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 .
1. This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/255,075 filed on 05/30/2023 with a foreign priority date of 01/20/2021. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
2. Claims 1-6 are 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 1 recites, “a long substrate”. The term “long” is a relative and a subjective term. The specification does not have a clear definition or a specific length, or boundary of how big/long a substrate is in the context of the claim.
Claim 2 recites, “the discharge port”. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “discharge port” as found from the specification for consistency and clarity.
Claims 3-6 are depended on claim 1.
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.
3. Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao et al. (JP2014065000A) in view of Hira et al. (JP2020028842A).
Regarding Claim 1: Masao et al. disclose a double sided coating device (10) to coat a substrate comprising a conveying mechanism (80) 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 conveying 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]
Masao et al. do not teach a support unit fixed to the outer surface of a second die and the support unit facing a second surface of substrate.
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. 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]. 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.
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 described 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 says 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).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Masao et al. and Hira et al., as described in paragraph 4 above, 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.
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_image1.png
671
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 M-F, 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