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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein an end of the support unit on a second surface side is arranged so as to be flush with the first opening. It is unclear if “a second surface side” is the same as “a second surface” recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, these are interpreted to be the same second surface. It’s noted that Applicant’s amendment appears to be an attempt to overcome a potential antecedent basis issue since there is no mention of a “side”. However, this is inherent as a second surface of the substrate would necessarily have a second surface side.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 2019/0232328, hereinafter Hatanaka) in view of Doi et al. (JPH0857396, hereinafter Doi, English machine translation relied on for citation as provided in the IDS of 7/26/2024).
Per independent claim 1:
Hatanaka discloses a double-sided coating apparatus (see title and abstract) comprising:
a conveying mechanism that continuously conveys a long substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig. 11);
a first die that applies a first coating material to the first surface (Fig. 11, die 2);
a second die that is located downstream of the first die in the conveyance direction of the substrate and that applies a second coating material to the second surface (Fig. 11, die 1); and
the second die has a first space communicating with the first opening (see space below first opening, Fig. 3A),
the second coating material flows into the first space, and the first opening forms a discharge port for the second coating material (see space below first opening and a second material flows into the first space through discharge port).
Hatanaka does not disclose a support unit that is located downstream of the first die in the conveyance direction and that supports the substrate at a target coating height at which the second surface is separated from the second die by a predetermined amount through gas transfer that includes at least one of discharge of gas to the second surface and suction of gas interposed between the support unit and the second surface wherein the second die has a second opening that opens toward the second surface and a second space communicating with the second opening such that the support unit is arranged in the second space and the second opening forms a transfer port that performs at least one of the discharge of gas and the suction of gas. However, Hatanaka discloses that it is desirable to achieve uniform thickness in the coating ([0086])
Analogous in the field of die coating, Doi discloses a die coater (see title and abstract) in which a coating discharge outlet 3 is flanked by two gas outlets 6 which are connected to two gas headers 5 (see Figure 3, the outlets and the gas headers together are considered to be the support unit). The upstream gas header 5 is connected to a suction unit and the downstream gas header 5 is connected to gas supply means ([0007]). This configuration allows a pressure profile which applies uniform pressure such that a predetermined film thickness can be stably obtained and even a low-viscosity coating material is prevented from scattering ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant application to have substituted dies (die 1 and die 2) of Hatanaka with the die of Doi with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so because this is substituting one known die coater with another known die coater in order to achieve the advantage of a uniform film coating through the use of gas ports as taught by Doi which is desired by Hatanaka.
The combination of Hatanaka/Doi sets forth a die structure as claimed and as disclosed in the specification (see instant Fig. 4). It’s noted that the limitation of “supports the substrate at a target coating height at which the second surface if separated from the second die by a predetermined amount through a gas transfer…” is an intended use of the claimed die structure. Since Hatanaka/Doi disclose a second die with a first material discharge opening and two gas flanking openings that discharge gas and apply suction, it is fully capable of carrying out the intended use.
It’s further noted that the limitation of “the support unit continues to transfer gas to the second surface while the second coating material is being applied to the second surface” is an intended use of the claimed structure. Since Hatanaka/Doi disclose all the structural features of the claimed apparatus, it is fully capable of carrying out the aforementioned intended use.
Per claim 2, Hatanaka/Doi discloses that the second die has two second openings (gas outlets 6) that are arranged so as to sandwich the first opening (coating discharge outlet 3) in the conveyance direction, and the support unit transports gas through each of the second opening.
Per claim 3, the two gas headers of Hatanaka/Doi are in two separate regions. The amount of gas that is transferred is an intended use limitation. Since Hatanaka/Doi disclose the same gas supply structure, it is fully capable of altering the amount of gas that is supplied to each gas header 5.
Per claim 4, Hatanaka/Doi disclose the regions are aligned in the width direction of the substrate. It should be further noted that the alignment of the direction of the die coater with the direction of the substrate is an intended use limitation. This does not impart any structural difference between the claimed coating die/conveying mechanism and that of the prior art.
Per claim 5, Hatanaka/Doi discloses that the end of the support unit (the gas outlet 6 of Doi) is flush with the material discharge outlet 3 (see Fig. 3).
Per claim 6, the instant limitations are directed to intended use of the apparatus and article worked upon by the apparatus. Since Hatanaka/Doi disclose the same apparatus as instantly claimed, it is fully capable of carrying out the claimed intended use. Nonetheless, Hatanaka discloses that the coating die is used to manufacture a battery electrode (see [0001]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the newly amended limitation of “the support unit continues to transfer gas to the second surface while the second coating material is being applied to the second surface”. Specifically, the timing of ejection of compressed gas by base material height changing device 8 in Hatanaka is limited to a specific period from termination of the supply of the coating liquid to restarting the supply. Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and therefore the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2114, II). Since Applicant’s argument relies on the manner in which Hatanaka’s device is operated, it is not considered persuasive. Applicant has failed to show why the claimed structure of Hatanaka/Doi fail to meet the claimed intended use limitation. As explained in the rejection above, Hatanaka/Doi’s apparatus is fully capable of meeting the newly amended limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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