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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 July 2025 has been entered.
Request for Contact
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for contact in their submission filed 10 July 2025 before issuing a subsequent action. Examiner made a courtesy phone call to Applicant’s Attorney, on 3 November 2025, before issuing the present office action. Examiner believes the below office action which takes into account the newly added claim language will facilitate any interview that Applicant wishes to schedule in the future.
As always, to schedule an interview regarding the office action, Applicant may call KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440 at their convenience. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Alternatively, Applicant may schedule an interview, using USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www. uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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 “at least two of the sub-chambers are divided into two or more compartments, each compartment comprises a deposition source, wherein at least one deposition source is a sputtering source” and “a pair of electron beam sources positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction” (claim 22) and “a first compartment of the second sub-chamber comprises a pair of electron beam sources position side-by-side and two evaporation sources” and “at least one of the plurality of sub-chambers comprising a resistively heated crucible, and an electron beam heated crucible” (claim 27) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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: electron beam source in claim 22, which has been interpreted as an electron gun and a crucible, and equivalents thereto, as set forth in the specification at para. 68.
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 22-28 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Regarding claim 22: Examiner has failed to find support for “a pair of electron beam sources positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction” and “at least two of the sub-chambers are divided into two or more compartments, each compartment comprises a deposition source, wherein at least one deposition source is a sputtering source”. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined to the best of Examiner’s ability, in light of related lack of illustration and clarification issues.
Regarding claim 27: Examiner has failed to find support for “a first compartment of the second sub-chamber comprises a pair of electron beam sources position side-by-side and two evaporation sources”. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined to the best of Examiner’s ability, in light of related lack of illustration and clarification issues.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 22-28 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
Regarding claim 22, it now recites at least the following:
A plurality of sub-chambers
At least two of the sub-chambers divided into two or more compartments
Each compartment comprises a deposition source, wherein at least one deposition source is a sputtering source
a first compartment of the two or more compartments in at least one of the at least two sub-chambers divided into two or more compartments comprises a first deposition module further comprising a pair of electron beam sources.
See above, wherein for clarification the underlined subject matter has been interpreted as the intended claimed subject matter and examination has proceeded accordingly.
With respect to claim 27, it is unclear whether “the at least one of plurality of sub-chambers further comprising: a resistively heat crucible; and an electron beam heated crucible” may be applicable to the previously claimed “first sub-chamber comprises two deposition sources”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the feature was meant to refer to the third-sub-chamber or the second sub-chamber, which have not been further defined in the claim. If the feature is meant to refer to the first or second sub-chamber, for clarity the claim should at least convey that these are further features of the first and/or second sub-chambers and if necessary, address the relationships to other features of the first and second sub-chambers.
Additionally, claim 27 twice introduces each of “a first sub-chamber”, “a second sub-chamber”, “a third sub-chamber”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that each feature was only meant to be introduced once and at subsequent mentions reference the first/antecedent reference properly.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested.
NOTE: With respect to Applicant’s claimed invention, overall original support of the claims addressed above and overall clarity of these same claims remains quite difficult for Examiner to decipher. Nevertheless, a best effort has been made. However, in all instances clarification and/or correction is requested. Further, in light of the aforementioned difficulties, Applicant and Applicant’s representatives are respectfully requested to thoroughly review the entirety of the claim language (even where no specific rejections have been made at present) to check for any necessary or helpful clarifications in order to expedite examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0088987 to Herle.
Regarding claim 1: Herle discloses a flexible substrate coating system (Fig. 12, 1200) comprising: an unwinding module (1202) housing a feed reel (1256) capable of providing a continuous sheet of flexible material; a winding module (1206) housing a take-up reel (1254) capable of storing the continuous sheet of flexible material; a coating drum (1255) configured to guide the continuous sheet of flexible material along a travel direction of a plurality of sub-chambers; and a processing module (1204) arranged downstream of the unwinding module, the processing module, comprising: a first sub-chamber (e.g. 1210) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a first sacrificial anode material layer onto a least a portion of the prefabricated electrode structure, wherein the first sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of providing corrosion resistance; a second sub-chamber (e.g. 1220) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a second sacrificial anode material layer onto a least a portion of first sacrificial anode material layer, wherein the second sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of action as an oxidation barrier; a third sub-chamber (e.g. 1230) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a third sacrificial anode material layer, wherein the third sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of action as an oxidation barrier; and a fourth sub-chamber (e.g. 1240) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a fourth sacrificial anode material layer, the forth sacrificial anode material layer capable of action as a wetting layer. Herle teaches that the plurality of sub-chambers may include any suitable structure, configuration, arrangement, and/or components that enable deposition as desired (e.g., a lithium battery device, similar to Applicant’s disclosure, see, e.g., paras. 112-120).
Additionally, regarding claim limitations drawn to the article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e. continuous sheet of flexible material), it is noted that the courts have ruled that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Also, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Finally, the courts have also ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claims 2-6, see above regarding intended use and the relevant teachings of Herle.
With respect to claim 7, the first sub-chamber of the plurality of sub-chambers may comprise a sputtering source, wherein the sputtering source would be capable of depositing at least one material selected from aluminum, nickel, copper, alumina, boron nitride, carbon, silicon oxide or combinations thereof (see, e.g., paras. 44 and 89). Additionally, it is noted that the particular material deposited is related to an intended use of the system, see above) and the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 8, the second sub-chamber of the plurality of sub-chambers may comprise a thermal evaporation source that is capable of depositing lithium metal (se, e.g., paras. 107 and 119 of Herle). Additionally, it is noted that the particular material deposited is related to an intended use of the system (see above) and the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 9, in modified Herle, the third sub-chamber of the plurality of sub-chambers may be capable of being configured to deposit to deposit lithium fluoride (paras. 112-120). Additionally, it is noted that the particular material deposited is related to an intended use of the system and the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Also, as set forth above, the courts have ruled Also, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 21, in Herle, the first sub-chamber is in a first compartment (provided by structural separation as disclosed), the second sub-chamber is in a second compartment (provided by structural separation as disclosed), the third chamber is in a third compartment (provided by structural separation as disclosed), and the fourth chamber is in a fourth compartment (provided by structural separation as disclosed), each compartment is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment except for an opening configured to allow deposition over the coating drum. See aforementioned prior art figures including partitions (see, e.g., para. 111).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Herle as applied to claims 1-9 and 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,124,170 to Ignatiev et al.
Modified Herle disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Herle fails to disclose a chemical vapor deposition module positioned between the processing module and the winding module, wherein the CVD module comprises a showerhead, wherein the showerhead is fluidly coupled to a first gas source or a second gas source and wherein the first gas source and second gas source are configured to supply specific materials.
Ignatiev et al. disclose a transition module (Figs 4 and 7A, 701/701-4) including a gas distribution assembly (705) provided between a processing module and a winding module (406) for the purpose of isolating environments of the system (see, e.g., column 4, rows 32-74 and column 12, row 22 through column 13, row 16). Ignatiev et al. also discloses at least one port (705) coupled to a gas source. The at least one gas source is capable of providing to a plurality of arbitrarily designated zones. Alternatively, the provision of a plurality of ports would allow for multiple arbitrarily designated zones, wherein the courts have ruled the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled the following with respect to intended use: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s application was effectively filed to have provided a module capable of chemical vapor deposition (if intended gases were provided) positioned between the processing module and the winding module, wherein the CVD module comprises a multi-zone gas distribution assembly, wherein the multi-zone gas distribution assembly is fluidly coupled to a first gas source or a second gas source and wherein the first gas source and second gas source are configured to supply specific materials for the purpose of isolating environments of the system as taught by Ignatiev et al.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0088987 to Herle in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,693,803 to Casey et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0092253 to Selvamanickam.
Regarding claim 22: Herle discloses a flexible substrate coating system (Fig. 12, 1200) substantially as claimed and comprising: an unwinding module (1202) housing a feed reel (1256) capable of providing a continuous sheet of flexible material; a winding module (1206) housing a take-up reel (1254) capable of storing the continuous sheet of flexible material; a coating drum (1255) configured to guide the continuous sheet of flexible material past the plurality of sub-chambers along a travel direction of a plurality of sub-chambers; and a processing module (1204) arranged downstream of the unwinding module, the processing module, comprising: a first sub-chamber (e.g. 1210) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a first sacrificial anode material layer onto a least a portion of the prefabricated electrode structure, wherein the first sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of providing corrosion resistance; a second sub-chamber (e.g. 1220) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a second sacrificial anode material layer onto a least a portion of first sacrificial anode material layer, wherein the second sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of action as an oxidation barrier; a third sub-chamber (e.g. 1230) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a third sacrificial anode material layer, wherein the third sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of action as an oxidation barrier; and a fourth sub-chamber (e.g. 1240) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a fourth sacrificial anode material layer, the forth sacrificial anode material layer capable of action as a wetting layer.
Regarding the actual structure of each of the plurality of sub-chambers, Herle teaches that the plurality of sub-chambers may include any suitable structure, configuration, arrangement, number, and/or components that enable deposition as desired (e.g., a lithium battery device, similar to Applicant’s disclosure, see, e.g., paras. 112-120). Notably, Herle teach that various PVD sources -- sputtering sources, electron beam evaporator, thermal/resistance evaporator, etc. – may be used in the apparatus.
However, Herle fails to disclose each sub-chamber is configured to perform one or more processing operations to the continuous sheet of flexible material, such that at least two of the sub-chambers are divided into two or more compartments, wherein each compartment comprises a deposition source, wherein each compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment except for an opening configured to allow deposition over the coating drum, and wherein the sub-chambers are radially disposed about the coating drum.
Casey et al. disclose the provision of individual partitions/compartments in a sub-chamber, for the purpose of providing an adjustable means that enable the disposition and function of the apparatus to be altered within the confines of the original design (abstract).
Additionally, Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided individual partitions for providing a two or more compartments wherein each compartment comprises a deposition source, wherein at least one deposition source is a sputtering source, wherein each compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment except for an opening configured to allow deposition over the coating drum, and wherein the sub-chambers are radially disposed about the coating drum in Herle in order to provide an adjustable means that enables the disposition and function of the apparatus to be altered within the confines of the original design as taught by Casey et al.
Herle fails to disclose in a first compartment of the two or more compartments in at least one of the plurality of sub-chambers there is a deposition source/module comprising a pair of electron beam sources positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction, wherein the transverse direction is perpendicular to the travel direction.
Selvamanickam teaches providing a pair of electron beam sources (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-2 and 6, 12, including gun/310 and crucible/338) positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction, wherein the transverse direction is perpendicular to a travel direction of a continuous sheet of flexible material (28) for the purpose of creating a widened coating deposition zone (see, e.g., paras. 97 and 117).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a pair of electron beam sources positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction, wherein the transverse direction is perpendicular to the travel direction in Herle in order to create a widened coating deposition zone as taught by Selvamanickam.
Additionally, regarding claim limitations drawn to the article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e. continuous sheet of flexible material), it is noted that the courts have ruled that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Also, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Finally, the courts have also ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 23, in modified Herle, the transverse direction in Herle, Casey et al. and Selvamanickam is perpendicular to the travel direction.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Herle as applied to claims 22-23 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,124,170 to Ignatiev et al.
Modified Herle disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Herle fails to disclose a chemical vapor deposition module positioned between the processing module and the winding module, wherein the CVD module comprises a showerhead, wherein the showerhead is fluidly coupled to a first gas source or a second gas source and wherein the first gas source and second gas source are configured to supply specific materials.
Ignatiev et al. disclose a transition module (Figs 4 and 7A, 701/701-4) including a gas distribution assembly (705) provided between a processing module and a winding module (406) for the purpose of isolating environments of the system (see, e.g., column 4, rows 32-74 and column 12, row 22 through column 13, row 16). Ignatiev et al. also discloses at least one port (705) coupled to a gas source. The at least one gas source is capable of providing to a plurality of arbitrarily designated zones. Alternatively, the provision of a plurality of ports would allow for multiple arbitrarily designated zones, wherein the courts have ruled the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled the following with respect to intended use: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s application was effectively filed to have provided a module capable of chemical vapor deposition (if intended gases were provided) positioned between the processing module and the winding module, wherein the CVD module comprises a multi-zone gas distribution assembly, wherein the multi-zone gas distribution assembly is fluidly coupled to a first gas source or a second gas source and wherein the first gas source and second gas source are configured to supply specific materials for the purpose of isolating environments of the system as taught by Ignatiev et al.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0088987 to Herle in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,693,803 to Casey et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0092253 to Selvamanickam and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0142942 to Wang et al.
Regarding claim 27: Herle discloses a flexible substrate coating system (Fig. 12, 1200) substantially as claimed and comprising: an unwinding module (1202) housing a feed reel (1256) capable of providing a continuous sheet of flexible material; a winding module (1206) housing a take-up reel (1254) capable of storing the continuous sheet of flexible material; a coating drum (1255) configured to guide the continuous sheet of flexible material past the plurality of sub-chambers along a travel direction of a plurality of sub-chambers; and a processing module (1204) arranged downstream of the unwinding module, each sub-chamber is configured to perform one or more processing operations to the continuous sheet of flexible material , the processing module, comprising: a first sub-chamber (e.g. 1210) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a first sacrificial anode material layer onto a least a portion of the prefabricated electrode structure, wherein the first sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of providing corrosion resistance; a second sub-chamber (e.g. 1220) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a second sacrificial anode material layer onto a least a portion of first sacrificial anode material layer, wherein the second sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of action as an oxidation barrier; a third sub-chamber (e.g. 1230) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a third sacrificial anode material layer, wherein the third sacrificial anode material layer may be capable of action as an oxidation barrier; and a fourth sub-chamber (e.g. 1240) of the plurality of sub-chambers capable of deposition of a fourth sacrificial anode material layer, the forth sacrificial anode material layer capable of action as a wetting layer.
Regarding the actual structure of each of the plurality of sub-chambers, Herle teaches that the plurality of sub-chambers may include any suitable structure, configuration, arrangement, number, and/or components that enable deposition as desired (e.g., a lithium battery device, similar to Applicant’s disclosure, see, e.g., paras. 112-120). Notably, Herle teach that various PVD sources -- sputtering sources, electron beam evaporator, thermal/resistance evaporator, etc. – may be used in the apparatus.
However, Herle fails to disclose each sub-chamber is configured to perform one or more processing operations to the continuous sheet of flexible material, such that at least two of the sub-chambers are divided into two or more compartments, wherein each compartment comprises a deposition source, wherein each compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment except for an opening configured to allow deposition over the coating drum, and wherein the sub-chambers are radially disposed about the coating drum.
Casey et al. disclose the provision of individual partitions/compartments in a sub-chamber, for the purpose of providing an adjustable means that enable the disposition and function of the apparatus to be altered within the confines of the original design (abstract).
Additionally, Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided individual partitions for providing a two or more compartments wherein each compartment comprises a deposition source, wherein at least one deposition source is a sputtering source, wherein each compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment of the sub-chamber is isolated relative to each adjacent compartment except for an opening configured to allow deposition over the coating drum, and wherein the sub-chambers are radially disposed about the coating drum in Herle in order to provide an adjustable means that enables the disposition and function of the apparatus to be altered within the confines of the original design as taught by Casey et al.
Herle fails to disclose in a first compartment of the two or more compartments in the second sub-chamber there is a deposition source/module comprising a pair of electron beam sources positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction, wherein the transverse direction is perpendicular to the travel direction.
Selvamanickam teaches providing a pair of electron beam sources (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-2 and 6, 12, including gun/310 and crucible/338) positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction, wherein the transverse direction is perpendicular to a travel direction of a continuous sheet of flexible material (28) for the purpose of creating a widened coating deposition zone (see, e.g., paras. 97 and 117).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a pair of electron beam sources positioned side-by-side along a transverse direction, wherein the transverse direction is perpendicular to the travel direction in Herle in order to create a widened coating deposition zone as taught by Selvamanickam.
Modified Herle disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Herle fails to disclose at least one of the plurality of sub-chambers comprises a resistively heated crucible and an electron beam heated crucible.
Wang et al. disclose providing a resistively heated crucible and an electron beam heated crucible for the purpose of simultaneously producing a multi-component reactive layer (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and paras. 82-89).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s application was effectively filed to have provided one of the plurality of sub-chambers comprises a resistively heated crucible and an electron beam heated crucible in modified Herle in order to simultaneously produce multi-component reactive layer as taught by Wang et al.
Additionally, regarding claim limitations drawn to the article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e. continuous sheet of flexible material), it is noted that the courts have ruled that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Also, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Finally, the courts have also ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Herle as applied to claims 27 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,124,170 to Ignatiev et al.
Modified Herle disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Herle fails to disclose a chemical vapor deposition module positioned between the processing module and the winding module, wherein the CVD module comprises a showerhead, wherein the showerhead is fluidly coupled to a first gas source or a second gas source and wherein the first gas source and second gas source are configured to supply specific materials.
Ignatiev et al. disclose a transition module (Figs 4 and 7A, 701/701-4) including a gas distribution assembly (705) provided between a processing module and a winding module (406) for the purpose of isolating environments of the system (see, e.g., column 4, rows 32-74 and column 12, row 22 through column 13, row 16). Ignatiev et al. also discloses at least one port (705) coupled to a gas source. The at least one gas source is capable of providing to a plurality of arbitrarily designated zones. Alternatively, the provision of a plurality of ports would allow for multiple arbitrarily designated zones, wherein the courts have ruled the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled the following with respect to intended use: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s application was effectively filed to have provided a module capable of chemical vapor deposition (if intended gases were provided) positioned between the processing module and the winding module, wherein the CVD module comprises a multi-zone gas distribution assembly, wherein the multi-zone gas distribution assembly is fluidly coupled to a first gas source or a second gas source and wherein the first gas source and second gas source are configured to supply specific materials for the purpose of isolating environments of the system as taught by Ignatiev et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 21-28 have been considered but are moot because new and modified rejections have been provided above.
As detailed above, it is still not clear how some of Applicant’s claimed invention(s) are supported by the original disclosure, nor are the related claims clear in and of themselves. Nevertheless, new art has been applied to address Applicant’s claimed “invention” as best understood by Examiner.
In order to expedite examination, Examiner requests Applicant point to original support for the subject matter at issue. See drawing objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 a,b.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 5,879,519 discloses a system with rotating compartments for a plurality of deposition sources. USP Pubs. 2019/0140267 and 2021/0222288 disclose similar coating systems.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716