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 .
Foreign Priority Documents
The Korean foreign priority document(s) 10-2020-0119918 & 10-2021-0122022, submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d), was/were been received on September 13, 2022 and placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed September 13, 20212 & February 14, 2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on August 20, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected electrode, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8 & 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US Pub. 2019/0351446.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a dual slot die coater (Fig. 7)
PNG
media_image1.png
487
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the lower slot (Fig. 7, below), the upper slot (Fig. 7, below), a lower plate (Fig. 7, below), an intermediate plate positioned on the lower plate (Fig. 7, below) and an upper plate positioned on the intermediate plate (Fig. 7, below), the lower slot being formed between the lower plate (Fig. 7, below) and the intermediate plate (Fig. 7, below) , and the upper slot being formed between the intermediate plate (Fig. 7, below) and the upper plate (Fig. 7, below), wherein the lower plate (Fig. 7, below), the intermediate plate and the upper plate have a lower die lip (Fig. 7, below), an intermediate die lip (Fig. 7, below) and an upper die lip (Fig. 7, below), each forming an front end with respect to the current collector, respectively (Fig. 8, above). See [0079]-[0084]. See also the conventional lip of Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
648
922
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, a lower exit port in communication with the lower slot is formed between the lower die lip and the intermediate die lip (Fig. 7 above), an upper exit port in communication with the upper slot is formed between the intermediate die lip and the upper die lip (Fig. 7 above). With respect to claim 4, the lower exit port is configured to deliver the slurry that forms a lower slurry layer onto the current collector (two outlets 110A, 120A may be disposed at the front and rear to be spaced apart from each other along the horizontal direction for smooth coating of the electrode active material slurry [0067]; in Figure 7, the exit ports are capable of said function), and the upper exit port is spaced apart from the lower exit port downstream in a coating direction and delivers the slurry that forms an upper slurry layer onto the lower slurry layer on the current collector(two outlets 110A, 120A may be disposed at the front and rear to be spaced apart from each other along the horizontal direction for smooth coating of the electrode active material slurry [0067]; in Figure 7, the exit ports are capable of said function) . See the coating applied on the current collector in Fig. 8. With respect to claim 6, a method for coating an electrode active material slurry (forming two active material layers on an electrode current collector; [0064]), comprising: forming an electrode active material slurry layer on the a current collector (forming two active material layers on an electrode current collector; [0064]) by supplying the an electrode active material slurry while moving the current collector from the lower die lip to the upper die lip (Fig. 8 shows the current collector E being moved on a reel counter clockwise, and thus from the lower die lip to the upper die lip). With respect to claim 8,
a method for coating an electrode active material slurry, comprising: using a dual slot die coater (Fig. 8) including a lower slot and an upper slot (Fig. 7), for simultaneously extrusion coating two types of electrode active material slurries (forming two active material layer on an electrode current collector; [0064]) on a surface of a continuously moving current collector through the lower slot and the upper slot (Fig. 8 shows the current collector E being moved on a reel counter clockwise, and thus through the lower slot and the upper slot; See also Fig. 7), wherein the dual slot die coater includes a lower plate (Fig. 7, above), an intermediate plate positioned on the lower plate (Fig. 7, above) and an upper plate positioned on the intermediate plate (Fig. 7, above), the lower slot being formed between the lower plate (Fig. 7, above) and the intermediate plate (Fig. 7, above) , and the upper slot being formed between the intermediate plate (Fig. 7, above) and the upper plate (Fig. 7, above), wherein the lower plate (Fig. 7, above), the intermediate plate and the upper plate have a lower die lip (Fig. 7, above), an intermediate die lip (Fig. 7, above) and an upper die lip (Fig. 7, above), each forming an front end with respect to the current collector, respectively (Fig. 8, above; See [0079]-[0084]. See also the conventional lip of Fig. 1.); simultaneously delivering the two types of electrode active material slurries (forming two active material layer on an electrode current collector; [0064]) on the current collector moving from the lower die lip to the upper die lip direction (Fig. 8 shows the current collector E being moved on a reel counter clockwise, and thus from the lower die lip to the upper die lip) through a lower exit port and an upper exit port (the slurry exits ports from the die cast to form coating layer; Fig. 8; the slot die coater 100 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure has two outlets 110A, 120A to form two active material layers on the electrode current collector [0067]) to form a double layer structure including a lower slurry layer and an upper slurry layer coated on the lower slurry layer (FIG. 8, the slot die coater 100 allows a first active material slurry Al discharged from the lower outlet 110A formed at the lower die 110 and a second active material slurry A2 discharged from the upper outlet 120A formed at the upper die 120 to be coated to form two layers sequentially on an electrode current collector E), wherein the lower exit port in communication with the lower slot is formed between the lower die lip and the intermediate die lip (Fig. 7), the upper exit port in communication with the upper slot is formed between the intermediate die lip and the upper die lip (Fig. 7), and the upper exit port is spaced apart from the lower exit port downstream in a coating direction (Fig. 7).
Lee does not teach or suggest: a distance between the current collector and the lower die lip is larger than a distance between the current collector and the upper die lip and a distance between the current collector and the intermediate die lip (claim 1 & 8); a predetermined step is formed between the lower exit port and the upper exit port (claim 3); the step ranges between 20 and 70% of a sum of an average thickness of the lower slurry layer and an average thickness of the upper slurry layer (claim 5); moving the current collector from the lower die lip to the upper die lip using the dual slot die coater (claim 6); a predetermined step is formed between the lower exit port and the upper exit port, and the step ranges between 20 to 70% of a sum of an average thickness of the lower slurry layer and an average thickness of the upper slurry layer (claim 10); a ratio of an average thickness of the lower slurry layer and an average thickness of the upper slurry layer is 1:3 to 3:1 (claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a distance between the current collector and the lower die lip being larger than a distance between the current collector and the upper die lip and a distance between the current collector and the intermediate die lip (claim 1 & 8); in the dual slot die coater of Lee in order to accommodate the electrode coating from the upper die lip, enabling simultaneous and sequential coating.
Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The Courts have held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); See also MPEP §§2114 and 2173.05(g). Furthermore, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Therefore, because the structure of the Lee teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, one of ordinary skills in the art can use the dual slot die coater of Lee to operate it in the manner disclosed by the Applicant.
With respect to a predetermined step is formed between the lower exit port and the upper exit port (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the dual slot die coater of Lee, in order to increase uniform coating distribution. Lee also shows that predetermined steps are conventional. See Fig. 1.
With respect to the step ranges between 20 and 70% of a sum of an average thickness of the lower slurry layer and an average thickness of the upper slurry layer (claim 5); it would have been obvious in the dual slot die coater of Lee, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the electrode component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to moving the current collector from the lower die lip to the upper die lip using the dual slot die coater (claim 6); it would have been obvious in the dual slot die coater of Lee, in order to increase uniform coating distribution. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The Courts have held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); See also MPEP §§2114 and 2173.05(g). Furthermore, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to a predetermined step is formed between the lower exit port and the upper exit port, and the step ranges between 20 to 70% of a sum of an average thickness of the lower slurry layer and an average thickness of the upper slurry layer (claim 10); it would have been obvious in the dual slot die coater of Lee, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the electrode component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a ratio of an average thickness of the lower slurry layer and an average thickness of the upper slurry layer is 1:3 to 3:1 (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the dual slot die coater of Lee, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the electrode component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US Pub. 2019/0351446 in view of Cullinan US Pub. 2018/0065186.
Lee teaches a dual slot die coater as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lee does not teach or suggest: a control unit configured to linearly align the lower die lip, the intermediate die lip and the upper die lip with respect to the current collector and then individually move back the lower die lip.
Cullinan teaches that it is well known in the art to employ control units with die slot coaters (Z-axis actuator 218 is configured to adjust the height of the slot-die coater 120; [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the control unit of Cullinan, it would have been obvious in the dual slot die coater of Lee, in order to increase uniform coating distribution. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US Pub. 2019/0351446 in view of Matsunobe JP 2020123453.
Lee teaches a dual slot die coater as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to claim 7, moving the current collector from the lower die lip to the upper die lip using the dual slot die coater (dual slot die coater coats a continuously moving current collector; Fig. 8).
Lee does not teach or suggest: intermittently coating an electrode active material slurry layer on the a current collector by repeating a supply and stop of the an electrode active material slurry (claim 7); intermittent coating is performed by repeating simultaneous delivery of the electrode active material slurry and simultaneous stopping (claim 8).
Matsunobe teaches that it is well known in the art to employ intermittently coating an electrode active material slurry layer on the a current collector by repeating a supply and stop of the an electrode active material slurry (the active material is applied by die coating, then continuously formed in a strip shape, which is a stop in coating. The current collector is formed is conveyed in the longitudinal direction EH and carried into a drying furnace. See the Description, par 7-8; claim 7); intermittent coating is performed by repeating simultaneous delivery of the electrode active material slurry and simultaneous stopping (claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ intermittently coating an electrode active material slurry layer on the a current collector by repeating a supply and stop of the an electrode active material slurry of Matsunobe, it would have been obvious in the dual slot die coater of Lee, in order to form multiple coatings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723