DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on September 23, 2025 was received. Claims 1, 21, 23 and 25 were amended and claims 22 and 24 were cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued September 19, 2024.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Choinski (US 4,938,994) in view of Hudson et al. (US 2002/0176845), Yajima (US 2008/0011781) and Seo et al. (US 2011/0287171) on claims 1-4, 6, 12 and 21 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 21 with subject matter from claims 22 and 24 as well as new requirements for the grooves only being in one of the blocks. These requirements are supported by figure 6 for example.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choinski, Hudson et al., Yajima, Billow et al. (US 5,234,330) and Harris et al. (US 2004/0256496).
Regarding claim 1: Choinski discloses a coating system for coating a circuit board substrate including a coating applicator head (12) having two independent chambers (14a,b) and associated coating openings, two feeding apparatuses comprised of two tank reservoirs (24a,b) and metering pumps (28a,b) each connected to a respective chamber in one-to-one correspondence configured to feed the respective coating liquid (22a,b) to each chamber (14a,b), where inlet valves (32a,b) are located between the chambers (14) and pumps (28) and configured to either open or close communication between the pumps (28) and chambers (14), the head (12) being comprised of three solid portions which can be considered an upper, middle and lower die, each die forming the chambers (14) and openings therebetween (col. 4 lines 14-38, col. 6 lines 51-66, figures 1-2 and 8). Choinski shows that each chamber (14a,b) has multiple areas having differing widths, such that the upper area can be considered a first groove and the lower area closer to the opening can be considered a second groove, the first groove being wider than the second groove (see annotated figure 8 attached below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Coating opening)][AltContent: textbox (First, wider groove)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second groove, closer to opening)]
PNG
media_image1.png
254
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choinski fails to explicitly disclose spacers, and fails to explicitly disclose the exact configuration of each valve. Choinski shows that the upper and lower solid portions include areas between the middle solid portion which space themselves apart and create the coating openings, but Choinski does not explicitly refer to these as separate features called spacers. However, Hudson et al. discloses a similar slot die coating apparatus which uses multiple shims (21) between each die section to define the spacing of the openings such that they are spacers (par. 53, 75, figure 2B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use shims as taught by Hudson et al. between the solid die portions of Chonski to define the slot thicknesses because Hudson et al. teaches that doing this allows for easy adjustment of the capacity of the fluid channel and outlet thickness (pars. 53, 75).
Choinski discloses inlet valves but fails to explicitly disclose that the valves include a body, a first core, first drive, second core and second drive which enable the valves to open communication between the supply, the outlet and a back-feed port. However, Yajima discloses a similar coating supply device including a valve body combining an application valve (23) and suck back valve (26), each valve including a diaphragm valve element (51,72) which is a valve core and a drive mechanism including a pneumatic pipe (62, 84) or alternatively electromagnet or motor drive means such that the two valves (23, 26) can open or close communication between a supply tube (21), a circulation tube (27) and an outlet flow path (11a) (pars. 47-55, figure 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve similar to that of Yajima as the inlet valves of Choinski because Yajima teaches that his helps prevent coating material from being discarded (pars. 8-10) and helps prevent unwanted deposition of coating material (par. 40).
In the combined device of Choinski, Hudson et al. and Yajima, when coating the valves need to be arranged in such a way as to allow communication between the supply and outlet paths. While Choinski, Hudson et al. and Yajima do not explicitly disclose how the valves operate when not coating, the limitations describing the function of the drive structures are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the valves can be operated in any desired combination by the system or operator to achieve the claimed function.
Choinski, Hudson et al. and Yajima fail to explicitly disclose that the grooves are arc shaped. Further, while Choinski teaches a flow channel connecting the grooves, Choinski, Hudson et al., Yajima and Seo et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the width of the second groove is greater than that of the flow channel. However, Billow et al. discloses a similar slit die coating head having slot shaped flow path (120, 124) defined by two die halves (104, 106) where along the flow path is an inner cavity (116) which is an arc shaped groove and an outer cavity (122) which is an arc shaped groove that is slightly smaller than the inner cavity (116) and provided on the opposite side of the flow path (120, 124) from at least the left half of the inner cavity (116), the outer cavity (122) being wider than the flow path (120, 124) itself (col. 5 lines 62+, col. 6 lines 1-19, figures 5-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a double arc-shaped groove arrangement similar to that of Billow et al. for the apparatus of Choinski because Billow et al. teaches that this helps ensure the sheet-like film of fluid has a uniform thickness throughout its width while maintaining high wall shear stress, low residence time and fast purging of fluid (col. 2 lines 5-15) and also teaches that the shapes of the slot grooves are parameters that are known to be variable such that these shapes are result effective (col. 6 lines 20-27, col. 9 lines 57-66), and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215). While Billow et al. does not explicitly state that the outer cavity (122) is configured to reduce the flow speed of the incoming slurry, this is an inherent function of increased volume within a closed fluid system known as the Venturi effect, and therefore according to the laws of fluid dynamics the outer cavity inherently must perform this function.
Choinski, Hudson et al., Yajima and Billow et al. still fail to explicitly disclose that the first groove is disposed only inside one of the upper or lower dies. However, Harris et al. discloses another slot shaped nozzle assembly (10) having a flow path formed between two blocks (12, 20) having an upper slot (50f) being arc shaped and lower slots (54, 66) being arc shaped, the upper slot (50f) being provided only in one of the two blocks (20) and being on the opposite side of the flow channel from one of the lower slots (54) (pars. 17-18, figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a slot groove arrangement like that of Harris et al. for the apparatus of Choinski because Harris et al. teaches that this helps improve metering capability and accurate weight variability of the dispensed liquid (par. 9) and because simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2: Choinski discloses that the substrate (50) rests on a drive chain (58) driven by a drive sprocket (60) which is a back roller configured to drive the substrate (col. 4 lines 39-48, figures 2 and 8). The longitudinal direction of the coating outlet coincides with that of the sprocket (60) (see figures 2 and 8) which is understood to read on the limitation in claim 2 as it has the same orientational arrangement as that of the instant invention in figure 3.
Regarding claim 3: Choinski discloses that the longitudinal direction of the coating outlets are arranged horizontally (see figures 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 4: Choinski discloses a bead vacuum chamber (68) arranged at the outlet of the device to help control the pressure differential at the opening (col. 5 lines 37-48, figure 4).
Regarding claim 6: Choinski discloses a number of other coating stations downstream of the applicator head (12), any of which can be considered a marking apparatus (col. 7 lines 31+, col. 8 lines 1-24, figure 9). While Choinski does not explicitly disclose that the marking apparatus marks an uncoated region to identify a thin-coated/uncoated position, this limitation is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the various downstream coating stations can be used to mark thinly coated/uncoated positions on the substrate.
Regarding claim 23: Choinski, Yajima, Hudson et al., Billow et al. and Harris et al. teach the above apparatus which includes slot grooves on opposing sides of the flow channel (see Billow et al. figure 6, Harris et al. figure 3).
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choinski in view of Yajima, Billow et al. and Harris et al.
Regarding claim 21: Choinski discloses a coating system for coating a circuit board substrate including a coating applicator head (12) having two independent chambers (14a,b) and associated coating openings, two feeding apparatuses comprised of two tank reservoirs (24a,b) and metering pumps (28a,b) each connected to a respective chamber in one-to-one correspondence configured to feed the respective coating liquid (22a,b) to each chamber (14a,b), where inlet valves (32a,b) are located between the chambers (14) and pumps (28) and configured to either open or close communication between the pumps (28) and chambers (14), the head (12) being comprised of three solid portions forming the chambers (14) and openings therebetween (col. 4 lines 14-38, col. 6 lines 51-66, figures 1-2 and 8). Choinski further shows that each chamber (14a,b) has multiple areas having differing widths, such that the upper area can be considered a first groove and the lower area closer to the opening can be considered a second groove, the first groove being wider than the second groove (see annotated figure 8 attached above). Choinski fails to explicitly disclose the exact configuration of each valve.
Choinski discloses inlet valves but fails to explicitly disclose that the valves include a body, a first core, first drive, second core and second drive which enable the valves to open communication between the supply, the outlet and a back-feed port. However, Yajima discloses a similar coating supply device including a valve body combining an application valve (23) and suck back valve (26), each valve including a diaphragm valve element (51,72) which is a valve core and a drive mechanism including a pneumatic pipe (62, 84) or alternatively electromagnet or motor drive means such that the two valves (23, 26) can open or close communication between a supply tube (21), a circulation tube (27) and an outlet flow path (11a) (pars. 47-55, figure 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve similar to that of Yajima as the inlet valves of Choinski because Yajima teaches that his helps prevent coating material from being discarded (pars. 8-10) and helps prevent unwanted deposition of coating material (par. 40).
In the combined device of Choinski and Yajima, when coating the valves need to be arranged in such a way as to allow communication between the supply and outlet paths. While Choinski and Yajima do not explicitly disclose how the valves operate when not coating, the limitations describing the function of the drive structures are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the valves can be operated in any desired combination by the system or operator to achieve the claimed function.
Choinski, Hudson et al. and Yajima fail to explicitly disclose that the grooves are arc shaped. Further, while Choinski teaches a flow channel connecting the grooves, Choinski, Hudson et al., Yajima and Seo et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the width of the second groove is greater than that of the flow channel. However, Billow et al. discloses a similar slit die coating head having slot shaped flow path (120, 124) defined by two die halves (104, 106) where along the flow path is an inner cavity (116) which is an arc shaped groove and an outer cavity (122) which is an arc shaped groove that is slightly smaller than the inner cavity (116) and provided on the opposite side of the flow path (120, 124) from at least the left half of the inner cavity (116), the outer cavity (122) being wider than the flow path (120, 124) itself (col. 5 lines 62+, col. 6 lines 1-19, figures 5-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a double arc-shaped groove arrangement similar to that of Billow et al. for the apparatus of Choinski because Billow et al. teaches that this helps ensure the sheet-like film of fluid has a uniform thickness throughout its width while maintaining high wall shear stress, low residence time and fast purging of fluid (col. 2 lines 5-15) and also teaches that the shapes of the slot grooves are parameters that are known to be variable such that these shapes are result effective (col. 6 lines 20-27, col. 9 lines 57-66), and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215). While Billow et al. does not explicitly state that the outer cavity (122) is configured to reduce the flow speed of the incoming slurry, this is an inherent function of increased volume within a closed fluid system known as the Venturi effect, and therefore according to the laws of fluid dynamics the outer cavity inherently must perform this function.
Choinski, Hudson et al., Yajima and Billow et al. still fail to explicitly disclose that the first groove is disposed only inside one of the upper or lower dies. However, Harris et al. discloses another slot shaped nozzle assembly (10) having a flow path formed between two blocks (12, 20) having an upper slot (50f) being arc shaped and lower slots (54, 66) being arc shaped, the upper slot (50f) being provided only in one of the two blocks (20) and being on the opposite side of the flow channel from one of the lower slots (54) (pars. 17-18, figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a slot groove arrangement like that of Harris et al. for the apparatus of Choinski because Harris et al. teaches that this helps improve metering capability and accurate weight variability of the dispensed liquid (par. 9) and because simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 25: Choinski, Yajima, Billow et al. and Harris et al. teach the above apparatus which includes slot grooves on opposing sides of the flow channel (see Billow et al. figure 6, Harris et al. figure 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choinski, Hudson et al., Yajima, Billow et al. and Harris et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 23 above, and further in view of Seo et al.
Regarding claim 12: Choinski, Hudson et al. and Yajima fail to explicitly disclose the head portions being pivotally connected to each other, though Choinski does show some structure indicating clamping of the portions. However, Seo et al. discloses a similar slot die coating apparatus in which the two dies (1, 2) are connected by a hinge (22) in order to be able to pivot to change the gap size (G2), and further clamped together by a screw (53) (pars. 42, 49-50, figures 1 and 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar hinge and clamping screw taught by Seo et al. for each pair of die elements of Choinski because Seo et al. teaches that this allows for variable thickness coatings with better uniformity (pars. 6-8, 43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the prior art does not teach the new limitations added to claims 1 and 21, and also argues that the shape of the grooves being arcs is said by the specification to reduce impact and this is an unexpected significant advantage not taught by the prior art.
In response:
Regarding the new limitations, Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited Harris et al. reference which does teach the claimed arrangement of grooves. Regarding the unexpected results, Applicant’s argument that this is a significant advantage is completely invalidated by the specification going on to state that the grooves can have other shapes (par. 71). Therefore this advantage is not critical, even if it exists. Even still, the text of paragraph 71 of the specification does not make it clear that this advantage is only achieved by arc-shaped grooves, seeing as how it immediately notes that the grooves may have other shapes after discussing this advantage.
Regardless, it is clearly established in the prior art the arc grooves were well known shapes, and as taught by Billow et al. they help ensure certain fluid flow characteristics and are known to be able to be varied to suit a particular purpose (col. 6 lines 20-27, col. 9 lines 57-66) such that, even if Applicant has noted a new significant advantage from this arrangement, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). A finding of unexpected results would not invalidate the teachings of the prior art that these shapes are known to be used and known to be varied from apparatus to apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
12/10/2025
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717