DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on August 5, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claim 11 was amended. Claims 12-13 and 18-19 were cancelled. Subject matter of claims 12 and 18 was incorporated into independent claim 11. Claims 1-10 have been withdrawn. Claims 11, 14-17, and 20 are in the application and pending examination. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title. Replacement Figures 2-3 were submitted to include reference numeral 200.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for reciting “a power component comprising a power supply connected to the first coating member” in claim 11 is withdrawn based on the deletion of the “power supply” from claim 11.
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for Figs. 2-3 not showing reference numeral “200”.is withdrawn based on the submission of Replacement Figs. 2-3.
Specification
The previous objection to the specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn based on the amendment to the following limitation of claim 11: “a power component comprising a power supply connected to the first coating member”
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 11 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
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 is: power component in claim 11.
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.
The following claim limitations : “power component” in claim 11; “first coating member” and “second coating member” in claim 11; and “transfer unit” in claims 11 and 17 are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph based on the amendment to claim 11.
Disclaimer
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claim 11, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claims 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka provides a coating apparatus able to coat and form an electrode (i.e. electrode sheet) comprising a container (supplying conduit) in which a coating material (123) is provided, first coating member (10) having a surface with a predetermined area (34) to which the coating material (123) is attached, a second coating member (20) spaced apart from the first coating member by a predetermined distance; and a power component (60) comprising a power supply (65) connected to the first (10) and second coating members (20) and configured to generate an electric field between the coating members by applying voltages to the first coating member (10) and the second coating member (20), wherein coating material (123) attached to the surface of the first coating member (10) is coated to the substrate (100) through the electric field. (See Tanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 38-40, 48-52.)
Tanaka teaches manufacturing an anode (negative electrode sheet). (See Tanaka, paragraphs 29-30.)
Tanaka is silent to an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for all-solid-state battery.
Hayashi teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for all-solid-state battery. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, and Abstract.)
Hayashi teaches the apparatus is capable of producing the electrode with the desired thickness of coating material suitable for industrial production or prototype examination. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, paragraphs 1-3 and 47, and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for all-solid-state battery as taught by Hayashi, because Hayashi teaches this apparatus is effective for forming a coating layer of the desired thickness for use and development of batteries in industrial production. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, paragraphs 1-3 and 47, and Abstract.)
Tanaka does not explicitly teach a first coating member installed above the container.
Hayashi teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for all-solid-state battery. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, and Abstract.)
Hayashi teaches a first coating member installed above the container is capable of producing the electrode with the desired thickness of coating material suitable for industrial production or prototype examination. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, paragraphs 1-3 and 47, and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to a first coating member installed above the container, because Hayashi teaches this apparatus is effective for forming a coating layer of the desired thickness for use and development of batteries in industrial production. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, paragraphs 1-3 and 47, and Abstract.)
Tanaka does not explicitly teach a transfer unit configured to feed a current collector to a gap between the first coating member and the second coating member and wherein the transferring unit comprises transferring rolls.
Hayashi teaches a transfer unit configured to feed a current collector to a gap between the first coating member and the second coating member and wherein the transferring unit comprises transferring rolls (24). (See Hayashi, paragraphs 42, 54, 56, 64-65, Fig.1, and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a transfer unit configured to feed a current collector to a gap between the first coating member and the second coating member and wherein the transferring unit comprises transferring rolls, because Hayashi teaches this apparatus is effective for placing the substrate in the proper position to receive a coating layer of the desired thickness for use and development of batteries in industrial production. (See Hayashi, paragraphs 54, 56, 64-65, Fig.1, and Abstract.)
Tanaka is silent to an apparatus comprising : a container in which a coating slurry comprising a carbon material and a metal alloyable with lithium and a solvent is accommodated.
Hayashi provides a coating apparatus (1) including a container (11) in which a coating slurry comprising a carbon material and a metal alloyable with lithium materials and a solvent is accommodated include aluminum (Al), zinc (ZN), or even tin (Sn). (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 41, 58-61, and 63.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an apparatus comprising : a container in which a coating slurry comprising a carbon material and a metal alloyable with lithium and a solvent is accommodated as taught by Hayashi as the coating material in the apparatus as defined by the combination above in order to affect an electrode of high capacity. (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 41, 58-61, and 63.)
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches the first coating member (10) comprises a coating roll (10). (See Tanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 38-40, 48-52.)
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka is silent to wherein at least one of the first coating member and the second coating member is installed to be movable in an up and down direction .
Fukumoto teaches a method for producing lithium ion coating on an electrode sheet.
Fukomoto teaches at least one of the first coating member and the second coating member is installed to be movable in an up and down direction. (See Fukomoto, Abstract, paragraphs 11 and 33, and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein at least one of the first coating member and the second coating member is installed to be movable in an up and down direction, because Fukumoto teaches this would enable the position of substrate to be adjusted. (See Fukumoto, Abstract, and paragraphs 11, 30-35, 37, 44, 86, Fig. 1.)
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka does not explicitly teach a first coating member installed above the container and having a surface with a predetermined area to which the coating slurry is attached.
Fukomoto teaches a first coating member installed above the container and having a surface with a predetermined area to which the coating slurry is attached. (See Fukumutu, Abstract, paragraphs 11 and 33, and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a first coating member installed above the container and having a surface with a predetermined area to which the coating slurry is attached, because Fukumutu teaches this structure enables a lithium ion battery to be produced with excellent cycle characteristics. (See Fukumutu, Abstract, and paragraphs 11, 16-17, 30-35, 37, 44, 86, Fig. 1.)
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka does not explicitly teach the second coating member comprises a grounding member in a plate or conveyor shape.
Polaroid is directed to curing a coating on a subtrate carried on a conveyor.
Polaroid teaches the second coating member comprises a grounding member (70) in a plate or conveyor shape (68). (See Polaroid, Abstract, col. 5, lines 29-60; col. 6, lines 41-60.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the second coating member comprises a grounding member in a plate or conveyor shape, because Polaroid teaches this structure is effective to act as a grounding element in a coating apparatus. (See Polaroid, Abstract, col. 5, lines 29-60; col. 6, lines 41-60.)
Further regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches the power component (60, 65) is configured to apply a ground voltage to the second coating member (20). (See Tanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 7, 9, 38, 40, 56.)
Additionally, regarding claim 11, Tanaka is silent to the second coating member is positioned above the first coating member, and a distance between the first coating member and the second coating member is about 6 cm to 17 cm.
Leonard is directed to the use of high voltage to direct particles in an electrical field to form a coating.
Leonard teaches a distance between surfaces for applying an electrostatic coating was 10.8 cm and rolls of varying sizes may be used to apply the coating. (See Leonard, Figs. 1, 3-10, and 21-24; Abstract, paragraphs 43-50, 102, 122, 133, 137, 138, 140, 142, and 144.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the second coating member is positioned above the first coating member, and a distance between the first coating member and the second coating member is about 6 cm to 17 cm, because Leonard teaches distance in this range for applying an electrodeposition coating. (See Leonard, Figs. 1, 3-10, and 21-24; Abstract, paragraphs 43-50, 102, 122, 133, 137, 138, 140, 142, and 144.)
Additionally, regarding claim 11, Tanaka is silent to the power component is configured to apply the voltages to the first coating member and the second coating member such that a voltage difference between the first coating member and the second coating member is to be about 14 kV to 24 kV.
Heyl is directed to the use of high voltage to direct particles in an electrical field to form a coating.
Heyl teaches the power component is configured to apply the voltages to the roller is about 20kv. (See Heyl, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 3, lines 1-5, 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the power component is configured to apply the voltages to the first coating member and the second coating member such that a voltage difference between the first coating member and the second coating member is to be about 14 kV to 24 kV, because Heyl teaches this would allow the voltage applied to the roller can be adjusted based on the specific coating conditions. (See Heyl, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 1. Lines 29-43, col. 3, lines 1-5, 15-25.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 11 (apparatus for manufacturing an anode for an all-solid-state battery ). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) are capable of performing these intended uses and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including “an anode for an all-solid-state battery”. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
The coating apparatus in Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) would be capable of coating this substrate. 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)).
The recitation “for manufacturing …” merely recites an intended use of the apparatus and thus does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed. See MPEP 2114. However, it is wholly expected that the apparatus of the Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1), is fully capable of combining components (i.e. ) with various liquid compositions since the Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1 disclose every structural limitation of the claimed invention
Claim 11 recites an intended use clause (i. e. second coating member by applying voltages to the first coating member, first coating member is coated to the current collector, first or second coating member is installed to be movable in an up and down direction, ). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) are capable of performing these intended uses and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Examiner is considering the claimed limitation to be intended use and Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1), to meet the claimed limitation of “An apparatus for manufacturing an anode for an all-solid-state battery, comprising: a container in which a coating slurry comprising … a solvent is accommodated ” .
The Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including “a container in which a coating slurry comprising … a solvent is accommodated ”. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
Third, the apparatus in Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1), would be capable of containing an amount of solvent. 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)).
The recitation “a container in which a coating slurry comprising … a solvent is accommodated merely recites an intended use of the apparatus and thus does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed. See MPEP 2114. However, it is wholly expected that the apparatus of the Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1), is fully capable of combining components with various compositions.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka is silent to the first coating member is a rotatably installed coating roll, and the coating slurry is attached to the surface of the first coating member by the coating roll that is rotated above the container.
Fukumoto provides the first coating member (13) is a rotatably installed coating roll, and the coating slurry (15) is attached to the surface of the first coating member by the coating roll that is rotated above the container (16). (See Fukumoto, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 11, 30-35, 44, 64, 86, and 105-107.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first coating member is a rotatably installed coating roll, and the coating slurry is attached to the surface of the first coating member by the coating roll that is rotated above the container, because Fukumoto teaches this structure allows the coating material to be transported to the substrate. (See Fukumoto, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 11, 30-35, 44, 64, 86, and 105-107.)
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka does not explicitly teach the coating slurry is coated to the current collector by moving in a direction opposite to gravity from the first coating member.
Fukumoto provides the coating slurry (15) is coated to the current collector (electrode sheet 14) by moving in a direction opposite to gravity from the first coating member (13). (See Fukumoto, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 11, 30-35, 44, 64, 86, and 105-107.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the coating slurry is coated to the current collector by moving in a direction opposite to gravity from the first coating member, because Fukumoto teaches this structure allows the coating material to be precisely controlled and thin coating film to be applied. (See Fukumoto, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 11, 30-35, 44, 64, 86, and 105-107.)
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 12.
The previous rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment of claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1) Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka is silent to the coating roll comprises at least one groove on a surface thereof.
Hayashi provides the coating roll comprises at least one groove on a surface thereof. (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs, 40-43, 58-61.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the coating roll comprises at least one groove on a surface thereof, because Hayashi teaches this structure allows the coating material to be transported to the substrate. (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 58-61.)
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka is silent to the groove having a predetermined width.
Shiba teaches a coating roller with grooves where the volume of the coating material carried by the groove is controlled.
Shiba teaches the desired amount of coating material can be applied with a gravure roller by setting the conditions of the volume of the grooves. (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs, 11-13, 62, 64, 88-94, 126, 129, 131, and 142.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the groove having a predetermined width, because Shiba teaches this would allow the volume of the grooves to be controlled and the amount of coating material applied by the roller on the substrate. (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs, 11-13, 62, 64, 88-94, 126, 129, 131, and 142.)
The previous rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YukikoTanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka is silent to the transfer unit comprises transferring rolls that are installed respectively at an inlet side and an outlet side of the first and second coating members.
Shiba teaches the transfer unit comprises transferring rolls (15, 16) that are installed respectively at an inlet side and an outlet side of the first and second coating members . (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 59-60.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the transfer unit comprises transferring rolls that are installed respectively at an inlet side and an outlet side of the first and second coating members, because Shiba teaches this would allow the pressure by which the substrate is pressed against the roller to be controlled. (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 59-60.)
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Koksbang (US 5411764 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Koksbang (US 5411764 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka is silent to the transfer unit is configured to feed the current collector to the gap between the first coating member and the second coating member at a speed of about 0.5 m/min to 0.8 m/min.
Koksbang is directed to preparing a thin film lithium electrode.
Koksbang provides the transfer unit is configured to feed the current collector to the gap between the first coating member and the second coating member at a speed of about 0.5 m/min to 10 m/min (See Koksbang, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 6, lines 10-16.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the transfer unit is configured to feed the current collector to the gap between the first coating member and the second coating member at a speed of about 0.5 m/min to 10 m/min, because Koksbang teaches controlling this speed allows the coating thickness to be controlled. (See Koksbang, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 6, lines 10-16.)
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 18
The previous rejection of claims 11, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) are withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claims 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Fukumoto provides an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for a battery, comprising a container (16) in which a coating slurry (slurry 15) comprising a carbon material is accommodated, first coating member (13) having a surface with a predetermined area (outer surface) to which the coating material (slurry 15) is attached. (See Fukumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 29-35, 42, 69, and 72.)
Fukumoto teaches manufacturing an anode (negative electrode sheet). (See Fukumoto, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 69, and 72.)
Regarding claim 11, Fukumoto teaches the first coating member (13) comprises a coating roll (13). (See Fukumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 29-35, 42, 69, and 72.)
Regarding claim 11, Fukomoto teaches at least one of the first coating member and the second coating member is installed to be movable in an up and down direction. (See Fukomoto, Abstract, paragraphs 11 and 33, and Fig. 1.)
Fukumoto does not explicitly teach a second coating member spaced apart from the first coating member by a predetermined distance; and a power component comprising a power supply connected to the first and second coating members and configured to generate an electric field between the coating members by applying voltages to the first coating member and the second coating member, wherein coating material attached to the surface of the first coating member is coated to the substrate through the electric field.
Tanaka is directed to an electrode sheet manufacturing device.
Tanaka teaches a second coating member (20) spaced apart from the first coating member (10) by a predetermined distance; and a power component (60) comprising a power supply (65) connected to the first (10) and second coating members (20) and configured to generate an electric field between the coating members by applying voltages to the first coating member (10) and the second coating member (20), wherein coating material (123) attached to the surface of the first coating member (10) is coated to the substrate (100) through the electric field. (See Tanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 38-40, 48-52.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a second coating member spaced apart from the first coating member by a predetermined distance; and a power component comprising a power supply connected to the first and second coating members and configured to generate an electric field between the coating members by applying voltages to the first coating member and the second coating member, wherein coating material attached to the surface of the first coating member is coated to the substrate through the electric field, because Tanaka this structure improves the capacity density of the battery. (See Tanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 10, 38-40, 48, 49, 50-52.)
Fukumoto is silent to an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for all-solid-state battery.
Hayashi teaches an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for all-solid-state battery. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, and Abstract.)
Hayashi teaches the apparatus is capable of producing the electrode with the desired thickness of coating material suitable for industrial production or prototype examination. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, paragraphs 1-3 and 47, and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an apparatus for manufacturing an anode for all-solid-state battery as taught by Hayashi, because Hayashi teaches this apparatus is effective for forming a coating layer of the desired thickness for use and development of batteries in industrial production. (See Hayashi, Fig.1, paragraphs 1-3 and 47, and Abstract.)
Fukumoto does not explicitly teach a transfer unit configured to feed a current collector to a gap between the first coating member and the second coating member and wherein the transferring unit comprises transferring rolls.
Hayashi teaches a transfer unit configured to feed a current collector to a gap between the first coating member and the second coating member and wherein the transferring unit comprises transferring rolls (24). (See Hayashi, paragraphs 42, 54, 56, 64-65, Fig.1, and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a transfer unit configured to feed a current collector to a gap between the first coating member and the second coating member and wherein the transferring unit comprises transferring rolls, because Hayashi teaches this apparatus is effective for placing the substrate in the proper position to receive a coating layer of the desired thickness for use and development of batteries in industrial production. (See Hayashi, paragraphs 54, 56, 64-65, Fig.1, and Abstract.)
Fukumoto is silent to an apparatus comprising : a container in which a coating slurry comprising a carbon material and a metal alloyable with lithium and a solvent is accommodated.
Hayashi provides a coating apparatus (1) including a container (11) in which a coating slurry comprising a carbon material and a metal alloyable with lithium materials and a solvent is accommodated include aluminum (Al), zinc (ZN), or even tin (Sn). (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 41, 58-61, and 63.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an apparatus comprising: a container in which a coating slurry comprising a carbon material and a metal alloyable with lithium and a solvent is accommodated as taught by Hayashi as the coating material in the apparatus as defined by the combination above in order to affect an electrode of high capacity. (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 41, 58-61, and 63.)
Regarding claim 11, Fukumoto does not explicitly teach the second coating member comprises a grounding member in a plate or conveyor shape.
Polaroid is directed to curing a coating on a substrate carried on a conveyor.
Polaroid teaches the second coating member comprises a grounding member (70) in a plate or conveyor shape (68). (See Polaroid, Abstract, col. 5, lines 29-60; col. 6, lines 41-60.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the second coating member comprises a grounding member in a plate or conveyor shape, because Polaroid teaches this structure is effective to act as a grounding element in a coating apparatus. (See Polaroid, Abstract, col. 5, lines 29-60; col. 6, lines 41-60.)
Further regarding claim 11, Fukumoto does not teach the power component is configured to apply a ground voltage to the second coating member.
Tanaka teaches the power component (60, 65) is configured to apply a ground voltage to the second coating member (20). (See Tanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 7, 9, 38, 40, 56.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the power component is configured to apply a ground voltage to the second coating member, because Tanaka this structure improves the capacity density of the battery. (See Tanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 7, 9, 38, 40, 56.)
Additionally, regarding claim 11, Fukumoto is silent to the second coating member is positioned above the first coating member, and a distance between the first coating member and the second coating member is about 6 cm to 17 cm.
Leonard is directed to the use of high voltage to direct particles in an electrical field to form a coating.
Leonard teaches a distance between surfaces for applying an electrostatic coating was 10.8 cm and rolls of varying sizes may be used to apply the coating. (See Leonard, Figs. 1, 3-10, and 21-24; Abstract, paragraphs 43-50, 102, 122, 133, 137, 138, 140, 142, and 144.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the second coating member is positioned above the first coating member, and a distance between the first coating member and the second coating member is about 6 cm to 17 cm, because Leonard teaches distance in this range for applying an electrodeposition coating. (See Leonard, Figs. 1, 3-10, and 21-24; Abstract, paragraphs 43-50, 102, 122, 133, 137, 138, 140, 142, and 144.)
Additionally, regarding claim 11, Fukumoto is silent to the power component is configured to apply the voltages to the first coating member and the second coating member such that a voltage difference between the first coating member and the second coating member is to be about 14 kV to 24 kV.
Heyl is directed to the use of high voltage to direct particles in an electrical field to form a coating.
Heyl teaches the power component is configured to apply the voltages to the roller is about 20kv. (See Heyl, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 3, lines 1-5, 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the power component is configured to apply the voltages to the first coating member and the second coating member such that a voltage difference between the first coating member and the second coating member is to be about 14 kV to 24 kV, because Heyl teaches this would allow the voltage applied to the roller can be adjusted based on the specific coating conditions. (See Heyl, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 1. Lines 29-43, col. 3, lines 1-5, 15-25.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 11 (apparatus for manufacturing an anode for an all-solid-state battery ). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) are capable of performing these intended uses and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including “an anode for an all-solid-state battery”. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
The coating apparatus in Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) would be capable of coating this substrate. 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)).
The recitation “for manufacturing …” merely recites an intended use of the apparatus and thus does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed. See MPEP 2114. However, it is wholly expected that the apparatus of the Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1), is fully capable of combining components (i.e. ) with various liquid compositions since the Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) disclose every structural limitation of the claimed invention
Claim 11 recites an intended use clause (i. e. second coating member by applying voltages to the first coating member, first coating member is coated to the current collector, first or second coating member is installed to be movable in an up and down direction, ). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) are capable of performing these intended uses and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Examiner is considering the claimed limitation to be intended use and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) to meet the claimed limitation of “An apparatus for manufacturing an anode for an all-solid-state battery, comprising: a container in which a coating slurry comprising … a solvent is accommodated ” .
The Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including “a container in which a coating slurry comprising … a solvent is accommodated ”. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
Third, the apparatus in Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) would be capable of containing an amount of solvent. 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)).
The recitation “a container in which a coating slurry comprising … a solvent is accommodated merely recites an intended use of the apparatus and thus does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed. See MPEP 2114. However, it is wholly expected that the apparatus of the Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1), is fully capable of combining components with various compositions.
Regarding claim 14, Fukumoto provides the first coating member (13) is a rotatably installed coating roll, and the coating slurry (15) is attached to the surface of the first coating member by the coating roll that is rotated above the container (16). (See Fukumoto, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 11, 30-35, 44, 64, 86, and 105-107.)
Regarding claim 20, Fukumoto provides the coating slurry (15) is coated to the current collector (electrode sheet 14) by moving in a direction opposite to gravity from the first coating member (13). (See Fukumoto, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 11, 30-35, 44, 64, 86, and 105-107.)
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 12.
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Fukumoto is silent to the coating roll comprises at least one groove on a surface thereof.
Hayashi provides the coating roll comprises at least one groove on a surface thereof. (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs, 40-43, 58-61.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the coating roll comprises at least one groove on a surface thereof, because Hayashi teaches this structure allows the coating material to be transported to the substrate. (See Hayashi, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 58-61.)
Regarding claim 15, Fukumoto is silent to the groove having a predetermined width.
Shiba teaches a coating roller with grooves where the volume of the coating material carried by the groove is controlled.
Shiba teaches the desired amount of coating material can be applied with a gravure roller by setting the conditions of the volume of the grooves. (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs, 11-13, 62, 64, 88-94, 126, 129, 131, and 142.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the groove having a predetermined width, because Shiba teaches this would allow the volume of the grooves to be controlled and the amount of coating material applied by the roller on the substrate. (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs, 11-13, 62, 64, 88-94, 126, 129, 131, and 142.)
The previous rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment to 11.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Shiba et al (US 20170095830 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fukumoto is silent to the transfer unit comprises transferring rolls that are installed respectively at an inlet side and an outlet side of the first and second coating members.
Shiba teaches the transfer unit comprises transferring rolls (15, 16) that are installed respectively at an inlet side and an outlet side of the first and second coating members. (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 59-60.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the transfer unit comprises transferring rolls that are installed respectively at an inlet side and an outlet side of the first and second coating members, because Shiba teaches this would allow the pressure by which the substrate is pressed against the roller to be controlled. (See Shiba, Fig. 1, Abstract and paragraphs 59-60.)
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Koksbang (US 5411764 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) and Leonard et al. (US 20040187773 A1) and Heyl et al. (US 3,332,395 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Koksbang (US 5411764 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Fukumoto is silent to the transfer unit is configured to feed the current collector to the gap between the first coating member and the second coating member at a speed of about 0.5 m/min to 0.8 m/min.
Koksbang is directed to preparing a thin film lithium electrode.
Koksbang provides the transfer unit is configured to feed the current collector to the gap between the first coating member and the second coating member at a speed of about 0.5 m/min to 10 m/min (See Koksbang, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 6, lines 10-16.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the transfer unit is configured to feed the current collector to the gap between the first coating member and the second coating member at a speed of about 0.5 m/min to 10 m/min, because Koksbang teaches controlling this speed allows the coating thickness to be controlled. (See Koksbang, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 6, lines 10-16.)
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukiko Tanaka (US 20200168889 A1) in view of and Fukumoto et al (US 20060248710 A1) and Polaroid (US 5,152,838) and Hayashi et al (US 20100062146 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Heyl et al is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 14-17, and 20 have been considered but are not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues on last paragraph of page 11 of the Remarks Section:
“ Paragraph 0137 of Leonard, as cited in the Office Action of 05/05/2025, refers to a coating apparatus described in U.S. Patent 5,326,598, and states that a "die wire was held at a fixed distance of 10.8 cm from the surface of the drum." However, the coating apparatus depicted below uses a wire that sprays a mist 34 in a thin line, and thus is fundamentally different than the claimed ‘first coating roller’ that is a coating roll, and which applies a significantly different amount of coating slurry. Therefore, the distance of 10.8 cm as disclosed in Leonard is only relevant to this type of wire-based slurry applicator. ”
This is not considered persuasive for the following reasons:
Claim 11 recites:
”the first coating member comprises a coating roll, wherein the second coating member comprises a grounding member in a plate or conveyor shape…
wherein the second coating member is positioned above the coating member, and a distance between the first coating member and the second coating member is about 6 cm to 17 cm”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a system for manufacturing an anode… said system comprising, a first coating member installed in the container of slurry and said first coating roll applies the coating slurry to the substrate between said first coating member and said coating member based on the application of voltages to the first coating member and the second coating member) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on last paragraph of page 11 of the Remarks Section:
“In addition, there is no teaching or suggestion that a voltage of 14-24 kV 1s applied using the wire-based slurry applicator, where the Heyl reference refers to a non-wire applicator, and thus the voltage used in Heyl is not relevant to the wire-based applicator of Leonard”
Heyl teaches the voltage applied to the roller can be adjusted based on the specific coating conditions. (See Heyl, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 1. Lines 29-43, col. 3, lines 1-5, 15-25.)
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on first paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks Section:
“Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the wire-based slurry applicator of Leonard with a roller-type applicator of Fujimoto, and any such combination made by somehow combining the distance used for the wire-based applicator referenced in Leonard with the roller-type applicator of Fujimoto would be inoperable ...”
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Leonard is not being relied to teach an applicator type. Further, Examiner is considering Leonard to be directed to the same field and the same problem use of high voltage to direct particles in an electrical field to form a coating. Therefore, a skilled artisan would be able to look to Leonard to arrive at the claimed distance to improve the uniformity of a wet coating on a substrate.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant argues on first paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks Section:
“Even if Leonard and/or Heyl is/are somehow combined with Tanaka in view of Fukumoto, Kisler, and Hayashi, the proposed combination would not result in the Applicants' claimed invention as recited in independent claim 11 (as amended), and in particular, would not teach or suggest the use of a "first coating member" that is a coating roll, where:
the second coating member is positioned above the first coating member, and a
distance between the first coating member and the second coating member is about 6 cm
to 17 cm, and wherein the power component is configured to apply the voltages to the first
coating member and the second coating member such that a voltage difference between
the first coating member and the second coating member is to be about 14 kV to 24 kV.”
This reasoning is not considered persuasive in the field of electrostatic coating distance and voltage are known variables to modify to reach the desired coating for the particular application.
Further, Heyl teaches the voltage applied to the roller can be adjusted based on the specific coating conditions. (See Heyl, Fig. 1, Abstract and col. 1. Lines 29-43, col. 3, lines 1-5, 15-25.)
Leonard teaches the dimensions of the coating can be optimized by optimizing the roll sizes.
Leonard teaches a distance between surfaces for applying an electrostatic coating was 10.8 cm and rolls of varying sizes may be used. (See Leonard, Figs. 1, 3-10, and 21-24; Abstract, paragraphs 43-50, 102, 122, 133, 137, 138, 140, 142, and 144.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patent sets forth the state of the art with respect to utilizing an electric field to impart a coating:
US Pat. Pub. No. 20060057390 A1 to Kittle teaches the voltage may be varied during coating and the thickness of the coating increases as the voltage increases. ( See Kittle, paragraphs 91, 93, 128, 237). Kittle teaches the spacing between the electrodes and the substrate may be 10 cm. ( See Kittle, paragraphs 26, 237, and 240 to 243).
Geest et al (US 3,462,286) and Bae (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200295360 A1) and Sakashita (US Pat. Pub. No. 20170133659 A1) teaches an anode may include a solvent with Lithium. (See Bae, paragraphs 87, 93, and 103 and Sakashita, paragraph 26.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karl V. Kurple whose telephone number is 571 270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights