DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on April 28, 2026, claims 1, 3 – 5, 9 – 21, 23 – 27, 30 – 34 are pending. Claims 1, 16 have been amended and claims 2, 6 – 8, 22, 28 – 29 have been canceled. Claims 30 – 34 have been added. Claims 13 – 21, 23 – 27 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/392520, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. In particular:
Regarding claim 3:
The prior-filed application does not expressly recite the operating window for the temperature of the coating material. While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. See MPEP 2163.02 and In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. MPEP 2163.02.
The closest recitations of the prior-filed application to the subject matter encapsulated in claim 3 include the recitation found at the bottom of page 3 to page 4, which discusses heating a screw extruder to a pre-determined temperature within its operating temperature window, but gives no express, implicit or inherent support for defining the coating material window to be approximately 10°C. Accordingly, the prior filed application does not provide adequate support for the limitations found in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4:
The closest recitations of the prior-filed application to the subject matter encapsulated in claim 4 include the recitation found at the Example provided from page 5 to page 6, which discusses a hose temperature of particular coating materials being within the claimed range. However, the scope of present claim 4 is much broader than that of the hose heating temperatures that carry any coating material. When there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The particular coating materials refer to polyhydroxyalkanoate and poly(lactic acid), which are biodegradable polymers. But such polymers do not provide sufficient reflection of the variation within the broad genus of “coating material”.
Accordingly, the prior-filed application does not provide adequate support for the limitations found in present claim 4.
Regarding claims 5:
There is no express recitation in the prior-filed application does not expressly recite the act of “heating at least a portion of the connector assembly to maintain the temperature of the coating material in the connector assembly within the operating window” likewise there is a lack of recitations that would provide reasonable inference for such a step. Accordingly, the prior-filed application does not provide adequate support for the limitations found in present claim 5 and claim 6 as dependent on claim 5.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
The lack of support for the limitations in present claims 11 and 12 are based on similar grounds as those for claim 4 as discussed above, mutatis mutandis.
For the purposes of art rejections, the effective filing date of claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 (which include the subject matter of claim 1 by dependency) is July 26, 2023. The effective filing date of the remainder present claims are July 27, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 5, 9 – 12, 30 – 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innes et al. US 6495196 B1 (hereinafter “Innes”) in view of Kim KR 101860086 B1 (hereinafter “Kim”, machine translation provided and referenced alongside original figures), Limback US 3063095 A (hereinafter “Limback”).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 30, 31, 32, 33:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Innes is directed to a process and apparatus for coating a strip article with a coating material (Abstract; col 1 lines 10 – 25). As depicted in Fig. 1 (reproduced below), Innes discloses an apparatus comprising (col 5 line 35 – col 7 line 5):
a coating head 12 (col 5 lines 50 – 67);
a coating slot/elongated extrusion slot [die] 15 as part of the coating head with integral heaters (col 5 lines 45 – 50, col 6 lines 25 – 40);
a rotating backup drum 16 (col 5 lines 50 – 55, col 6 lines 19 – 35);
a high-pressure hose 19 comprising an electrical heating element and wrapped with flexible insulation (col 6 lines 4 – 20); and
a screw extruder 18 having integral heaters 20 to heat the screw extruder materials and a connection nip [connector assembly] that communicates with the high-pressure hose (col 6 lines 4 – 20, Fig. 1 see connection point of hose 19 to overall screw extruder 18).
A moving sheet [material web necessarily being conveyed at a line speed] is arranged such that a portion to be coated is arranged in between the coating head and the rotating backup drum 16 (col 5 lines 45 –65). Innes discloses that their method of using their apparatus comprises:
heating a pelletized plastic coating material within a heated screw extruder to melt the plastic coating material into a heated molten polymer coating material (col 6 lines 4 – 20, col 6 lines 45 – 55, );
feeding the coating head with the heated molten polymer coating material through the heated high-pressure hose, thus moving heated molten coating material (col 6 lines 4 – 20); and
applying [outputting] the heated molten polymer from the coating slot to the moving sheet to coat the moving sheet as the sheet is moving (col 6 lines 19 – 36).
The heated molten polymer coating material is kept at temperatures between their melting point and their decomposition temperatures [operating window] to a (col 10 line 57 – col 11 line 6, col 6 lines 19 – 25); and the high-pressure hose, coating head and screw extruder is heated to arrive at and maintain such temperature [meeting claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 10] (col 6 lines 19 – 25).
Innes does not expressly teach:
that the die outlet has a rotary rod that extends along the die outlet and is disposed between the die outlet and the web of material, a rotary axis of the rotary rod being aligned with and within the internal passageway;
the step of transferring the coating material from the die outlet to the rotary rod, rotating the rotary rod about the rotary axis, and then transferring the coating material from the rotary rod to the web of material;
that a first end of the rotary rod is supported by a turning apparatus comprising a motor and configured to turn the rotary rod at a rotational speed; and
controlling the turning apparatus to adjust the rotational speed relative to the line speed.
With regards to the die outlet having a rotary rod that extends along the die outlet and being disposed between the die outlet and the web of material, a rotary axis of the rotary rod being aligned with and within the internal passageway; and the step of transferring the coating material from the die outlet to the rotary rod, rotating the rotary rod about the rotary axis, and then transferring the coating material from the rotary rod to the web of material:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim is directed to a slot die and method of using slot dies for coating objects ([0001]). Kim discloses a conventional slot die apparatus known in the prior art as Fig. 1, reproduced below:
The conventional apparatus comprises a rotatable coating bar [rotary rod] 18 within the slot die outlet 14 and in line with the coating passage 13 ([0005] – [0011], [0019]). The coating bar is used to help distribute the coating from the die to a substrate [transferring] ([0004] – [0005]) and help deliver a volume of coating liquid transferred according to the gap size of the slot unit ([0012]). In Figs. 3 and 4 Kim discloses an improvement to the conventional apparatus, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown and mirrored, Kim’s embodiment comprises a rotatable coating bar [rotary rod] 150 in line with slot 125 and positioned at the end of the die [die outlet] ([0030] – [0043]). During operation, the coating bar 150 is in contact with a web of material while the coating bar rotates, transferring coating material from the slot 125 to the web of material ([0042], [0046]). The arrangement allows for improved control of the coating thickness on the web ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Innes by including a rotary rod within the coating die of Innes aligned with and within the internal passageway; and to include a step of transferring the coating material from the die outlet to the rotary rod, rotating the rotary rod about the rotary axis, and then transferring the coating material from the rotary rod to the web of material; because Kim teaches that the inclusion of rotary rods for such a transfer allows for improved control of the coating thickness dispensed onto a web of material.
With regards to the first end of the rotary rod being supported by a turning apparatus comprising a motor and configured to turn the rotary rod at a rotational speed:
Limback is directed to an extrusion die for distributing plastic material (Col 1 lines 10 – 15). Limback discloses that their apparatus comprises a conveyor screw 18 disposed between a feed-inlet 12 and an outlet entrance 16 (col 3 lines 45 – 61; Fig. 1) and also operatively connected to a variable speed drive [motor] that can variable control the radial speed of the conveyor screw (col 4 line 3 –11). Limback discloses that the speed of the conveyor screw can be adjusted [controlled] to compensate for any change in operating conditions, especially for the goal of forming uniform films (col 4 lines 3 – 11 , col 1 lines 10 – 15). Furthermore, the conveyor screw acts to help prevent material from stagnating within the extrusion die, particularly stagnation in feed-in points (col 2 lines 10 – 30).
The Examiner also notes Kim discloses that the rotary rod may be connected to a motor as a drive means ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Innes in view of Kim by outputting the coating material from the slot die through the die outlet, wherein the rotary rod within the die outlet has a first end supported by a turning apparatus comprising a motor and configured to turn the rotary rod at a rotational speed, and also controlling the turning apparatus to adjust the rotational speed relative to a line speed because Limback teaches that the use of rotary rods/screws aid in conveying material to prevent material stagnation, and that the speed of rotation is adjustable in order to compensate for any differences in operating conditions that may occur or be desired to occur.
As Limback also teaches that a fixed variable drive may be used instead if all other operating variables are fixed (col 4 lines 1 – 15), one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that line speed is one such operating variable, and that changes to the rotational speed of the rotary rod would be expected to be relative to line speed, including optimizations where rotary rod speed is different from line speed and appropriate reductions or increases in speed [meeting claims 30, 31].
Regarding claim 3:
Innes in view of Kim does not expressly teach that the operating window for the temperature of the coating material is approximately 10°C, i.e. that the operating window has a first temperature endpoint and a second temperature endpoint of approximately 10°C.
However, Innes discloses a desire to control the viscosity of the applied heated molten polymer coating material so as to render the viscosity e.g. uniform (col 5 lines 45 – 55, col 6 lines 20 – 25, col 10 lines 55 – 67); and that the temperature of the heated molten polymer coating material influences the viscosity of such a coating material (col 6 lines 19 – 30, col 7 lines 45 – 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating window for the coating process of Innes in view of Kim within the bounded range of 10°C as a matter of routine experimentation in order to maintain a desired and uniform viscosity of the heated molten polymer coating material during coating of the sheet. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 12:
Innes does not expressly teach that the heating of the heated hose comprises heating the heated hose to a temperature of approximately 185°C to approximately 190°C. Likewise Innes does not expressly teach heating at least a portion of the screw extruder to approximately 200°C and heating the slot die to approximately 185°C.
The discussion of the control of viscosity being dependent on the heating temperature of the process equipment in present claim 3 above also applies to the present rejections of claims 4 and 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Innes in view of Kim to heat the heated hose and slot die to e.g. approximately 185°C and the screw extruder to approximately 200°C as a matter of routine experimentation in order to impart sufficient heat to the plastic coating material particles and resultant heated molten polymer coating material in order to establish and maintain a desired and uniform viscosity of the heated molten polymer coating material during coating of the sheet. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innes, Kim and Limback as applied to claims 1, 3 – 5, 9 – 12, 30 – 33 above, and further in view of Kanke et al. US 7329437 B2 (hereinafter Kanke).
Regarding claim 34:
Innes discloses that the moving sheet is conveyed in a direction A of the backup roller 16 (col 6 lines 35 – 45).
Innes in view of Kim and Limback do not expressly teach wherein conveying the web of material past the die outlet of the slot die comprises drawing the web of material over a roller in a first rotational direction, and comprising turning the rotary rod in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction.
In analogous art, Kanke is directed to a coating apparatus having at least a backward bar for coating webs of material, wherein the backward bar acts as a metering device (Abstract; col 5 lines 1 – 35). In an embodiment (Fig. 4), Kanke discloses a metering bar 202 rotating in a direction opposite a travel direction of a web W, and the web being coated from a slit [slot] liquid feed passage 210 (col 28 line 38 – col 29 line 10). In another embodiment (Fig. 3), the backward-rotating metering bar 46 [opposite travel direction a] may be supplied with a coating composition from both an upstream and downstream feed passage 74 and 76 disposed on each side of the back-ward rotating metering bar 46 (col 25 line 20 – col 26 line 25). The backward-rotating metering bar aids in providing a desired and uniform amount of coating material onto webs (col 5 lines 24 – 60, col 23 lines 1 – 20, col 24 lines 15 – 42, col 26 lines 40 – 60, col 28 line 62 – col 29 line 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Innes in view of Kim and Limback by turning the rotary rod in a second rotational direction opposite the rotational direction of travel of the backup roll [first direction] because Kanke teaches that the backwards motion of such a rotary rod enables a metering function, which allows for control of the resultant thickness of the coating upon the web.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 30, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Limback and Kanke.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lovett US 3419934A
Neuhaus et al. US 3628503 A
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights