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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US 2002/0050662, hereinafter Kawabe) in view of Su et al. (US 2003/0087038, hereinafter Su) , and further in view of Cai (US 6,057,000, hereinafter Cai), and Rattray et al. (WO 2021/198825, hereinafter Rattray).
Per independent claim 1:
Kawabe discloses a coating die head (see title, abstract and Fig. 4), configured to coat a multi-layer film on a substrate simultaneously (abstract), the coating die head comprising:
a first die block, a second die block, a third die block, and a fourth die block that are sequentially arranged at intervals, wherein the first die block and the second die block form a first slot therebetween, the second die block and the third die block form a second slot therebetween, the third die block and the fourth die block form a third slot therebetween, each of the first die block, the second die block, the third die block, and the fourth die block has a die lip at a surface thereof configured to be located close to the substrate (Fig. 4 shows first-fourth die blocks 301a-d, with die lips 302a-d and first-third slots 303a-303c; also see [0036]-[0037]),
Kawabe is silent to a length of the die lip of the second die block ranges from 100 micrometers to 200 micrometers, and a ratio of a length of the die lip of the third die block to the length of the die lip of the second die block ranges from 1.5 to 7. Kawabe is also silent to the claimed slot gaps (width) of the first slot ranges from 50-500 micrometers, the second slot ranges from 100-1200 micrometers, and the third slow ranges from 50-500 micrometers.
Su discloses a slot die (see title, abstract and Fig. 1) which is formed from 3 die plates with different die lip lengths (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the die lip lengths for each of the die lips 302a-d of Kawabe in the manner taught by Su such that they’re of different lengths. One would have been motivated to do so because Su discloses that it is known in the slot coating art with multiple die lips to incorporate different lip lengths on the slot die and thus one would modify a known slot coater (Kawabe) with another known slot coater (Su) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kawabe/Su disclose that the die lips can be different lengths but do not specifically teach a length of the die lip of the second die block ranges from 100 micrometers to 200 micrometers, and a ratio of a length of the die lip of the third die block to the length of the die lip of the second die block ranges from 1.5 to 7. Kawabe/Su also do not teach the claimed different slow gap (widths) dimensions.
Cai discloses an extrusion coating process and apparatus (see title, abstract and figures) which uses an extrusion/slot coating die (col. 3, 37-42). Cai additionally teaches that the die lip length varies with the specific coating materials and the proportions thereof employed as well as the slot width and height as well as the coating flow rate (col. 14, 58-61). Cai further teaches that slot width dimension depends upon factors such as the coating fluid viscosity, flow rate, distance to the surface of the support member, relative movement between the die and the substrate to be coated, and the thickness of the coating desired (col. 14, 61-67). In other words, Cai recognizes that the die lip length is a result-effective variable which depends on the specific coating material and slot width and further recognizes that the slot width is a result-effective variable which depends upon a number of coating variables including fluid viscosity, flow rate, distance between surface and die, thickness of the coating desired, etc.
Further, Rattray discloses a slot die coating apparatus (see title and abstract) with a die lip length of between 10 micrometers to about 25000 micrometers (col. 10, 17-21, 0.01 mm to about 25 mm) and a die slot opening width of 50 micrometers, 100 micrometers, or 250 micrometers or any other suitable number (col. 9, 9-10, 0.05 mm, 0.1 mm or 0.25 mm). It’s noted that the die lip length overlaps with the claimed lip length of 100 to 200 micrometers for second die block lip and a 1.5-7 ratio would yield 150 to 1400 micrometers range for the fourth die block lip length.
It is well established that the optimization of result-effective variables only require ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized each of the slot width and each of the die lip length of Kawabe/Su in order to optimize the coating process for a specific coating material with the desired fluid viscosity, flow rate, and thickness of coating deposited as taught by Cai, particularly given that Rattray recognizes the claimed die lip lengths and slow gaps (widths) are known in the art.
Per claims 2 and 5-7, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the die lip length is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to achieve a specific desired coating condition, particularly given that Rattray recognizes the claimed die lip lengths are known in the art (lip lengths range of 10 micrometers to 25,000 micrometers).
Per claim 3, Kawabe discloses that the lips are substantially flush with one another (see Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides data shown in Table 1 and Table 2 as support for the argument that when the coating gap is 190, 210 and 220 micrometers, the results are deemed fail whereas a coating gap of 200 micrometer is deemed to be successful for Condition 1. For condition 2, when the coating gap is 250 micrometers, the result is deemed fail whereas a coating gap of 220, 230 and 240 micrometers created successful results. Therefore, Applicant concludes that Condition 2 conforms to the claimed feature which is affirmative evidence supporting the inventive step of the present specification. This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, the evidence presented here is not filed as an affidavit or declaration and is therefore a conclusory statement. Secondly, Applicant’s presentation of the data appears to be an attempt to show unexpected results. However, such showing is not commensurate in scope with the claim (see MPEP 716.02(d)). The scope of claim 1 includes any material, any coating operating condition, any properties of the material (such as the viscosities), and any coating thickness, shape and size. Even assuming that Applicant’s data was in the form of an affidavit or declaration, the data has failed to capture the scope of claim 1 because the data represents a very narrow scope compared to the breadth of claim 1. For example, the length of die lip for each respective L1-L4 die lip does not cover the range recited in claim 1, the thickness of the wet film is at a very specific layer thickness for each upper, middle and lower layer, and specific viscosities were used for each of first, second and third material. Further, Applicant’s comparison between Condition 1 and Condition 2 is real world data vs simulated data. Since the method of testing for each condition is different (physical vs simulation), the comparison of successful vs failure for each condition cannot be compared as the method of testing is different.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744