method for an electrode plate, wherein the die cutting method for an electrode plate comprises: providing an electrode-plate material (electrode 120 is provided by electrode transmission line 110; see paragraph [0023]); in a process in which a die cutting unit performs die cutting on the electrode-plate material to generate an electrode plate having a length of a single-battery cell electrode plate (laser die-cutting unit 130 is used to die-cut mark holes 100 on electrode 120; see paragraph [0024]), performing defect detection on the electrode-plate material by a defect detection unit (control unit 150 identifies defect points 200 in an image received from image acquisition unit 140; see paragraphs [0025-0026]), wherein the electrode plate having the length of the single-battery cell electrode plate is indicated by a mark obtained through die cutting performed on the electrode plate (laser die-cutting unit 130 creates mark holes 100 to be positioned at a fixed length L1 on each cell; see paragraph [0024]); and in response to the defect detection unit detecting a defect in the electrode-plate material, ending, depending on a position of the detected defect on a first electrode plate on which die cutting is performed, die cutting performed on the first electrode plate, and restarting to perform die cutting on a second electrode plate (depending on the detected position of defect point 200, control unit 150 causes laser die-cutting unit 130 to recut mark hole 300; see paragraphs [0026-0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the in response to the defect detection unit detecting a defect in the electrode-plate material, ending, depending on a position of the detected defect on a first electrode plate on which die cutting is performed, performing die cutting on the first electrode plate, and restarting to perform die cutting on a second electrode plate comprises: in response to the defect detection unit detecting the defect in the electrode-plate material, determining a first distance between the defect and a preset position on the first electrode plate in a first direction, wherein the first direction is a moving direction of the electrode-plate material during die cutting (control unit 150 detects a distance between mark holes 100 and defect point 200; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 3); comparing the first distance with a preset length threshold (distance L2 is compared to a preset length threshold; see paragraphs [0027-0028]); and when the first distance is less than the preset length threshold, ending die cutting performed on the first electrode plate, and performing, by the die cutting unit, die cutting on the second electrode plate on the electrode-plate material (if L2 is less than the preset length threshold, control unit 150 has already performed a recutting action and thus can move to the next unit; see paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the die cutting method for an electrode plate further comprises: when the first distance is greater than or equal to the preset length threshold, performing, by an identification unit, defective product identification on the first electrode plate (control unit 150 is further configured to identify defect points 200 on electrode 120 when L2 is greater than the preset length threshold – marking unit 160 is connected to control unit 150 and is used to mark defects; see paragraphs [0026-0027, 0070] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the die cutting method for an electrode plate further comprises: when the first distance is greater than or equal to the preset length threshold, continuing, by the die cutting unit, to perform die cutting on the electrode-plate material based on a preset die cutting parameter, wherein the preset die cutting parameter corresponds to a die cutting parameter for a case in which no defect is detected in the electrode-plate material (when L2 is greater than the preset length threshold and no defect point 200 is detected, control unit 150 is capable of continuing a cutting operation; see paragraphs [0026-0028, 0035] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein performing, by the defect detection unit, defect detection on the electrode-plate material based on shooting performed by a visual detection unit on the electrode-plate material, the visual detection unit comprises performing, by a first visual detection unit located in front of the die cutting unit in the first direction, a first visual detection (image acquisition unit 140, which is configured to acquire target images of electrode 120, is positioned in front of laser die-cutting unit 130 in the first direction; see fig. 2), wherein a first length threshold is used as the preset length threshold when the electrode-plate material is a single-side electrode-plate material in which a tab is obtained through die cutting on only one side perpendicular to the moving direction, wherein the first length threshold is determined based on a total length of each electrode plate, a distance between a preset position on the first electrode plate and an initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction, and a distance between a first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and a die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the first length threshold can be calculated by L1 (total length) minus L3 (distance between preset position and initial position) minus D (die-cutting position and detecting position); see paragraph [0027] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the first length threshold is equal to the total length of each electrode plate minus the distance between the preset position on the first electrode plate and the initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction minus the distance between the first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and the die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the first length threshold can be calculated by L1 minus L3 minus D; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein performing, by the defect detection unit, the defect detection on the electrode-plate material based on shooting performed by a visual detection unit on the electrode-plate material, the visual detection unit comprises performing, by a first visual detection unit located in front of the die cutting unit in the first direction, a first visual detection (image acquisition unit 140, which is configured to acquire target images of electrode 120, is positioned in front of laser die-cutting unit 130 in the first direction; see fig. 2), wherein when the electrode-plate material is a two-side electrode-plate material in which tabs are obtained through die cutting on both sides perpendicular to the moving direction, the die cutting method for an electrode plate further comprises: in response to the first visual detection unit detecting the defect in the electrode-plate material, determining, by the defect detection unit, an electrode-plate material region in which the defect is located in the electrode-plate material, wherein the electrode-plate material comprises two electrode-plate material regions (control unit 150 is able to identify defect points 200 in different regions of electrode 120; see paragraph [0026]), the two electrode-plate material regions are defined by a slitting line extending in the first direction in the electrode-plate material (slitting unit 170 is configured to split electrode 120 from the middle into two regions, an upper and lower region as shown in fig. 2; see paragraph [0072]), and the two electrode-plate material regions are respectively configured to form different electrode plates (each region forms a separate electrode sheet; see paragraph [0072]); and determining the preset length threshold based on the electrode-plate material region in which the defect is located in the electrode-plate material (control unit 150 is able to identify defect points 200 in different regions of electrode 120; see paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein determining the preset length threshold based on the electrode-plate material region in which the defect is located in the electrode-plate material comprises: using the first length threshold as the preset length threshold when the defect is distributed in the two electrode-plate material regions, wherein the first length threshold is determined based on a total length of each electrode plate, a distance between a preset position on the first electrode plate and an initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction, and a distance between a first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and a die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the preset length threshold can be calculated by L1 minus L3 minus D; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the first length threshold is equal to the total length of each electrode plate minus the distance between the preset position on the first electrode plate and the initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction minus the distance between the first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and the die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the first length threshold can be calculated by L1 minus L3 minus D; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein when die cutting performed in the two electrode-plate material regions of the electrode-plate material is asynchronously executable, determining the preset length threshold based on the electrode-plate material region in which the defect is located in the electrode-plate material comprises: using the first length threshold as the preset length threshold, wherein the first length threshold is determined based on a total length of each electrode plate, a distance between a preset position on the first electrode plate and an initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction, and a distance between a first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and a die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the preset length threshold can be calculated by L1 minus L3 minus D; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the first length threshold is equal to the total length of each electrode plate minus the distance between the preset position on the first electrode plate and the initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction minus the distance between the first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and the die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the first length threshold can be calculated by L1 minus L3 minus D; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein when die cutting performed in the two electrode-plate material regions of the electrode-plate material is only synchronously executable, determining the preset length threshold based on the electrode-plate material region in which the defect is located in the electrode-plate material comprises: using a second length threshold as the preset length threshold when the defect is distributed in only one of the two electrode-plate material regions, wherein the second length threshold is determined based on a total length of each electrode plate, a distance between a preset position on the first electrode plate and an initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction, and a distance between a first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and a die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the second length threshold can be calculated by half of L1 minus L3 minus D; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the second length threshold is equal to a half of the total length of each electrode plate minus the distance between the preset position on the first electrode plate and the initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction minus the distance between the first defect detection position of the first visual detection unit and the die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction (the second length threshold can be calculated by half of L1 minus L3 minus D; see fig. 3).
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.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 114799573) in view of Wang (CN 115332604).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the die cutting unit comprises a first die cutting unit and a second die cutting unit.
Wang discloses wherein the die cutting unit comprises a first die cutting unit and a second die cutting unit (die-cutting unit 2 and cutting unit 6; see paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang in view of Wang to include an additional die cutting unit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including an additional means for cutting improves efficiency of the process, since electrode plates can be cut faster. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency of the system, such a modification would be obvious.
As modified, Zhang discloses when the first distance is less than the preset length threshold, ending die cutting performed on the first electrode plate (if L2 is less than the preset length threshold, control unit 150 has already performed a recutting action and thus can move to the next unit; see paragraph [0028]), and the die cutting unit performs die cutting on the second electrode plate on the electrode-plate material comprises: ending, for both the two electrode-plate material regions, die cutting performed on the first electrode plate, and the first die cutting unit and the second die cutting unit respectively perform die cutting on corresponding second electrode plates (as modified to include two die-cutting units, a cutting action can be performed on the next unit after cutting of the first has been completed; see paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the die cutting unit comprises a first die cutting unit and a second die cutting unit.
Wang discloses wherein the die cutting unit comprises a first die cutting unit and a second die cutting unit (die-cutting unit 2 and cutting unit 6; see paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang in view of Wang to include an additional die cutting unit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including an additional means for cutting improves efficiency of the process, since electrode plates can be cut faster. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency of the system, such a modification would be obvious.
Zhang as modified discloses when the first distance is less than the preset length threshold, ending die cutting performed on the first electrode plate (if L2 is less than the preset length threshold, control unit 150 has already performed a recutting action and thus can move to the next unit; see paragraph [0028]), and the die cutting unit performs die cutting on the second electrode plate on the electrode-plate material comprises: ending, in an electrode-plate material region in which the defects exists in the two electrode-plate material regions, die cutting performed on the first electrode plate (control unit 150 is configured to end a cutting action on a first electrode 120 if a defect point 200 is detected; see paragraphs [0026-0028]), and one of the first die cutting unit and the second die cutting unit that is close to the electrode-plate material region performs die cutting on the second electrode plate in the electrode-plate material region (once cutting on a first electrode 120 has ended, control unit 150 is configured to continue cutting on the next unit; see paragraph [0028]); and one of the first die cutting unit and the second die cutting unit that is close to another electrode-plate material region in which the defects does not exist in the two electrode-plate material regions continues to perform, in the another electrode-plate material region, die cutting based on a preset die cutting parameter, wherein the preset die cutting parameter corresponds to a die cutting parameter for a case in which no defect is detected in the electrode-plate material (when no defect point 200 is detected, control unit 150 is capable of continuing a cutting operation; see paragraphs [0026-0028, 0035]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 114799573) in view of Wang (CN 115332604), and further in view of Yu (CN 208674259).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the die cutting unit comprises a first die cutting unit and a second die cutting unit, and the die cutting unit performs die cutting on the second electrode plate on the electrode-plate material comprises: synchronously ending, for both the two electrode-plate material regions, die cutting performed on the first electrode plate, and the first die cutting unit and the second die cutting unit respectively perform die cutting on corresponding second electrode plates synchronously.
Wang discloses wherein the die cutting unit comprises a first die cutting unit and a second die cutting unit (die-cutting unit 2 and cutting unit 6; see paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang in view of Wang to include an additional die cutting unit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including an additional means for cutting improves efficiency of the process, since electrode plates can be cut faster. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency of the system, such a modification would be obvious.
Yu discloses and the die cutting unit performs die cutting on the second electrode plate on the electrode-plate material comprises: synchronously ending, for both the two electrode-plate material regions, die cutting performed on the first electrode plate, and the first die cutting unit and the second die cutting unit respectively perform die cutting on corresponding second electrode plates synchronously (cutting may be performed simultaneously; see paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Zhang in view of Yu to make the die cutting units perform cutting synchronously. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that cutting two parts at the same time further increases efficiency of the system, as discussed above. As such, it would also be obvious to end cutting synchronously as a new unit is positioned for cutting. Therefore, in order to further improve efficiency, such a modification would be obvious.
Zhang as modified discloses when the first distance is less than the preset length threshold, ending die cutting performed on the first electrode plate (if L2 is less than the preset length threshold, control unit 150 has already performed a recutting action and thus can move to the next unit; see paragraph [0028]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 114799573).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the visual detection unit comprises a second visual detection unit located behind the die cutting unit in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang to include a second visual detection unit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, including an additional visual detection unit would provide greater accuracy in determining the position of defects. If a second visual detection unit were positioned before the die cutting unit, then defects could potentially be detected before the electrode plate has undergone a cutting operation. In other words, the system is configured to respond a certain way depending on the presence of a defect – if a defect is detected, the cutting operation can be skipped so that time and resources are not wasted machining a defective product. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency, such a modification would be obvious.
Zhang as modified discloses a third length threshold is used as the preset length threshold when the electrode-plate material is a single-side electrode-plate material in which a tab is obtained through die cutting on only one side perpendicular to the moving direction, wherein when a final position of the first electrode plate on which die cutting is performed is not between the second visual detection unit and the die cutting unit when the defect is detected, the first distance is less than the third length threshold (as modified to include an additional visual detection unit, when the final position is not between the second visual detection unit and laser die-cutting unit 130, L2 is less than the third length threshold; see fig. 2), or when the final position of the first electrode plate on which die cutting is performed is between the second visual detection unit and the die cutting unit when the defect is detected, the first distance is greater than or equal to the third length threshold (as modified to include an additional visual detection unit, when the final position is between the second visual detection unit and laser die-cutting unit 130, L2 may be equal to or greater than the third length threshold; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the visual detection unit comprises a second visual detection unit located behind the die cutting unit in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang to include a second visual detection unit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, including an additional visual detection unit would provide greater accuracy in determining the position of defects. If a second visual detection unit were positioned before the die cutting unit, then defects could potentially be detected before the electrode plate has undergone a cutting operation. In other words, the system is configured to respond a certain way depending on the presence of a defect – if a defect is detected, the cutting operation can be skipped so that time and resources are not wasted machining a defective product. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency, such a modification would be obvious.
Zhang as modified discloses a third length threshold is used as the preset length threshold when the electrode-plate material is a two-side electrode-plate material in which tabs are obtained through die cutting on both sides perpendicular to the moving direction, and die cutting performed in two electrode-plate material regions of the electrode-plate material is asynchronously executable, wherein the electrode-plate material comprises the two electrode-plate material regions, the two electrode-plate material regions are defined by a slitting line extending in the first direction in the electrode-plate material (slitting unit 170 is configured to split electrode 120 from the middle into two regions, an upper and lower region as shown in fig. 2; see paragraph [0072]), the two electrode-plate material regions are respectively configured to form different electrode plates (each region forms a separate electrode sheet; see paragraph [0072]), and when a final position of the first electrode plate on which die cutting is performed is not between the second visual detection unit and the die cutting unit when the defect is detected, the first distance is less than the third length threshold (as modified to include an additional visual detection unit, when the final position is not between the second visual detection unit and laser die-cutting unit 130, L2 is less than the third length threshold; see fig. 2), or when the final position of the first electrode plate on which die cutting is performed is between the second visual detection unit and the die cutting unit when the defect is detected, the first distance is greater than or equal to the third length threshold (as modified to include an additional visual detection unit, when the final position is between the second visual detection unit and laser die-cutting unit 130, L2 is greater than the third length threshold; see fig. 2); and the third length threshold is equal to a total length of each electrode plate plus a distance between a second defect detection position of the second visual detection unit and a die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction minus a distance between a preset position on the first electrode plate and an initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction (the third length threshold is equal to L1 plus a distance between the second visual detection unit and laser die-cutting unit 130 minus L3; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang as modified further discloses wherein the die cutting method for an electrode plate further comprises: when the first distance is greater than or equal to the third length threshold, the die cutting unit continues to perform die cutting on the electrode-plate material based on a preset die cutting parameter until die cutting performed on the first electrode plate is completed, and then the die cutting unit performs die cutting on the second electrode plate on the electrode-plate material, wherein the preset die cutting parameter corresponds to a die cutting parameter for a case in which no defect is detected in the electrode-plate material (when L2 is greater than the third length threshold and no defect point 200 is detected, control unit 150 is capable of continuing a cutting operation; see paragraphs [0026-0028, 0035] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Zhang further discloses wherein the defect detection unit performs defect detection on the electrode-plate material based on shooting performed by a visual detection unit on the electrode-plate material (image acquisition unit 140 is configured to acquire target images of electrode 120; see fig. 2).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the visual detection unit comprises a second visual detection unit located behind the die cutting unit in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang to include a second visual detection unit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, including an additional visual detection unit would provide greater accuracy in determining the position of defects. If a second visual detection unit were positioned before the die cutting unit, then defects could potentially be detected before the electrode plate has undergone a cutting operation. In other words, the system is configured to respond a certain way depending on the presence of a defect – if a defect is detected, the cutting operation can be skipped so that time and resources are not wasted machining a defective product. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency, such a modification would be obvious.
Zhang as modified discloses a fourth length threshold is used as the preset length threshold when the electrode-plate material is a two-side electrode-plate material in which tabs are obtained through die cutting on both sides perpendicular to the moving direction, and die cutting performed in two electrode-plate material regions of the electrode-plate material is only synchronously executable, wherein the electrode-plate material comprises the two electrode-plate material regions, the two electrode-plate material regions are defined by a slitting line extending in the first direction in the electrode-plate material (slitting unit 170 is configured to split electrode 120 from the middle into two regions, an upper and lower region as shown in fig. 2; see paragraph [0072]), the two electrode-plate material regions are respectively configured to form different electrode plates (each region forms a separate electrode sheet; see paragraph [0072]), and the fourth length threshold is determined based on a total length of each electrode plate, a distance between a preset position on the first electrode plate and an initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction, and a distance between a second defect detection position of the second visual detection unit and a die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction; and the fourth length threshold is equal to a half of the total length of each electrode plate plus the distance between the second defect detection position of the second visual detection unit and the die cutting position of the die cutting unit in the first direction minus the distance between the preset position on the first electrode plate and the initial position of the first electrode plate in the first direction (the fourth length threshold is defined by half of L1 plus the distance between the second visual detection unit and laser die-cutting unit 130 minus L3; see fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20200139569 to Wi, drawn to an apparatus and method for cutting an electrode sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights