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 .
This office action addresses pending claims 1-10. Claims 1-2 were amended and claims 11-20 were cancelled in the response filed 11/5/2025.
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 3 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 3 recites “wherein the substrate is an arc-shaped meshed plate having a curvature radius in a range between 3 mm and 50 mm”. However, it is unclear where the curvature radius of claim 3 [between 3 mm and 50 mm] is the same as or different from the curvature radius “designed to match the cylinder radius [of the battery cell]” of amended claim 1 at lines 8-9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the substrate is an arc-shaped meshed plate having a curvature radius in a range between 3 mm and 50 mm”. However, as stated in amended claim 1 at lines 8-9, the curvature radius “is designed to match the cylinder radius [of the battery cell]”. As the curvature radius of a plate in claim 3 appears broader than the curvature radius “designed to match the cylinder radius [of the battery cell]” of claim 1, the claim does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (US 2016/0226042) in view of Trabold et a. (US 2003/0054107), Leeds et al. (US 5,626,673), and Shinoda et al. (JP H02195644).
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann discloses a casing for thermal management and protection of an electrochemical cell (abstract). The cell can be a cylindrical cell ([0045]); and therefore is a battery cell comprising a cylinder radius. The thermal management and protection is obtained by a temperature management material TMM that is made of a polymer matrix and additives (thermal interface material) ([0007], [0222], [0254]-[0256]). Hartmann teaches that the TMM can be made by coating, and can be made by slot die coating ([0314]).
While Hartmann discloses a cylindrical cell that has a polymer matrix with additive (thermal interface material) supplied by coating and slot die coating [and therefore forming a TIM film on the outer surface of the battery cell], Hartmann does not explicitly disclose the details of manufacture, and therefore does not explicitly disclose: providing a rotating mechanism and a slot die coater, and filling a thermal interface material TIM fluid in a reservoir of the slot die coater; securing at least one battery cell to the rotating mechanism disposed below the slot die coater.
Trabold discloses an apparatus 100 including: a movement device that moves an object to be coated, a slot die coater 110 having a slot die 120 (slit nozzle) to controllably dispense coating material onto the moving object (abstract, [0087]), and at least one servor motor-controller system (abstract). The movement device includes a linear movement device 130 for moving the slot die coater, and a rotation device 140 [rotating mechanism] for rotating a cylindrical object 200 that is to be coated ([0085]-[0086], Fig 1). Trabold teaches the system provides coated articles with uniform coating thicknesses and homogenous coating layers, avoiding material waste or reducing manufacturing cycle times and costs ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slot die coating apparatus and rotational device for holding and rotating the article to be coated as taught by Trabold as the slot die coating apparatus and battery of Hartmann for the purpose of providing a coating system that has uniform coating thickness and homogenous coating layers, and avoiding material waste or reducing manufacturing cycle times and costs.
However, modified Hartmann does not explicitly disclose: providing a substrate comprising a plurality of pores, and disposing the substrate between the battery cell and the slot die coater; spraying the TIM onto the substrate through a slit nozzle; and allowing the TIM fluid to flow and pass through the plurality of pores, and then dropping on to an outer surface of the battery cell, thereby forming a TIM film on the outer surface of the battery cell.
Leeds discloses an adjustable slot die coater die 500 comprising a die manifold 502 into which melt material is introduced and having a plurality of distribution channels, and an adapter attached to the die manifold, wherein the adapter includes at least one die opening 552 through which melt material exits the die (abstract). A wiper assembly 510 is attached to and extends downwardly from the adapter and applies the exited melt material to an inner surface of a cylindrical screen 202 (substrate comprising a plurality of pores). The screen 202 is a mesh formed in the shape of an open ended cylinder having a pattern of openings 216 (C7/L56-63, Fig 6). A web 14 is transported through the rotary screen coater 12 and past the die 500 and a cylindrical screen 202 and the melt material is applied thereto (C3/L38-50, Fig 1); that is, the screen 202 (substrate comprising a plurality of pores) is between the die coater 500 and the web 14 [target]. Leeds teaches the screen provides a continuous, even, and homogenous distribution of melt material across the web (C1/L23-25, C2/L6-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cylindrical screen between the coating device and target of Leeds with the slot die coating apparatus of modified Hartmann for the purpose of providing a continuous, even, and homogenous distribution of melt material across the target.
While Leeds discloses a cylindrical screen 202 [substrate] between the coating device and the target (C7/L56-63, Fig 6) and Hartmann discloses a cylindrical cell ([0045]), and therefore the cylindrical screen matches the shape of the cylindrical cell and has a curvature radius, modified Hartmann does not explicitly disclose the substrate (cylindrical screen 202) having a curvature radius designed to match the cylinder radius [of the battery cell].
Shinoda discloses a method of attaching a label to a cylindrical battery (page 2 of translation). Battery cells 2 are on the outer periphery of an index table 1 and said battery cells are disposed in arc-shaped recesses 3 provided on the outer periphery of the index table 1 (page 3, Fig 1). As seen in Figure 1, the arc-shaped recesses are the designed to match the radius of the cylinder radius of the cylindrical battery cells. The index table 1 transports the battery cells from the supply position A, to the processing position B (where the labels are applied), and to the discharge position C (page 3, Fig 1). The arc-shaped recesses 3 allow the battery cells to be moved and rotated so that the label can be applied to the surface of the battery cells (page 3, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matching arc-shape radius of the arc-shaped recesses designed to match the cylindrical battery of Shinoda with the cylindrical screen of Hartmann modified by Leeds for the purpose of having a surface that permits the moving and rotating of the battery to be covered.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Leeds teaches that the screen 202 is cylindrical and is a mesh (C7/L56-63), and therefore is an arc-shaped meshed plate having a curvature radius, modified Hartmann does not explicitly disclose wherein a curvature radius is in a range between 3 mm and 50 mm. However, as the curvature radius of the cylindrical mesh affects the size of the cylindrical mesh and therefore the size of the coating apparatus, as well as amount of coating that can be performed at a time, the curvature radius would have been considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation the curvature radius of the cylindrical mesh (including in the range of 3 mm to 50 mm) of Hartmann modified by Leeds for the purpose of obtain the desired balance between size of the mesh and coating apparatus, as well as the amount of coating that can be performed.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Leeds teaches that the melt material is applied to an inner surface of the screen (abstract); that is, a [slick] layer is formed on the surface of the screen (substrate) and an inner surface of each of the opening/mesh (pore). Further, the use of the screen to supply the melt material provides a continuous, even, and homogenous distribution of melt material across the web (C1/L23-25, C2/L6-15). Therefore, the supplied fluid is allowed to flow on the surface of the substrate smoothly, and being also allowed to pass through said pore smoothly.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Leeds teaches that the screen 202 is cylindrical and is a mesh (C7/L56-63), and therefore is an arc-shaped meshed plate having a curvature radius, modified Hartmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate (screen) has a thickness in a range between 0.05 mm and 100 mm, and said pore having a mesh size in a range between 10 mesh and 200 mesh.
However, as the thickness of the screen and size of the mesh affects the continuousness and evenness of the coating (C7/L6-15), the thickness and the size of the mesh would have been considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation the thickness of the screen and size of the mesh (including in the range of 0.05 mm and 100 mm, and 10 mesh and 200 mesh) of Hartmann modified by Leeds for the purpose of obtain the desired balance continuousness, evenness, and speed of coating.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hartmann discloses the cell is cylindrical ([0045]), and the thermal management material is made of a polymer matrix, phase change material, and thermal conductive filers ([0007], [0222], [0254]-[0256]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (US 2016/0226042) in view of Trabold et a. (US 2003/0054107), Leeds et al. (US 5,626,673), and Shinoda et al. (JP H02195644), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding, X., et al. (2016). A review of the operating limits in slot die coating processes. AIChE Journal, Volume 62, Issue 7: 2508-2524.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hartmann does not explicitly disclose wherein a rotation speed of the battery cell is negative correlation to a stickiness of the TIM fluid.
Ding disclose a review of the operating limits in slot die coating processes (title, abstract). Ding teaches that the operating limits include coating speed based upon liquid viscosity (p. 2508, right column). In a capillary module of operating limits, a coating thickness t is partially defined by the capillary number Ca, which is µU/σd (where µ is viscosity [stickiness], U is coating speed [related to rotation speed], and σd is downstream surface tension (p. 2509).
PNG
media_image1.png
108
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
That is, the viscosity and coating speed are inversely proportional. In order to obtain a desired coating thickness, only one variable (viscosity or coating speed) can be changed while the other variable has to be changed in the opposite manner. Therefore, Ding teaches that the operating limits of viscosity [stickiness] and coating speed have a negative correlation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modeling of operating limits using viscosity [stickiness] and coating speed having a negative correlation as taught by Ding with the slot die coater of Hartmann modified by Trabold for the purpose of modeling the operating limits of the slot die coater.
As the coating speed relates to the rotation speed of the battery (as the battery is the object that is being moved for the coating speed), the combination thereby suggests wherein a rotation speed of the battery cell is negative correlation to a stickiness [viscosity] of the TIM fluid.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (US 2016/0226042) in view of Trabold et a. (US 2003/0054107), Leeds et al. (US 5,626,673), and Shinoda et al. (JP H02195644), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeya et al. (US 2016/0104842).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hartmann does not explicitly disclose wherein a scraping plate is connected to an edge of the slit nozzle, and the scraping plate distributes the TIM fluid evenly across the substrate after the slit nozzle spreads the TIM fluid onto the substrate.
Takeya discloses a production method of a thin film comprising applying a raw material solution 6 to a substrate 1 (abstract, Fig 1). An edge forming member 2 (scraping plate) having a contact face 2a on one side is used and located opposite the substrate 1 so that the plane of the contact surface 2a intersects the surface of the substrate 1 at a predetermined angle (abstract). The substrate 1 and edge forming member 2 are moved relative to each other in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate so as to separate the edge forming member 2 form the droplet 6a, and while the raw material solution 6 is supplied so that a change in size of the droplet 6a with the relative movement is maintained within a predetermined range (abstract). That is, the edge forming member 2 allows the deposited material to be uniform and continuous ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the edge forming member and contact face of the production method of Takeya with the slot die coater of Hartmann modified by Trabold for the purpose of allowing the deposited material to be uniform and continuous.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (US 2016/0226042) in view of Trabold et a. (US 2003/0054107), Leeds et al. (US 5,626,673), and Shinoda et al. (JP H02195644), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 101833913, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hartmann does not explicitly disclose (claim 8) wherein a pressing plate is disposed in the reservoir, and a pressurizing apparatus is adopted for supplying a pressing force to the pressing plate, so as to push the pressing plate at a motion speed, thereby controlling a fluid supplying rate of the slit nozzle; or (claim 9) wherein the pressurizing apparatus comprises a pneumatic-type pressurizing apparatus or mechanical-type pressurizing apparatus.
Kim discloses a slot die coater 10 for manufacturing an aluminum pouch film of a battery (abstract). The slot die coater 10 includes a pressure member that includes a paint supply member 11 for supplying the paint to a slot 12a, a cylinder 13 vertically extending upward from an upper portion of the paint supply member 11, and a paint supply pipe ([0026]). A plunger 14 (pressurizing apparatus) is provided inside the cylinder 13 for applying pressure to supply the coating material ([0038], Fig 3). The configuration allows for the paint to be pressed with a uniform pressure over the entire width ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pressure member including a plunger (pressurizing apparatus that is at least mechanical-type) of the slot die coater of Kim with the slot die coater of Hartmann modified by Trabold for the purpose of providing the material with a uniform pressure over the entire width.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (US 2016/0226042) in view of Trabold et a. (US 2003/0054107), Leeds et al. (US 5,626,673), and Shinoda et al. (JP H02195644), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Subbaraman et al. (WO 2019/170467).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hartmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Hartmann does not explicitly disclose wherein a heating device is connected to the reservoir adopted for heating the TIM fluid stored in the reservoir.
Subbaraman discloses a extruding method for forming battery components (abstract). The hot melt extrusion process includes a feeing aperture 302, a barrel 304, a screw assembly 306, a die 308, and a heat source 310 ([0047], Fig 3). The heat source 310 is configured to apply heat to the material to melt the material mixture, at or above the melting temperature of the polymer material ([0049]). The melted feed is then feed to the die 308 ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the heat source of the feeding method of Subbaraman with the slot die coat having a polymer for the purpose of applying heat to the material to melt the material mixture which includes a polymer material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose the amended features of claim 1.
This is not considered persuasive. In response, newly cited reference, Shinoda et al. (JP H02195644), is relied upon to teach the amended features.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine the cylindrical screen [of Leeds] with the die coater of Trabold because the die coater has a linear movement speed and the cylindrical screen has a circumferential speed. Applicant argues it is meaningless to design a radius of the cylindrical screen for matching the radius of the cylindrical object that is to be coated. Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine the cylindrical screen between the coating device and the target of Leeds.
This is not considered persuasive. It is noted that both Trabold and Leeds coats a cylindrical object (Trabold at [0087]; Leeds coats a web that passes over an impression roll 402 having cylindrical shape, at C9/L53-60, Figs 9-11). Therefore, both references coat a cylindrical object and can be combined as the references are relevant with each other because said references are in the same field of endeavor.
Further, Trabold has a linear movement device for moving the slot die coater across the axis [direction of arrow A] of the cylindrical object that is coated ([0087], Fig 1) while still rotating the cylindrical object 200 ([0086]). That is, the cylindrical object has a circumferential/rotational speed.
Leeds discloses an adjustable slot die coater die 500 having an adapter attached to the die manifold, wherein the adapter includes at least one die opening 552 through which melt material exits the die (abstract). A wiper assembly 510 is attached to and extends downwardly from the adapter and applies the exited melt material to an inner surface of a cylindrical screen 202 (substrate comprising a plurality of pores). A web 14 is transported through the rotary screen coater 12 and past the die 500 and a cylindrical screen 202 and the melt material is applied thereto (C3/L38-50, Fig 1).
In additional detail, the web 14 is passed over the roll assembly 400 having impression roll 402 which is cylindrical, and is used to provide a backing for the web while the melt material is being applied to the die through the screen 202 (C9/L53-60, Figs 9-11). Because the web is passed over the roll assembly, the web has a circumferential/rotational speed.
Leeds teaches the screen provides a continuous, even, and homogenous distribution of melt material across the web (C1/L23-25, C2/L6-15). Therefore, Leeds provides a motivation and meaning for the combination.
Therefore, combining the cylindrical screen of Leeds between the slot die coater and the cylindrical object results in a continuous, even, and homogenous distribution of melt material across the cylindrical object (Leeds at C1/L23-25, C2/L6-15).
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 JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725