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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 and 6 are amended, Claims 1 and 4-11 are pending and Claims 10-11 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
In view of the amendment to the specification the objection to the drawings is withdrawn and the drawings filed 02/21/2023 are accepted
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification filed 05/15/2026.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn as it was made in error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu et al. (US 20130056092 A1), hereinafter "Wakamatsu" in view of Yagi et al. (US 20170336154 A1), hereinafter "Yagi" as evidenced by Takeda (JP 3523085 B2 – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Takeda”. Wakamatsu, Yagi, and Takeda et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely transfer of temperature controlled materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Wakamatsu et al. discloses a device for coating an electrode slurry, comprising a slurry tank configured to store an electrode slurry; a slot die configured to discharge the electrode slurry stored in the slurry tank to a current collector; and a slurry transfer pipe configured to transfer the electrode slurry stored in the slurry tank to the slot die (Wakamatsu, [0037]).
Wakamatsu et al. also discloses wherein the slurry transfer pipe has a structure comprising a first pipe fluidly connected to the slurry tank and the slot die (Wakamatsu, 0038]) and a second pipe spaced apart from an outer wall of the first pipe by a predetermined interval (Wakamatsu, [0043]). While Wakamatsu et al. discloses a double pipe structure configured to maintain the temperature of the kneaded electrode material flowing in the supply pipe by providing thermal control (Wakamatsu, [0043]), it is silent as to using a vacuum double pipe to achieve the desired result.
Yagi et al. discloses a first pipe configured to transport a material and a second pipe spaced apart from an outer wall of the first pipe by a predetermined interval and forming a vacuum space between the first pipe and the second pipe in an operational stage (Yagi, Abstract). The vacuum double pipe structure of Yagi et al. is taught to have the benefit of maintaining the temperature of the material in the first pipe by providing thermal control (Yagi, [0007]).
The skilled artisan is well aware of configurations of transfer pipes using either fluid as disclosed in Wakamatsu, Vacuum double pipes as taught in Yagi and configurations wherein a third pipe is located between a first pipe and a second pipe and surrounding the first pipe having a structure in which a fluid is configured to be introduced between the first pipe and the third pipe and a vacuum space is formed between the third pipe and the second pipe in an operational stage, wherein the fluid introduced between the first pipe and the third pipe is configured to control a temperature of the electrode slurry flowing through the first pipe, and wherein the vacuum space between the third pipe and the second pipe is configured to control a temperature of the fluid introduced between the first pipe and the third pipe as evidenced by Takeda.
Takeda et al. discloses a triple pipe structure having a vacuum jacket as the outermost layer, a second pipe arranged therein, and a first pipe arranged in the second pipe, wherein the transfer material is made to flow in the first pipe, a temperature controlled fluid is made to flow between the first pipe and the second pipe, and space between the second pipe and the outer pipe vacuum jacket is evacuated (purged of air), with the advantage that heat intrusion into the transfer material, which flows in the first pipe, is suppressed, and the insulation is maintained at a controllable level (Takeda, [16-23, 26]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the structures of Wakamatsu and Yagi to provide a a triple pipe structure having a vacuum jacket as the outermost layer, a second pipe arranged therein, and a first pipe arranged in the second pipe, wherein the transfer material is made to flow in the first pipe, a temperature controlled fluid is made to flow between the first pipe and the second pipe, and space between the second pipe and the outer pipe vacuum jacket is evacuated as evidenced by Takeda, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Takeda and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 4-5, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi as evidenced by Takeda et al. discloses the device of claim 1. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses a first pipe and a second pipe surrounding the first pipe which has a structure in which a fluid is configured to be introduced between the first pipe and the second pipe further comprising a fluid supply part fluidly connected to the second pipe and configured to supply a fluid between the first pipe and the second pipe as well as a temperature controller configured to control a temperature of the fluid supplied between the first pipe and the second pipe wherein the temperature of the fluid introduced between the first pipe and the second pipe is in the range of 25.6 °C to 32.2 °C. (Wakamatsu, [0043-0044], Table 1 (1-4)), which is the identical structure of the first and third pipes of the current application.
Yagi et al. discloses a second pipe surrounding a thermally insulated supply pipe which creates a vacuum space during operation to further increase thermal stability and control over the material in the supply pipe (Yagi, [0007]) and Takeda et al teaches a triple pipe structure having a vacuum jacket as the outermost layer, a second pipe arranged therein, and a first pipe arranged in the second pipe, wherein the transfer material is made to flow in the first pipe, a temperature controlled fluid is made to flow between the first pipe and the second pipe, and space between the second pipe and the outer pipe vacuum jacket is evacuated (purged of air), with the advantage that heat intrusion into the transfer material, which flows in the first pipe, is suppressed, and the insulation is maintained at a controllable level (Takeda, [16-23, 26]).
Therefore, providing a triple pipe structure having a vacuum jacket as the outermost layer, a second pipe arranged therein, and a first pipe arranged in the second pipe, wherein the transfer material is made to flow in the first pipe, a temperature controlled fluid is made to flow between the first pipe and the second pipe, and space between the second pipe and the outer pipe vacuum jacket is evacuated as taught in Takeda is an obvious combination of elements to try given the level of ordinary skill in the art, and doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 7, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi as evidenced by Takeda et al. discloses the device of claim 1. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses the second pipe having a structure with an openable/disclosable entrance (valve) formed on one side of the second pipe (Wakamatsu, [0042]), however it is silent as to that structure functioning as an air entrance.
Yagi et al. discloses wherein the second pipe has a structure having an openable/disclosable air entrance opening formed on one side of the second pipe (Yagi, [0015]), wherein that configuration has the benefit of increasing control of the vacuum and further controlling the temperature of the material (Yagi, [0016-0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an air entrance to the second pipe when providing a vacuum double pipe as taught in Yagi et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yagi and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 8-9, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi as evidenced by Takeda et al. discloses the device of claim 1. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses a coating roll configured to support and transfer the current collector and a drying chamber configured to dry the electrode slurry discharged to the current collector and further includes a feed pump configured to supply the electrode slurry stored in the slurry tank to the slot die (Wakamatsu, [0024, 0046, 0039]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu et al. (US 20130056092 A1), hereinafter "Wakamatsu" in view of Yagi et al. (US 20170336154 A1), hereinafter "Yagi" as evidenced by Takeda (JP 3523085 B2 – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Takeda” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 20150105794 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Park". Wakamatsu, Yagi, Takeda and Park et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely transfer of temperature controlled materials.
In regard to Claim 6, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi as evidenced by Takeda et al. discloses the device of claim 1. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the slurry which is transferred into the slot die or discharged from the slot die (Wakamatsu, [0045]), however, it is silent as to a temperature sensor included with the slot die.
Park et al. discloses a temperature sensor included with the slot die which has the benefit of further controlling the temperature of the die unit, which is capable of being set to a predetermined temperature (Park, [24, 26-27]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a temperature sensor on the slot die as taught in Park et as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Park and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of temperature sensing for use in the same field, based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on an evidentiary reference not previously applied in the prior rejection of record (Takeda et al. JP 3523085 B2), for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and teaches the combination of the structures from the primary and secondary reference are well within the level of skill in the art and would be reasonably capable of achieving the benefits taught in Takeda which would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yagi 2 et al. (US 20190162357 A1) which discloses a transportation pipe includes a main-body vacuum insulated pipe, a central pipe, and a connecting vacuum insulated pipe (Yagi, Abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights