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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on February 23, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued January 17, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 10-15 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. Claim 1 was amended to require that the first and second intermediate blocks are slidable relative to each other in a direction along a sliding axis oriented at an angle of between 14 and 62 degrees relative to the upper surface of the intermediate die block (i.e. angle theta in figure 5). Nothing in the specification nor the figures supports this requirement- figures 5 and 6 (reproduced below) quite clearly show that the blocks slide in a fully horizontal direction- the zoomed in circles in figures 5 and 6 show this quite clearly, as there is shown to be no gap between the intermediate die blocks in figure 5 before sliding, and there is clearly a gap seen in the zoomed in portion of figure 6, which can only be the case if the blocks are slid horizontally and NOT in the same angular direction as the contact surface. If the block was slid in that angular direction there would be no gap between the two intermediate die blocks. Therefore, the invention clearly is designed to slide the blocks entirely horizontally, and not at an angle as now claimed. This is further backed up by the specification making no mention whatsoever of the blocks being slid in any particular direction or angle. As such, this limitation is clearly contradicted and thus unsupported by the disclosure as originally filed, and therefore is new matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the deviation of each slot gap" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sartor et al. (US 5,962,075) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0351446) on claims 1-5, 7 and 10-15 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Sartor et al. discloses a multi-slot die apparatus (20) having a lower slot (52) and an upper slot (54) formed by a lower block (50a), middle block (50b) and upper block (50c), where an angle formed between the two opposite surfaces of the middle block (50b) is about 30 degrees (col. 18, lines 32-59, figures 6-7).
Sartor et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the middle block (50b) can comprise a first and second middle block facing each other and sliding along a contact surface. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar multi-slot die apparatus where an intermediate die block is instead split into two separate blocks (121, 112) that are slidable along a contact surface (112b, 121b) which has a predetermined angle between about 30 and 60 degrees defined between the upper surface of the in order to change a step width (D) at the outlet (pars. 40-41, 46, 52-53, 55, 69, figures 3-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two slidable parts for the middle block as taught by Lee et al. in the apparatus of Sartor et al. because Lee et al. teaches that this helps adjust the die for different materials needing different step lengths more easily (par. 26).
Sartor et al. and Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the sliding direction of the two blocks (121, 112) is in the same direction as the angled contact surface having an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees. However, Lee et al. does teach that various different arrangements are possible (pars. 79-80, 92-94, figures 3-8) and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slide the blocks in the direction of the angled contact surface rather than the horizontal direction because simple rearrangement of parts and/or trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e., slide along the horizontal part or the slanted part) are not considered to be patentable advances (MPEP 2144.04, 2143E).
Regarding claim 2: Sartor et al. discloses that the angle formed by the two opposite surfaces of the middle block (50b) is about 30 degrees, which is greater than 20 and less than 70 degrees (col. 18, lines 32-59, figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 3: Sartor et al. shows that the angle formed by the entire die apparatus (20) at the dispensing area near the web (22) substrate cannot be more than 180 degrees, as it does not extend around the planar web (22). Therefore, the combination of angles of all of the blocks (50a-c) is less than 180 degrees (see figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 4: Sartor et al. discloses that each block (50) has a corresponding lip (60) forming the front face thereof, and the slots (52, 54) have discharge ports at the lips (60) (figures 6-7), and further teaches that the purpose of angling the elements is to avoid forming a vortex in the dispensed liquid (col. 11 lines 19-24). Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used in the dispenser (col. 1 lines 22-43) but fails to explicitly disclose an electrode active material slurry.
However, Lee et al. discloses a very similar multi-slot die apparatus drawn to dispensing an electrode active material slurry onto a substrate (pars. 4-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrode active material as taught by Lee et al. for the liquid material dispensed by Sartor et al. because Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used (col. 1 lines 22-43) and because using a known device to perform a known technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5: Sartor et al. discloses that the angle formed by the two slots (52, 54) is about 30 degrees, which is greater than 20 and less than 70 degrees (col. 18, lines 32-59, figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 7: Sartor et al. discloses that the die (20) is configured to extrude the liquid material onto a continuously traveling web (22) through both slots (52, 54) with the liquid being discharged nearly horizontally in the same direction as horizontal arrow (28) such that the upstream surface of the middle block (50b) similarly lies nearly horizontal while the opposing surface of the first block (50a), which can alternatively be considered the upper block, similarly lies horizontally where other surfaces of the three blocks (50) such as the lips (60) and the rear surfaces near angle theta lie almost vertically (see figures 1 and 6). Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used in the dispenser (col. 1 lines 22-43) but fails to explicitly disclose an electrode active material slurry.
However, Lee et al. discloses a very similar multi-slot die apparatus drawn to dispensing an electrode active material slurry onto a substrate (pars. 4-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrode active material as taught by Lee et al. for the liquid material dispensed by Sartor et al. because Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used (col. 1 lines 22-43) and because using a known device to perform a known technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10: Sartor et al. and Lee et al. disclose the above combination in which the angle of the contact surface of the intermediate blocks relative to the lower surface of the intermediate block is between 30 and 60 degrees (Lee et al. par. 46 and 55).
Regarding claim 11: Sartor et al. and Lee et al. teach that the middle die blocks are coupled to their respective upper or lower blocks by bolting or the like (Lee et al. par. 48, 60).
Regarding claim 12: Sartor et al. discloses that each block (50) has a corresponding lip (60) forming the front face thereof, and the slots (52, 54) have discharge ports at the lips (60) (figures 6-7), and further teaches that a step (A) is formed between the two discharge ports (col. 19 lines 65+, col. 20 lines 1-5, figure 7).
Regarding claim 13: Sartor et al. discloses that the die (20) is assembled using shim stock, which is another term for spacers between each block, in order to give the gaps their proper dimensions (col. 22 lines 53-64).
Regarding claim 14: Sartor et al. fails to explicitly disclose a first or second manifold configured to accommodate coating solutions in the lower block or middle block. However, Lee et al. teaches the above device in which the lower block (111) has a slurry accommodation portion (G1) which is a first manifold for holding slurry and the third die block (121) which is one of the intermediate die blocks includes a second slurry accommodation portion (G2) (pars. 42, 57, figure 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use slurry accommodation manifolds as taught by Lee et al. for the apparatus of Sartor et al. because using a known technique in a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15: Sartor et al. fails to explicitly disclose a deviation of each slot gap compared to its initial state. However, Applicant’s own claims indicate that this deviation property is a function of the angle between the first two surfaces, which Sartor et al. does teach is the same as that claimed, and therefore it can be presumed to inherently attain the same property as that claimed, i.e. the deviation would be within the same permissible range. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (MPEP § 2114) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2112.01).
Alternatively, Sartor et al. does teach that the steps between each lip (60) are important result effective variables that affect the pressure gradients within the coating region (col. 18 lines 42+, col. 19 lines 1-26, figure 7), and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the position of the die blocks such that this positioning is not deviated because Sartor et al. recognizes that the gaps between each lip (60) are critical result effective variables that are required to be maintained for the apparatus to function correctly (col. 18 lines 42+, col. 19 lines 1-26, figure 7).
Claims 1-5, 7 and 10-15 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartor et al. in view of Lee et al. and Lee et al. (KR 20200011227, hereinafter referred to as Lee 2, attached translation used for citation).
Regarding claim 1: Sartor et al. discloses a multi-slot die apparatus (20) having a lower slot (52) and an upper slot (54) formed by a lower block (50a), middle block (50b) and upper block (50c), where an angle formed between the two opposite surfaces of the middle block (50b) is about 30 degrees (col. 18, lines 32-59, figures 6-7).
Sartor et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the middle block (50b) can comprise a first and second middle block facing each other and sliding along a contact surface. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar multi-slot die apparatus where an intermediate die block is instead split into two separate blocks (121, 112) that are slidable along a contact surface (112b, 121b) which has a predetermined angle between about 30 and 60 degrees defined between the upper surface of the in order to change a step width (D) at the outlet (pars. 40-41, 46, 52-53, 55, 69, figures 3-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two slidable parts for the middle block as taught by Lee et al. in the apparatus of Sartor et al. because Lee et al. teaches that this helps adjust the die for different materials needing different step lengths more easily (par. 26).
Sartor et al. and Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the sliding direction of the two blocks (121, 112) is in the same direction as the angled contact surface having an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees. However, Lee 2 discloses a similar slot die coater (100) in which the intermediate dies (112, 121) slide along a sliding surface (S) which is inclined at an angle, and slide in the direction inclined at the angle of the sliding surface (S) (page 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try sliding along the contact surface angle rather than horizontally as taught by Lee 2 because using a known technique in a known device is not considered a patentable advance (MPEP 2143) and because trying from a finite number of solutions (slide along inclined surface or horizontally) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 2: Sartor et al. discloses that the angle formed by the two opposite surfaces of the middle block (50b) is about 30 degrees, which is greater than 20 and less than 70 degrees (col. 18, lines 32-59, figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 3: Sartor et al. shows that the angle formed by the entire die apparatus (20) at the dispensing area near the web (22) substrate cannot be more than 180 degrees, as it does not extend around the planar web (22). Therefore, the combination of angles of all of the blocks (50a-c) is less than 180 degrees (see figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 4: Sartor et al. discloses that each block (50) has a corresponding lip (60) forming the front face thereof, and the slots (52, 54) have discharge ports at the lips (60) (figures 6-7), and further teaches that the purpose of angling the elements is to avoid forming a vortex in the dispensed liquid (col. 11 lines 19-24). Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used in the dispenser (col. 1 lines 22-43) but fails to explicitly disclose an electrode active material slurry.
However, Lee et al. discloses a very similar multi-slot die apparatus drawn to dispensing an electrode active material slurry onto a substrate (pars. 4-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrode active material as taught by Lee et al. for the liquid material dispensed by Sartor et al. because Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used (col. 1 lines 22-43) and because using a known device to perform a known technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5: Sartor et al. discloses that the angle formed by the two slots (52, 54) is about 30 degrees, which is greater than 20 and less than 70 degrees (col. 18, lines 32-59, figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 7: Sartor et al. discloses that the die (20) is configured to extrude the liquid material onto a continuously traveling web (22) through both slots (52, 54) with the liquid being discharged nearly horizontally in the same direction as horizontal arrow (28) such that the upstream surface of the middle block (50b) similarly lies nearly horizontal while the opposing surface of the first block (50a), which can alternatively be considered the upper block, similarly lies horizontally where other surfaces of the three blocks (50) such as the lips (60) and the rear surfaces near angle theta lie almost vertically (see figures 1 and 6). Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used in the dispenser (col. 1 lines 22-43) but fails to explicitly disclose an electrode active material slurry.
However, Lee et al. discloses a very similar multi-slot die apparatus drawn to dispensing an electrode active material slurry onto a substrate (pars. 4-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrode active material as taught by Lee et al. for the liquid material dispensed by Sartor et al. because Sartor et al. teaches that any liquid can be used (col. 1 lines 22-43) and because using a known device to perform a known technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10: Sartor et al. and Lee et al. disclose the above combination in which the angle of the contact surface of the intermediate blocks relative to the lower surface of the intermediate block is between 30 and 60 degrees (Lee et al. par. 46 and 55).
Regarding claim 11: Sartor et al. and Lee et al. teach that the middle die blocks are coupled to their respective upper or lower blocks by bolting or the like (Lee et al. par. 48, 60).
Regarding claim 12: Sartor et al. discloses that each block (50) has a corresponding lip (60) forming the front face thereof, and the slots (52, 54) have discharge ports at the lips (60) (figures 6-7), and further teaches that a step (A) is formed between the two discharge ports (col. 19 lines 65+, col. 20 lines 1-5, figure 7).
Regarding claim 13: Sartor et al. discloses that the die (20) is assembled using shim stock, which is another term for spacers between each block, in order to give the gaps their proper dimensions (col. 22 lines 53-64).
Regarding claim 14: Sartor et al. fails to explicitly disclose a first or second manifold configured to accommodate coating solutions in the lower block or middle block. However, Lee et al. teaches the above device in which the lower block (111) has a slurry accommodation portion (G1) which is a first manifold for holding slurry and the third die block (121) which is one of the intermediate die blocks includes a second slurry accommodation portion (G2) (pars. 42, 57, figure 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use slurry accommodation manifolds as taught by Lee et al. for the apparatus of Sartor et al. because using a known technique in a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15: Sartor et al. fails to explicitly disclose a deviation of each slot gap compared to its initial state. However, Applicant’s own claims indicate that this deviation property is a function of the angle between the first two surfaces, which Sartor et al. does teach is the same as that claimed, and therefore it can be presumed to inherently attain the same property as that claimed, i.e. the deviation would be within the same permissible range. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (MPEP § 2114) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2112.01).
Alternatively, Sartor et al. does teach that the steps between each lip (60) are important result effective variables that affect the pressure gradients within the coating region (col. 18 lines 42+, col. 19 lines 1-26, figure 7), and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the position of the die blocks such that this positioning is not deviated because Sartor et al. recognizes that the gaps between each lip (60) are critical result effective variables that are required to be maintained for the apparatus to function correctly (col. 18 lines 42+, col. 19 lines 1-26, figure 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Sartor et al. nor Lee et al. teach intermediate die blocks sliding relative to each other in an angled (i.e. non-horizontal) direction.
In response:
To start, as noted in the 112 section above, this limitation is entirely new matter both unsupported and contradicted by the instant disclosure. Further, as discussed above it remains an obvious modification as Lee et al. teaches that various configurations of the die can exist, and moving it along the flat surface or alternatively along the horizontal surface are the only two possible choices for sliding the blocks relative to each other. Additionally, an alternative rejection has been added citing the Lee 2 reference which renders Applicant’s arguments moot, as they do not apply to this newly cited reference, which does teach sliding the blocks in the inclined direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
4/3/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights