Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 in the application remain pending. Claims 1-4 & 11 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claim 14 is new.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132
4. The affidavit/declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/14/2026 is acknowledged but is not sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 5-10 & 12-14 based upon rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2014-229479 A) in view of Joos (US 2014/0242283 A1) and Kuenne (US 2018/0250701 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 5-10 & 12-14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2014-229479 A – translation provided 04/05/2024) hereinafter Kato in view of Joos (US 2014/0242283 A1) hereinafter Joos and Kuenne (US 2018/0250701 A1) hereinafter Kuenne.
As regards to claim 5, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), comprising:
a lower die block 15 ([0027]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5);
an intermediate die block (14/15/16/middle block in fig 5) disposed on an upper portion (see fig 2-5) of the lower die block 15 to form a lower slot (see fig 2-5) therebetween ([0027]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5);
an upper die block 19 disposed on an upper portion (see fig 2-5) of the intermediate die block (14/15/16/middle block in fig 5) to form an upper slot (see fig 2-5) therebetween ([0027]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5);
a lower shim plate 13 configured to define the lower slot (see fig 2-5) ([0027]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5); and
an upper shim plate 18 configured to define the upper slot (see fig 2-5) ([0027]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5),
wherein the lower die block 15, the intermediate die block (14/15/16/middle block in fig 5), and the upper die block 19 respectively comprise a lower die lip (see fig 2-5), an intermediate die lip (see fig 2-5), and an upper die lip (see fig 2-5) forming front ends thereof, a lower discharge port (see fig 2-5) communicatively connected with the lower slot (see fig 2-5) is formed between the lower die lip (see fig 2-5) and the intermediate die lip (see fig 2-5), and an upper discharge port (see fig 2-5) communicatively connected with the upper slot (see fig 2-5) is formed between the intermediate die lip (see fig 2-5) and the upper die lip (see fig 2-5) ([0025]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5),
wherein the dual slot (see fig 2-5) die coater is configured to discharge and apply an electrode active material slurry to a surface of a continuously traveling substrate 7 through at least one of the lower slot (see fig 2-5) and the upper slot (see fig 2-5) and form an electrode active material layer ([0015]; [0019]; [0025]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5, 7a-7b), and
wherein ends of the lower shim plate 13 and the upper shim plate 18 are spaced backward (see fig 2) relative to the lower die lip (see fig 2), the intermediate die lip (see fig 2), and the upper die lip (see fig 2) so as to be offset (see fig 2) relative to the lower die lip (see fig 2), the intermediate die lip (see fig 2), and the upper die lip (see fig 2) ([0015]; [0019]; [0025]-[0034]; [0055]-[0058]; [0066]; fig 2), however Kato does not disclose wherein the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane, backward relative to the common plane, offset relative to the common plane.
Joos discloses a slot die coater (abs; fig 1-6), wherein the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane ([0034]-[0037]; fig 1 & 6).
Kuenne discloses a slot die coater (abs; fig 1-6C), wherein the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane ([0019]-[0021]; [0034]-[0041]; fig 1A-1B & 6A-6C).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane, backward relative to the common plane, offset relative to the common plane in the slot die coater of Kato, because Joos and Kuenne both teach the configuration of the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination, (i.e., the combination of known old elements into a single manufactured product) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
As regards to claim 6, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), wherein a size of the offset (see fig 2-5) can be measured in μm, ([0025]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5), however Kato does not disclose is 50 μm to 2000 μm.
Although Kato does not explicitly disclose the claimed size of the offset, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kato to have the size of the offset recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the size of the offset (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the size of the offset.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regards to claim 7, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), wherein each of the lower shim plate 13 and the upper shim plate 18 comprises an open portion (see fig 7a-7b) formed by cutting one region thereof such that a coating width of the electrode active material layer formed on the substrate 7 is determined ([0015]; [0019]; [0025]-[0034]; [0055]-[0058]; [0066]; fig 2-5, 7a-7b).
As regards to claim 8, it is noted that the recitation “formed by intermittently cutting one region thereof” is a product-by-process limitation and therefore a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since Masayoshi’s apparatus is similar to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
As regards to claim 8, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), wherein each of the lower shim plate 13 and the upper shim plate 18 comprises a plurality of open portions (see fig 7a-7b) formed by intermittently cutting one region thereof such that a coating width of the electrode active material layer formed on the substrate 7 is determined, and the electrode active material layer of a stripe pattern shape is formed on the substrate 7 ([0015]; [0019]; [0025]-[0034]; [0055]-[0058]; [0066]; fig 2-5, 7a-7b).
As regards to claim 9, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), wherein the lower shim plate 13 and the upper shim plate 18 are aligned with each other in an up and down direction (see fig 2-5) ([0025]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5).
As regards to claim 10, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), wherein the lower die block 15 comprises a first manifold 11 accommodating a first electrode active material slurry and communicatively connected with the lower slot (see fig 2-5) and the intermediate die block (14/15/16/middle block in fig 5) comprises a second manifold 17 (fig 5) accommodating a second electrode active material slurry and communicatively connected with the upper slot (see fig 2-5) ([0015]; [0019]; [0025]-[0034]; [0055]-[0058]; [0066]; fig 2-5, 7a-7b).
As regards to claim 12, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), wherein an offset (see fig 2-5) size A of the upper shim plate 18 is different from (see fig 2-5) an offset (see fig 2-5) size B of the lower shim plate 13 ([0025]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5).
As regards to claim 13, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), wherein the dual slot die coater is configured to simultaneously discharge two types of electrode active material slurries through the upper slot (see fig 2-5) and the lower slot (see fig 2-5) to form an electrode active material layer of a double layer on the substrate 7, and wherein when a coating gap to a coating solution thickness of the electrode active material slurries formed on the substrate 7 is comparable ([0025]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5), however Kato does not disclose equal to or greater than 1.06, with respect to an offset (see fig 2-5) size A of the upper shim plate 18 and an offset (see fig 2-5) size B of the lower shim plate 13, A:B is set to 7:1 to 1:7.
Although Kato does not explicitly disclose the claimed coating gap to a coating solution thickness is equal to or greater than 1.06, with respect to an offset size A of the upper shim plate 18 and an offset size B of the lower shim plate 13, A:B is set to 7:1 to 1:7, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kato to have the coating gap to a coating solution thickness recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the coating gap to a coating solution thickness (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the coating gap to a coating solution thickness.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regards to claim 14, Kato discloses a dual slot die coater (abs; fig 1-7), rear surfaces of the lower die block 15, the intermediate die block (14/15/16/middle block in fig 5), and the upper die block 19 ([0025]-[0028]; [0066]; fig 2-5), however Kato does not disclose a plurality of fixing units directly contacting the rear surfaces.
Kuenne discloses a slot die coater (abs; fig 1-6C), wherein the dual slot die coater 100 further comprises a plurality of fixing units 112+113 directly contacting rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively ([0021]; [0030]; [0038]; fig 1A-1B). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the dual slot die coater 100 further comprises a plurality of fixing units 112+113 directly contacting rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively in the slot die coater of Kato, because Kuenne teaches the use of a plurality of fixing units 112+113 directly contacting rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively to attach an keep parallel the rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively ([0021]; [0030]; [0038]; fig 1A-1B).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Applicant respectfully submits that FIG. 2 of Kato cannot be relied upon as alleged in the Action and Applicant concurrently provides additional supporting evidence in the form of a Rule 1.132 inventor's declaration (hereinafter "Lee Declaration").
The Lee Declaration is included herein for the Office's consideration and further clarifies how a POSA would understand the figures of Kato. Applicant respectfully submits that the Lee Declaration demonstrates that a POSA would not understand the figures of Kato as teaching shim plates (13/18) "spaced backward relative to" the die lips, but instead would understand the odd spacing in the figures as not conveying any specific structural teachings. Indeed, the Lee Declaration clarifies that FIG. 2 of Kato would not be considered as nearly identical to FIG. 11 of the application by a POSA, as alleged. (See 6 of the Lee Declaration).
In Kato, FIG. 2 cannot be relied on as teaching or suggesting that the "ends of the lower shim plate and the upper shim plate" (i.e., shim plates (18/13)) are "spaced backward relative to... the lower die lip, the intermediate die lip, and the upper die lip so as to be offset relative to the common plane," as recited in claim 5. Rather, Kato is silent at to this aspect and only teaches a width and a height of the shim plates (18/13), but not their structural relationship with the ends of the die blocks (15/19). (See 1 6-7 of Lee Declaration; 1 [0025], [0027], [0029]-[0034], [0055] of Kato). For example, due to the inconsistent spacing and overlapping elements present in Kato's figures, at least FIGS. 2-5 of Kato cannot be relied on as clearly showing the structure and/or how the elements are put together so as to teach or suggest "wherein ends of the lower shim plate and the upper shim plate are moved backward relative to the lower die lip, the intermediate die lip, and the upper die lip so as to be offset relative to the lower die lip, the intermediate die lip, and the upper die lip," as recited in independent claim 5. Rather, Kato's figures are schematic and clearly haphazardly put together and simply cannot be relied on in the manner alleged by the Action. (See 1 6-8 of Lee Declaration).
As explained in the Lee Declaration, the haphazard nature of Kato's figures is because Kato is directed to reducing resistance within the electrode by alternately coating active material bands and conductive material bands. As such, a high degree of precision is included in FIGS. 6-7 of Kato to convey this concept, but FIG. 2 of Kato is included merely to generally convey to a POSA that the slot die coater may include manifolds and blocks of varying shapes and sizes. (See 1 6-7, and 9 of Lee Declaration).
Furthermore, the Lee Declaration explains that a POSA would not understand FIG. 2 of Kato as alleged by the Action at least because of the overlapping elements and inconsistent spacing in FIGS. 2-5 of Kato, and because a POSA would not expect FIG. 2 of Kato to be uniquely precise in view of the haphazard nature of FIGS. 2-5. (See 8 of Lee Declaration). The Lee Declaration goes on to explain what a POSA would expect to find in Kato if, in fact, Kato was concerned with the relationship between the ends of the shim plates (18/13)) and the die lips. That is, the Lee Declaration explains that a POSA would expect to find some discussion in the specification or indication by reference numerals in the drawings to this aspect. However, Kato does not include these. (See 1 8- 9 of Lee Declaration).
The remaining cited art does not remedy this deficiency. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of record.
(b) Furthermore, a POSA would have no motivation to modify Kato based on Joos and Kuenne to include both "front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane" and "wherein ends of the lower shim plate and the upper shim plate are spaced backward relative to... the lower die lip, the intermediate die lip, and the upper die lip so as to be offset."
More specifically, a POSA modifying Kato based on Joos and Kuenne would simply have no motivation to maintain the alleged "spaced backward" teaching of Kato, as Joos and Kuenne teach a common plane. That is, a POSA would be motivated to align the front ends of the shim plates of Kato with the die lips based on the common plane teaching of Joos and Kuenne, and thus not be offset. As such, the Action has not provided a motivation as to why a POSA would correct the die lips of Kato to align a common plane, without also aligning the shim plates along a common plane.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are not obvious in view of the cited art and therefore requests withdrawal of the rejections.
(c) Newly presented claim 14 depends from independent claim 1 and recites "wherein the dual slot die coater further comprises a plurality of fixing units directly contacting rear surfaces of the lower die block, the intermediate die block, and the upper die block," support may be found at least in FIG. 8 and [0066] of the application). Newly presented claim 14 is believed to further define over the cited art. For instance, Kato and Joos are silent as to this aspect and Kuenne teaches an intervening element disposed between the first offset block (112) and the upper body member (106). (See FIG. 1B and 6A of Kuenne).
7. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) As already discussed above in detail with regards to claim 5 and as clearly shown in fig. 2 of Kato reproduced below, Kato teaches wherein ends of the lower shim plate 13 and the upper shim plate 18 are spaced backward (see fig 2) relative to the lower die lip (see fig 2), the intermediate die lip (see fig 2), and the upper die lip (see fig 2) so as to be offset (see fig 2) relative to the lower die lip (see fig 2), the intermediate die lip (see fig 2), and the upper die lip (see fig 2).
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2125.
That is, fig. 2 of Kato clearly shows the structure which is claimed, all the claimed structural features and how they are put together and since Kato is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification and the drawings have been evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. As clearly seen below when comparing Kato to the instant application, the claimed structural feature of wherein ends of the lower shim plate and the upper shim plate are spaced backward relative to the lower die lip, the intermediate die lip, and the upper die lip so as to be offset relative to the lower die lip, the intermediate die lip, and the upper die lip, appear identical. Examiner respectfully contends the affidavit/declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 (Lee Declaration) is not sufficient to overcome the current rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(b) As already discussed above in detail with regards to claim 5, and as clearly shown in fig. 1 & 6 of Joos and fig. 1A-1B & 6A-6C of Kuenne, Joos discloses a slot die coater (abs; fig 1-6), wherein the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane ([0034]-[0037]; fig 1 & 6); Kuenne discloses a slot die coater (abs; fig 1-6C), wherein the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane ([0019]-[0021]; [0034]-[0041]; fig 1A-1B & 6A-6C). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane, backward relative to the common plane, offset relative to the common plane in the slot die coater of Kato, because Joos and Kuenne both teach the configuration of the front ends of the lower, intermediate, and upper die lips are defined along a common plane were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination, (i.e., the combination of known old elements into a single manufactured product) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
(c) As already discussed above in detail with regards to claim 14, Kuenne discloses a slot die coater (abs; fig 1-6C), wherein the dual slot die coater 100 further comprises a plurality of fixing units 112+113 directly contacting rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively ([0021]; [0030]; [0038]; fig 1A-1B). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the dual slot die coater 100 further comprises a plurality of fixing units 112+113 directly contacting rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively in the slot die coater of Kato, because Kuenne teaches the use of a plurality of fixing units 112+113 directly contacting rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively to attach an keep parallel the rear surfaces 160, 130, 118 of the lower die block 110, the intermediate die block 108, and the upper die block 106, respectively ([0021]; [0030]; [0038]; fig 1A-1B).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717