DETAILED ACTION
1. The Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/14/2026 was received. Claims 1-5 were amended.
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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. Claims 1-6 were 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.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections are withdrawn as claims 1, 2 were amended to fix the antecedent basis problems and clarify the concept of claimed combinations.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections of 4-6 are withdrawn as they were dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claims 1-4, and 6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao et al. (JP2014065000A) in view of Hira et al. (JP2020028842A). The rejections are restated below to address the amendment.
Regarding Claim 1: Masao et al. disclose a double sided coating device (10) to coat a substrate comprising a transport mechanism (80) (conveying mechanism) that continuously conveys the substrate (5) by winding up the substrate fed from a first roller with a second roller; a front side coating nozzle (20) (first die) that ejects coating liquid (coating material) onto a first side (first surface) of the substrate conveyed by the transport mechanism; a backup roller that is arranged opposite the front side coating nozzle across the substrate and supports the second side (second surface) of the substrate; a back side coating nozzle (30) (second die) that is arranged downstream of the front side coating nozzle along the conveying direction of the substrate and ejects coating liquid onto the second side of the substrate; and a non-contact support/precision plate (50)(support unit) unit that is arranged opposite the back side coating nozzle across the substrate and has a plurality of ejection holes (51) that eject gas toward the first side of the substrate and a plurality of suction holes (52) that suck gas from the substrate side, thereby supports the substrate in a non-contact manner. [para 13]. The coating device also comprises a measurement step of measuring a distance between the second nozzle and the substrate, and adjusts the amount of gas suctioned in the second coating step while maintaining a reasonable height of the substrate from the back side coating nozzle [para 15-18]. The transport mechanism 80 comprised of a roller 81 (roll) located upstream of coating nozzle 30 (second die) that conveys a substrate on a peripheral surface and in a direction that corresponds to the claimed “conveyance direction” [fig 1]. Additionally, auxiliary roller 83 (retracting unit) is placed between coating nozzle 30 and roller 81 in a direction that corresponds to the claimed “conveyance direction” [fig 1]. Auxiliary roller 83 collects the substrate from roller 81 and passes the substrate to be coated by nozzle 30 at a height.
Masao et al. do not teach a support unit fixed to the outer surface of a second die, the support unit facing a second surface of substrate, and “wherein a feeding height, at which the substrate is separated from the peripheral surface of the roll, is higher than the target coating height, such that the substrate is fed from the roll toward a downstream side at a position higher than the target coating height.”
However, Hira et al. disclose a coating equipment that is comprised of a slidable coating stabilizer (support unit) that is fixed to outer surface of a die in fig 2. The coating stabilizer is facing a second surface of the substrate. Additionally, the precision plate by Masao et al. would be able to eject air to and suck air from the second side of the substrate when the precision plate has the same orientation as the coating stabilizer, facing a second surface, like the invention Hira et al. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to attach a slidably coating stabilizer into the back side coating nozzle of Masao et al. because Hira et al. teach that having a stabilizing plate eliminates a vertical pulling force caused by the surface tension of the coating liquid and helps to coat a web neatly. [para 0054].
Furthermore, Hira et al. also disclose that the substrate is tilted for undercoating and the height when substrate is separated from feed roller (feeding height) is higher than the height during coating (coating height) as shown in the annotated diagram below [para 50; fig 2]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tilted substrate configuration into the double-sided coating device of Masao et al. because Hira teaches that it improves the coating thickness accuracy [para 50].
PNG
media_image1.png
488
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Masao et al. disclose a double-sided coating device (10) to coat a substrate comprising a precision plate (50).
Hira et al. disclose a coating equipment that is comprised of a slidable coating stabilizer (support unit) that is fixed to outer surface of a die in fig 2. The coating stabilizer is facing a second surface of the substrate.
However, Masao et al. and Hira et al. do not teach a support unit transfers gas on both the upstream side and the downstream side of the discharge port
The precision plate disclosed by Masao et al. has the same function as recited in the claim- transfer gas (ejection and suction). The combination of Masao et al. and Hira et al. teach a structure where the precision plate is attached on the left side (upstream) of a coating nozzle and would transfer gas on the left side of the substrate in conveyance direction in regards to the back-side coating nozzle of Masao et al. Since the claims recites that the support unit transfers gas on both upstream and downstream side of the discharge port and the function of the support unit is to transfer gas, an additional precision plate can be added to the right side (downstream) of the coating nozzle/back-side coating nozzle to transfer gas on the downstream side of the back-side coating nozzle and would be obvious. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a precision plate on both left (upstream) and right (downstream) side of the second nozzle, since duplicating a known structural element to achieve symmetry, balance or uniform operation represents a predictable variation. [para 16, 0069; Masao et al]. The duplication/making an integral of a known element is considered an obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding Claim 3: Masao et al. teach that the precision plate (50) has plurality of regions as depicted in Fig 4 and 7. The precision plate has suction holes (52) (region) and ejection holes (51) (region). The holes (regions) are different from each other as suction hole sucks air from the substrate region and ejection holes blows air to the substrate. [para 0042, 0069].
Regarding Claim 4: Masao et al. disclose in figure 2 and 3 that the precision plate is aligned in a direction (width direction) where substrate is facing the precision plate.
Regarding Claim 6: Masao et al. teach that the substrate is a metal foil and functions as a current collector. The coating liquids are electrode material slurries. [para 26 34, 35].
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao et al. (JP2014065000A) and Hira et al. (JP2020028842A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mori et al. (JP2013107053A). The rejection is maintained and re-stated below.
Regarding Claim 5: The apparatus of the combination of Masao et al. and Hira et al., as described above in claim 1, do not teach the end of the support unit on the second surface side is arranged so as to be flush with the discharge port for the second coating material.
However, Mori et al. teach a double-sided coating apparatus which is comprised of a guide member (16), similar structure as precision plate. In figure 3 it is shown that the guide member is arranged as to be flush (in a same plane) with discharge port (26) as shown below. [para 24-27].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a guide member in flush with discharge port into the combination of Masao et al. and Hira et al. because Mori et al. teach that guide member helps web/substrate guide in a stable way as shown in the annotated figure below. [para 0012]
PNG
media_image2.png
787
1098
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references, taken individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the features of amended independent claim 1, which is directed to a conveying mechanism.
In response:
The combination of Masao et al. and Hira et al. disclose a similar conveying mechanism which is stated in the claim 1 rejection above. As indicated in the rejection above Masao et al. teach the limitations directed to claimed roll and the substrate, and the retracting unit. Hira et al. teach the claimed feeding height being higher than the claimed coating height. Hira et al. teach the height arrangement improves the coating thickness accuracy and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized to modify the apparatus of Masao et al. to have the same arrangement.
Conclusion
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 Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/WASIQUL HAQ/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights