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 is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 09/24/2025. Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are currently amended. Claims 1-12 are pending review in this action. The previous objections regarding Claim 2 are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 2. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 10. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1, however the previously cited prior art been upheld as reading on the claims. Updated rejections necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments are detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “the second thickness h” in line 10. It appears as though character marker “h” was erroneously left in the amended claim set as all other character markers were removed in the amended claim set. However, if character marker “h” was intentionally left in the amended claim set, the Applicant is reminded that reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 introduces the limitations “a first length of a first gap of a first applicator” and “a second length of a second gap of a second applicator” in lines 6 and 12, respectively. The instant disclosure does not indicate what is being considered “a gap”. For purposes of examination, the examiner notes that “a gap” will be subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation while considering the prior art.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US 2021/0265609 A1) further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0277881 A1).
In Regards to Claim 1:
Toyoshima discloses a method of manufacturing an electrode sheet (7) comprising an overlay part (see annotated Figure 2 below) in an electrode wherein an insulation coating layer (protective insulating layer, 5) has been laminated on an inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 below) of an electrode mixture layer (4) (Figure 2, [0018-0019]). Toyoshima further discloses that the method comprises: applying and drying an insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) on an electrode mixture layer (4) of a simulated overlay part (i.e., where electrode mixture layer, 4, and protective insulating layer, 5, overlap), wherein the electrode mixture layer (4) is formed on a current collector (current collector foil, 8) for a simulated pure insulation coating layer (i.e., region where protective insulating layer, 5, has been coated directly on current collector foil, 8), and collecting first data about a first thickness which has been increased by applying and drying the insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) on the electrode mixture laver (4) of the simulated overlay part (i.e., where electrode mixture layer, 4, and protective insulating layer, 5, overlap) and collecting second data about a second thickness of the pure insulation coating layer (i.e., region where protective insulating layer, 5, has been coated directly on current collector foil, 8) (Figure 2, [0020-0022, 0029-0030]). Toyoshima further discloses a step of measuring a thickness of a pure insulation coating layer (i.e., region where protective insulating layer, 5, has been coated directly on current collector foil, 8) of an electrode (electrode sheet, 7) for evaluation (Figure 2, [0030]). Toyoshima further discloses a step of measuring a length (width) of a gap (gap between region where electrode mixture layer, 4, is not coated with protective insulating layer, 5, and region where protective insulating layer, 5, is directly on current collector foil, 8), wherein the gap is formed by application of electrode mixture layer (4) and insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) via an applicator (die coating device, 1) (Figures 1-3, [0019, 0030]). Toyoshima further discloses that the inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 below) of the electrode mixture layer (4) is formed at an end of the electrode mixture layer (4) having a gradually decreasing thickness (Figure 2, [0019]). Toyoshima further discloses that the overlay part (see annotated Figure 2 below) is a portion of the insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) on the inclined portion (see annotated Figure 2 below) of the electrode mixture layer (4) (Figure 2, [0019]).
The examiner notes that the instant claims do not require that the application and drying of the insulation coating liquid of a simulated overlay part and the application and drying of the insulation coating liquid for a simulated pure insulation coating layer be separate steps which are performed using different applicators. In other words, the claims do not bar the first length of the first gap of a first applicator from also being a second length of a second gap of a second applicator as well. Furthermore, it has been held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order (MPEP 2111.01 II).
Toyoshima is deficient in disclosing 1) a step of collecting data related to a capacity of the simulated overlay part; 2) generating a relation between the second thickness of the simulated pure insulation coating layer and the capacity of the simulated overlay part based on the first data and the second data; 3) determining a capacity of an overlay part of the electrode for evaluation from the measured thickness of the pure insulation coating layer of the electrode for evaluation using the generated relation; and 4) a method for evaluating insulation of an overlay part.
Nakamura discloses a secondary battery including an electrode (negative electrode, 14) comprising a current collector (negative electrode current collector, 14A) and an active material layer (negative electrode active material layer, 14B) disposed on the current collector (negative electrode current collector, 14A) (Figures 1-2, [0043-0044, 0071-0072]). Nakamura further discloses that a coating film is formed on the surface of the active material layer (negative electrode active material layer, 14B) during charging/discharging of the secondary battery (Figure 2, [0246]). Nakamura further discloses that the capacity of the secondary battery is measured during charging/discharging of the secondary battery after assembly [0246-0247]. Nakamura further discloses that a relationship exists between the capacity of the secondary battery and the thickness of the coating film [0246]. Nakamura further discloses that the active material layer (negative electrode active material layer, 14B) is selected to have a volume density of 1.6 g/cm3 [0238], thus the skilled artisan would understand that as volume density is a function of thickness of the active material layer (negative electrode active material layer, 14B), that there is necessarily a relationship between thickness of the active material layer (negative electrode active material layer, 14B) and the capacity of the secondary batter.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to include in the method of Toyoshima, the steps of measuring the capacity of the overlay part, using the relationship between capacity and thickness of the electrode mixture layer and insulation coating layer to develop a formula (relation) to determine capacity, and then determining the capacity of the overlay part using the formula. The skilled artisan would be motivated to make such modifications as Nakamura teaches that it is useful to measure the thicknesses of layers on a current collector in an electrode and use such measured thicknesses and measured capacity to determine a relationship between thickness of the layers and capacity for prediction purposes. In doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a method which reliably and efficiently can determine the capacity of an electrode based on a measurement of thickness of the electrode layers.
Upon the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the method does indeed pertain to a method for evaluating insulation of an overlay part. Thus, upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Toyoshima US 2021/0265609 A1)
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Toyoshima discloses that the first thickness (i.e., thickness of simulated overlay part) is related to the capacity of the simulated overlay part as Nakamura teaches the capacity of the electrode is directly related to the thickness of the layers on the electrode. Thus, the skilled artisan would appreciate that such a relation may be considered a second relation.
Although modified Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose that the step of generating the generated relation includes deriving a third relation, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Nakamura teaches that the thicknesses of the layers (i.e., active material layer and coating layer) of the electrode directly relate to the capacity of the electrode, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to derive a third relation between the first thickness and the second thickness based on the first data about the first length and the first thickness, and the second data about the second length and the second thickness. The skilled artisan would be motivated to make such a modification as Toyoshima teaches that such data is already being collected and the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in determining the health of the electrode at a given point of operation by using such collected data to determine battery output.
Upon the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the generated relation would thus be derived by combination of the second relation and the third relation as both the second relation and the third relation are naturally occurring from the collected data. Thus, upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 2):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 2 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Toyoshima discloses that the first length of the first gap of the first applicator and the first thickness, as well as the second length of the second gap of the second applicator and the second thickness are measured.
Although modified Toyoshima does not disclose that a fourth relation and a fifth relation are derived from such collected first data and second data, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to derive such relations from the collected data. The skilled artisan would be motivated to make such a modification as Toyoshima teaches that such data is already being collected and the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in determining the health of the electrode at a given point of operation by using such collected data to determine battery output.
The skilled artisan would find it further obvious to derive the third relation by eliminating a gap of the applicator, and using the fourth relation and fifth relation, as such a means of derivation would be appreciated by the skilled artisan to be an effective and efficient manner of determining the third relation and thus determine the capacity of the electrode. Upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. Toyoshima further discloses that the thickness (T1) of the insulation coating layer (protective insulating layer, 5) and the thickness (T2) of the simulated electrode mixture layer (4) are measured using a laser displacement meter (Figure 2, [0030]).
Toyoshima is deficient in disclosing that the first thickness is obtained by subtracting a thickness of the electrode mixture layer before application of the insulation coating liquid from a total thickness of the electrode mixture layer and the insulation coating layer after drying the insulation coating liquid.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to determine the first thickness by subtracting the thickness of the electrode mixture layer before application of the insulation coating liquid from a total thickness of the electrode mixture layer and the insulation coating layer after drying the insulation coating liquid, as determining the first thickness in such a way would eliminate the need for an additional measurement to be made and increase the efficiency of the method while also negating some risk of damage to the electrode by having less physical interaction with the electrode than if an additional physical measurement was being performed. Furthermore, such an approach to determining the first thickness is one of a finite number of possible approaches for determining the first thickness without taking additional physical measurements (MPEP 2143 I, E). Specifically, the first thickness may only be determined by a physical measurement or the above approach. Thus, upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
In Regards to Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. Toyoshima further discloses that the electrode sheet (7) is a positive electrode (Figure 2, [0026]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US 2021/0265609 A1) as modified by Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0277881 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Basu et al. (US 2019/0393478 A1).
In Regards to Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. As disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Toyoshima discloses a step of applying and drying an insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) on a simulated electrode mixture layer (4) of a simulated overlay part (i.e., where electrode mixture layer, 4, and protective insulating layer, 5, overlap), and collecting first data about a first thickness which has been increased by applying and drying the insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) on the simulated electrode mixture laver (4) of the simulated overlay part (i.e., where electrode mixture layer, 4, and protective insulating layer, 5, overlap) (Figure 2, [0020-0022, 0029-0030]). Toyoshima further discloses a step of measuring the first thickness of an electrode (electrode sheet, 7) for evaluation (Figure 2, [0030]). Toyoshima further discloses a step of measuring a length (width) of a gap (gap between region where electrode mixture layer, 4, is not coated with protective insulating layer, 5, and region where protective insulating layer, 5, is directly on current collector foil, 8), wherein the gap is formed by application of electrode mixture layer (4) and insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) via an applicator (die coating device, 1) (Figures 1-3, [0019, 0030]). As further detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Toyoshima discloses a step of measuring capacity of the simulated overlay part. Toyoshima further discloses that the applicator (die coating device, 1) is a die coating device [0030].
Toyoshima is deficient in disclosing that the first data about the length of the first gap of the first applicator, the first thickness and the capacity of the simulated overlay part is collected by repeating the applying and drying the insulation coating liquid, the measuring the first thickness, and the measuring the capacity.
Basu discloses a method of applying a liquid-phase film to the surface of an electrode, wherein the liquid-phase film is applied via a die coating process [0021, 0050, 0115]. Basu further discloses that the die coating process may be repeated to generate thicker coatings on the surface of the electrode [0115].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the applying and drying in the method of Toyoshima to be done in a repeated fashion, as it is known in the art that repeating the application of a liquid to a substrate is a common and useful means of adjusting the thickness of a coating applied via a die coating device, as taught by Basu. Furthermore, the selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Upon the above modification, it would be further obvious to the skilled artisan to further repeat the measurements of thickness and capacity following each repeated coating, as the skilled artisan would appreciate that the measurement of thickness and capacity would allow the artisan to identify as which thickness the capacity of the electrode is suitable for operation according to the desired application and would prevent the skilled artisan from using excess materials and unnecessarily increasing costs by forming thicker layers. Upon making the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. As disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Toyoshima discloses that the method comprises: applying and drying an insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) on a current collector (current collector foil, 8) for a simulated pure insulation coating layer (i.e., region where protective insulating layer, 5, has been coated directly on current collector foil, 8), and collecting second data about a second thickness of the pure insulation coating layer (i.e., region where protective insulating layer, 5, has been coated directly on current collector foil, 8) (Figure 2, [0020-0022, 0029-0030]). Toyoshima further discloses a step of measuring a length (width) of a gap (gap between region where electrode mixture layer, 4, is not coated with protective insulating layer, 5, and region where protective insulating layer, 5, is directly on current collector foil, 8), wherein the gap is formed by application of electrode mixture layer (4) and insulation coating liquid (protective insulating layer, 5) via an applicator (die coating device, 1) (Figures 1-3, [0019, 0030]). Toyoshima further discloses that the applicator (die coating device, 1) is a die coating device [0030].
Toyoshima is deficient in disclosing that the second data about the second length, and the second thickness is collected by repeating the applying and drying the insulation coating liquid on the current collector for the simulated pure insulation coating layer and the measuring of the second thickness.
Basu discloses a method of applying a liquid-phase film to the surface of an electrode, wherein the liquid-phase film is applied via a die coating process [0021, 0050, 0115]. Basu further discloses that the die coating process may be repeated to generate thicker coatings on the surface of the electrode [0115].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the applying and drying in the method of Toyoshima to be done in a repeated fashion, as it is known in the art that repeating the application of a liquid to a substrate is a common and useful means of adjusting the thickness of a coating applied via a die coating device, as taught by Basu. Furthermore, the selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Upon the above modification, it would be further obvious to the skilled artisan to further repeat the measurements of thickness following each repeated coating, as the skilled artisan would appreciate that the measurement of thickness would allow the artisan to identify as which thickness the capacity of the electrode is suitable for operation according to the desired application and would prevent the skilled artisan from using excess materials and unnecessarily increasing costs by forming thicker layers. Upon making the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US 2021/0265609 A1) as modified by Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0277881 A1) and Basu et al. (US 2019/0393478 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 2015/0010460 A1).
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura and Basu discloses the method of Claim 3 as set forth above. Toyoshima further discloses that the electrode sheet (7) may be comprised in a lithium ion secondary battery [0034]. Toyoshima further discloses that the electrode sheet (7) may be implemented in any type of battery [0034].
Toyoshima is deficient in disclosing that the measuring the capacity of the simulated overlay part includes manufacturing a coin cell including the simulated overlay part, and measuring the capacity of the simulated overlay part by measuring a charge capacity or a discharge capacity of the coin cell.
Takeuchi discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte [0149]. Takeuchi further discloses that the lithium ion secondary battery may be in the form of a coin cell (2032-type coin cell), specifically in a half-cell [0161].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to select for the battery of Toyoshima, a lithium ion secondary battery in the form of a half-cell type coin cell, as it is known in the art as a suitable embodiment of a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Takeuchi, and furthermore as Toyoshima teaches the lithium secondary battery may be in any suitable form. Furthermore, the selection of a known apparatus based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Upon the above modification and the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the measuring the capacity of the simulated overlay part necessarily includes manufacturing a coin cell including the simulated overlay part, and measuring the capacity of the simulated overlay part by measuring a charge capacity or a discharge capacity of the coin cell. Thus, upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
In Regards to Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 6):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura, Basu, and Takeuchi discloses the method of Claim 6 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 6, modified Toyoshima discloses that the coin cell is a half cell. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US 2021/0265609 A1) as modified by Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0277881 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Morisaki et al. (US 2021/0336248 A1).
In Regards to Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. Toyoshima further discloses that the electrode active material of the electrode mixture layer (4) is a lithium composite oxide for a positive electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery [0026].
Toyoshima is deficient in disclosing that a part of the insulation coating liquid is permeated into the simulated electrode mixture layer during the applying and drying of the insulation coating liquid on the simulated electrode mixture laver of the simulated overlay part.
Morisaki discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material [0031]. Morisaki further discloses that the positive electrode active material is a lithium composite oxide, wherein the lithium composite oxide is porous [0030, 0032, 0043].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the lithium composite oxide of Toyoshima, the lithium composite oxide of Morisaki, as such a lithium composite oxide is known in the art as a suitable material for use as a positive electrode active material in a lithium ion secondary battery, as taught by Morisaki. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
By doing so, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Morisaki teaches that the lithium composite oxide is porous, that when the insulation coating liquid is applied to the surface of the electrode mixture layer, it would permeate into the electrode mixture layer of the simulated overlay part to some extent. Thus, upon the above modification all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US 2021/0265609 A1) as modified by Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0277881 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2021/0066705 A1).
In Regards to Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. Toyoshima further discloses that the insulation coating liquid includes boehmite, a binding agent, a thickener, and a solvent [0027].
Toyoshima is silent to the material of the binding agent.
Yamada discloses an insulating layer slurry for a positive electrode, wherein the insulating layer slurry comprises boehmite, a binding agent, and a solvent [0053-0055]. Yamada further discloses that the binding agent may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [0054].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the binding agent of Toyoshima, PVDF, as such a material is taught by Yamada to be a suitable binding agent in an insulating layer slurry for a positive electrode. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US 2021/0265609 A1) as modified by Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0277881 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20160091732 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 04/17/2024) (citations made in reference to attached machine English translation).
In Regards to Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Toyoshima as modified by Nakamura discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above. Toyoshima further discloses that the thickness (T1) of the pure insulation coating layer (i.e., region where protective insulating layer, 5, has been coated directly on current collector foil, 8) is between 22 µm and 44 µm (Figure 2, Examples 1-5, see Table 1).
Toyoshima is deficient in disclosing that the thickness of the pure insulation coating layer of the electrode for evaluation is equal to or less than 15 µm.
Lee discloses an electrode (positive electrode, 100) comprising a current collector (positive electrode current collector, 110), an active material layer (positive electrode mixture, 140) disposed on a portion of the current collector (positive electrode current collector, 110), and an insulating coating layer (insulating coating part, 130) disposed on both the active material layer (positive electrode mixture, 140) and the portion of the current collector (positive electrode current collector, 110) not containing the active material layer (positive electrode mixture, 140) (Figures 1 and 2, [0100-0101]). Lee further discloses that the thickness (h) of the insulating coating layer (insulating coating part, 130) disposed on the portion of the current collector (positive electrode current collector, 110) not containing the active material layer (positive electrode mixture, 140) may be 1 µm to 1000 µm (Figure 2, [0108]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the thickness of the pure insulation coating layer of Toyoshima, a thickness between 1 µm and 1000 µm, as such a range is known in the art as a suitable thickness for an insulating coating layer disposed on a current collector in a positive electrode to possess, as taught by Lee, and furthermore as such a range encompasses the range disclosed by Toyoshima. Furthermore, the selection of a known arrangement based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Thus, upon making the above selection, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant highlights that the claimed method involves three structures: a simulated overlay part, a simulated pure insulation coating layer, and an electrode for evaluation. The Applicant argues that one might assert that the electrode structures of Toyoshima (US 2021/0265609 A1) and Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0277881 A1) correspond to an electrode for evaluation, but that the prior art references to not appear to disclose the simulated overlay part or the simulated pure insulation coating layer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Respectfully, the Applicant’s arguments do not point to any specific differences in either the structure or procedure for the method of Claim 1 when compared to the cited prior art, and thus the examiner cannot respond in detail to address the Applicant’s arguments.
The examiner notes that the Applicant is welcome to request an interview to further discuss the instant claims and the cited prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724