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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claim 1 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 1 was amended to recite the limitation “ a slurry supply hole connected to the manifold part inside the die is located on the lower surface of the coating die”.
This species was previously presented as species c, claim 5, and was not elected by the Applicant on December 1, 2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The previous objection to the title is withdrawn based on the amendment to the title.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “discharging part” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to the claims 1, 3-4, and 7-9 are withdrawn based on the amendment to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2015029973A to Aoki (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210399308 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) .
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a slurry circulation system for belt-shaped substrates comprising, a coating die (10) for applying a material on a substrate; a tank (46) for storing the electrode active material slurry to be supplied to the coating die (10) ; and a circulation piping (30, 84) for connecting the coating die and the tank, wherein the slurry circulates through the circulation piping (30, 84) connected from at least one of a left surface, and a right surface of the coating die (10) to the tank (46) at a time of a line stop. (See Aoki, Abstract; page 2, paragraphs 5-6; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 4, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 1, Aoki does not explicitly teach a slurry circulation system for electrode coating comprising, a coating die for applying an electrode active material slurry on a current collector.
Kim teaches a method for coating the current collector of an electrode with a first coating layer.
Kim teaches electrode coating comprising, a coating die ( 811, 813a-b, 815a-b) for applying an electrode active material slurry on a current collector (810). (See Kim, Abstract, paragraphs 102-109, Fig. 8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electrode coating comprising, a coating die for applying an electrode active material slurry on a current collector, because Kim teaches this is a known structure for forming an electrode for use in a battery. (See Kim, Abstract, paragraphs 102-109, Fig. 8.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (system for electrode coating). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Aoki in view of Kim is capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Aoki teaches wherein the slurry circulation system for electrode coating is a system in which the slurry circulates through the circulation piping connected from the left and right surfaces of the coating die to the tank at the time of a line stop. (See Aoki, Abstract; page 2, paragraphs 5-6; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 4, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 4, Aoki teaches wherein the coating die comprises one manifold part (18) inside the coating die (10). (See Aoki, Abstract, page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 8, Aoki teaches the slurry circulation system for electrode coating further comprises a return valve (32, 32) ; and a drain piping (30) connecting the return valve and the tank; and wherein at the time of a line stop, the return valve (30) is configured to open so that a part of the electrode active material slurry supplied from the tank (46) is discharged into the tank (46) through the drain piping. (See Aoki, Abstract, page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 9, Aoki teaches the coating die is provided with a discharging part (21) to which the electrode coating slurry is discharged. (See Aoki, Abstract, page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-5.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2015029973A to Aoki (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210399308 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040062866 A1 to Masuda et al (hereinafter Masuda).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki teaches the slurry circulation system for electrode coating further comprises a pump (44) for supplying the slurry from the tank to the coating die (10) and a valve (32) connected to the connection hole (portion of 10 connected to 30 on either side). (See Aoki, Abstract; page 2, paragraphs 5-6; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 4, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 7, Aoki does not explicitly teach the slurry circulation system for electrode coating further comprises a filter.
Masuda is directed to a die body for coating a substrate.
Masuda teaches a filter is used in the circulation line to filter the coating material from (See Masuda, Abstract, paragraphs 65, 75, and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the slurry circulation system for electrode coating further comprises a filter, because Masuda teaches this structure would allow the coating material. (See Masuda, Abstract, paragraphs 65, 75, and Figs. 1-6.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2015029973A to Aoki (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210399308 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140186530 A1 to Harris et al (hereinafter Harris).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki teaches the coating die is provided with a lip guard arranged to block and open the discharging part.
Harris is directed to a die body.
Harris teaches the coating die is provided with a lip guard (60) arranged to block and open the discharging part (34). (See Harris Abstract, paragraph 69, and Figs. 11a-d.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the coating die is provided with a lip guard arranged to block and open the discharging part, because Harris teaches this structure prevents coating material from exiting the slot gap at the inappropriate time. (See Harris Abstract, paragraph 69, and Figs. 11a-d.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2015029973A to Aoki (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210399308 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030080307 A1 to Jackson et al (hereinafter Jackson).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki teaches the coating die is provided with a lip guard arranged to block and open the discharging part.
Jackson is directed to a die for dispensing fluid.
Jackson teaches the coating die is provided with a lip guard (60) arranged to block and open the discharging part (40). (See Jackson, Abstract, paragraphs 29-30, and Figs. 1A-2B.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the coating die is provided with a lip guard arranged to block and open the discharging part, because Jackson teaches this structure allows the nozzle to be opened for the desired amount of time to control the amount of material dispensed. (See Jackson, Abstract, paragraphs 29-30, and Figs. 1A-2B.)
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2009000596 A to Shima Futoshi (hereinafter Futoshi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210399308 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) .
Regarding claim 1, Futoshi teaches a slurry circulation system for a substrate comprising, a coating die (6) for applying a material on a substrate; a tank (1) for storing the coating material to be supplied to the coating die (6) ; and a circulation piping (2, 3) for connecting the coating die and the tank, wherein the coating material circulates through the circulation piping (2, 3) connected from at least one of a left surface, and a right surface of the coating die (6) to the tank (1) at a time of a line stop. (See Futoshi, Abstract; page 1, paragraphs 3-4; page 2, paragraphs 3-9; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 1, Futoshi does not explicitly teach a slurry circulation system for electrode coating comprising, a coating die for applying an electrode active material slurry on a current collector.
Kim teaches a method for coating the current collector of an electrode with a first coating layer.
Kim teaches electrode coating comprising, a coating die ( 811, 813a-b, 815a-b) for applying an electrode active material slurry on a current collector (810). (See Kim, Abstract, paragraphs 102-109, Fig. 8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electrode coating comprising, a coating die for applying an electrode active material slurry on a current collector, because Kim teaches this is a known structure for forming an electrode for use in a battery. (See Kim, Abstract, paragraphs 102-109, Fig. 8.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (system for electrode coating). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Aoki in view of Kim is capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Futoshi teaches wherein the slurry circulation system for electrode coating is a system in which the slurry circulates through the circulation piping connected from the left and right surfaces of the coating die (6) to the tank at the time of a line stop. (See Futoshi, Abstract; page 1, paragraphs 3-4; page 2, paragraphs 3-9; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 4, Futoshi teaches wherein the coating die comprises one manifold part (6c) inside the coating die (6). (See Futoshi, Abstract; page 1, paragraphs 3-4; page 2, paragraphs 3-9; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 7, Futoshi teaches the slurry circulation system for electrode coating further comprises a pump (4, 8,) for supplying the coating material from the tank (1) to the coating die (6), a filter (5, 10) and a valve (7) connected to the connection hole (portion of 2 connected to 6 ). (See Futoshi, Abstract; page 1, paragraphs 3-4; page 2, paragraphs 3-9; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 8, Futoshi teaches the slurry circulation system for electrode coating further comprises a return valve (7) ; and a drain piping (2) connecting the return valve and the tank; and wherein at the time of a line stop, the return valve (7) is configured to open so that a part of the coating material supplied from the tank (1) is discharged into the tank (1) through the drain piping (2). (See Futoshi, Abstract; page 1, paragraphs 3-4; page 2, paragraphs 3-9; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 9, Futoshi teaches the coating die is provided with a discharging part (6d) to which the electrode coating slurry is discharged. (See Futoshi, Abstract; page 1, paragraphs 3-4; page 2, paragraphs 3-9; page 3, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 6-7; and Figs. 1-3.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2009000596 A to Shima Futoshi (hereinafter Futoshi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210399308 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140186530 A1 to Harris et al (hereinafter Harris).
Regarding claim 10, Futoshi teaches the coating die is provided with a lip guard arranged to block and open the discharging part.
Harris is directed to a die body.
Harris teaches the coating die is provided with a lip guard (60) arranged to block and open the discharging part (34). (See Harris Abstract, paragraph 69, and Figs. 11a-d.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the coating die is provided with a lip guard arranged to block and open the discharging part, because Harris teaches this structure prevents coating material from exiting the slot gap at the inappropriate time. (See Harris Abstract, paragraph 69, and Figs. 11a-d.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP11-319675 to Matsudaira and US Pat. Num. 7,270,409 B2 to Iwasaki et al (hereinafter Iwasaki).
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights