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 .
Drawings
Figs. 1 and 23 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pressing element” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 12 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.
The term “a first distance between central ones of the reinforcements disposed nearest to the center is larger than a second distance between other ones of the reinforcements” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “distance between central ones” and “distance between other ones” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how the distance is measured i.e. gap between, from central portion to central portion, etc. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2019107606 A to Sasano et al (hereinafter Sasano).
Regarding claim 1, Sasano teaches a dual slot die coater (14) having a first slot and a second slot to deliver a coating solution opposite to gravity, the dual slot die coater comprising: a first die block (22) vertically installed and integrally formed with a base (20) at a rear end of an upper surface of the base; a second die block (24) positioned in contact with the base and alongside the upper surface of the first die block to form the first slot (120) between the second die block and the first die block; and a third die block (26) positioned in contact with the base and alongside the second die block to form the second slot (124) between the third die block(26) and the second die block (24). (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 2, Sasano teaches a lower surface of the second die block (24) and a lower surface of the third die block (26) are in contact with a top surface of the base (20) such that the top surface is completely covered. (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 3, Sasano teaches a lower surface of the second die block and a lower surface of the third die block are in intermittent contact with the base. (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 4, Sasano teaches a pressing element (56) is connected to a bottom of the base. (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 6, Sasano teaches dual slot die coater according to claim 1, further comprising: a first shim (70) between the first die block (22) and the second die block (24) to form the first slot and a second shim (80) between the second die block (24) and the third die block to form the second slot, wherein the first shim (portion of 70 which includes recess adjacent 32 in Fig. 5 ) and the second shim (80) have an open portion (portion of 80 which includes recess adjacent 62 in Fig. 5) which is at least disposed at a central area (32, 62 in Fig. 5) in the first (70) and second shims (80). (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 13, Sasano teaches the first die block (22) includes a first manifold (36) which accommodates a first coating solution and is in communication with the first slot (120) , and the third die block (26) includes a second manifold (66) which accommodates a second coating solution and is in communication with the second slot (124). (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 14, Sasano teaches a first bolt (42) is vertically installed into a first contact surface between the base (20) and the second die block (24) , and a second bolt (58) is vertically installed into a second contact surface between the base (20) and the third die block (26). (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 15, Sasano teaches the first slot (120) is perpendicular to the base (20). (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 16, Sasano teaches the second die block (24) has a right triangular cross section. (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 17, Sasano teaches the first die block, the second die block, and the third die block include a first die lip (area of 34 laterally between F and E in Fig. 6) , a second die lip(area of 40 laterally between D and C), and a third die lip (area of 64 laterally between A and B in Fig. 6) which form front ends (ends of 34, 40, 64 directly across from 12) , respectively, and the first die lip, the second die lip, and the third die lip are disposed on a straight line. (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2019107606 A to Sasano et al (hereinafter Sasano) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240286337 A1 to Colell et al (hereinafter Colell).
Regarding claim 5, Sasano teaches the pressing element is a servomotor.
Colell is directed to slot nozzle regulation system.
Colell teaches a servomotor is a known mechanism for adjusting the position of slot die nozzles. (See Colell, Abstract, paragraph 14, Abstract, and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressing element is a servomotor, because Colell teaches this is an art recognized equivalent structure for adjusting the position of the slot die nozzles. (See Colell, Abstract, paragraphs 12, 14-15, 17, 26, 28, 30, 34, 40, 43, 49-52, 64-65, 67, 71, 75-77, 81, 85, 89, 91, Abstract, and Figs. 1-4.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 7-8, 10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2019107606 A to Sasano et al (hereinafter Sasano) as applied to claim 17 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070092655 A1 to Tokimasa et al (hereinafter Tokimasa).
Regarding claim 7, Sasano does not explicitly teach wherein reinforcements are disposed on a lower surface of the second die block for intermittent contact with the base and a bending space is disposed between the reinforcements.
Tokimasa is directed to an apparatus for applying a coating solution using a die.
Tokimasa teaches reinforcements (thickness gage 86) are disposed on a lower surface of the second die block for intermittent contact with the base to vary the positional relations between the lips.
Tokimasa teaches a bending space (space between thickness gage 86) is disposed between the reinforcements. (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 52, 59, 61, 88, 90-91, 96, 116, 147, 162, 175-176, 179-180, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify reinforcements are disposed on a lower surface of the second die block for intermittent contact with the base and a bending space is disposed between the reinforcements, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper thickness for the optimal overbite for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal overbite length based on the viscosity of the coating solution, the coating velocity, the thickness of the coating, and other factors. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraph 14 and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 8, Sasano does not explicitly teach reinforcements are disposed on a lower surface of the third die block for intermittent contact with the base, and a bending space is disposed between the reinforcements.
Tokimasa teaches reinforcements (thickness gage 86) are disposed on a lower surface of the die block for intermittent contact with the base to vary the positional relations between the lips. (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 14, 52, 59, 61, 88, 90-91, 96, 116, 147, 162, 175-176, 179-180, and Fig. 2.)
Tokimasa teaches a bending space (space between thickness gage 86) is disposed between the reinforcements. (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 14, 52, 59, 61, 88, 90-91, 96, 116, 147, 162, 175-176, 179-180, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify reinforcements are disposed on a lower surface of the third die block for intermittent contact with the base, and a bending space is disposed between the reinforcements, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper thickness for the optimal overbite for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal overbite length based on the viscosity of the coating solution, the coating velocity, the thickness of the coating, and other factors. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraph 14 and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 10, Sasano does not explicitly teach the reinforcements are disposed in a lengthwise direction of the dual slot die coater.
Tokimasa teaches reinforcements (thickness gage 86) are disposed on a lower surface of the second die block for intermittent contact with the base to vary the positional relations between the lips. (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 14, 52, 59, 61, 88, 90-91, 96, 116, 147, 162, 175-176, 179-180, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the reinforcements are disposed in a lengthwise direction of the dual slot die coater, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper thickness for the optimal overbite for the coating material in a lengthwise direction along the length of the slot nozzle, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the desired positional relations between the lips along the entire length of the slit nozzles. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraph 14 and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 18, Sasano does not explicitly teach the third die lip is wider than the first die lip and the second die lip.
Tokimasa teaches the width of the lip of the die (overbite length) may be adjusted to accommodate for the viscosity of the coating solution, the coating velocity, the thickness of the coating, and other factors. (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraph 14 and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the third die lip to be wider than the first die lip and the second die lip, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper material for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal overbite length based on the viscosity of the coating solution, the coating velocity, the thickness of the coating, and other factors. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraph 14 and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 19, Sasano teaches a second exit port (126) in communication with the second slot is between the third die lip and the second die lip, and a first exit port (122) in communication with the first slot is between the second die lip and the first die lip, the second coating solution being delivered onto a substrate through the second exit port, wherein the first exit port is spaced apart from the second exit port on a downstream side of a coating direction, and a first coating solution is delivered onto the substrate through the first exit port (122). (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 20, Sasano does not explicitly teach reinforcements are disposed on a lower surface of the third die block for intermittent contact with the base, and a bending space is disposed between the reinforcements.
Tokimasa teaches reinforcements (thickness gage 86) are disposed on a lower surface of the die block for intermittent contact with the base to vary the positional relations between the lips. (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 14, 52, 59, 61, 88, 90-91, 96, 116, 147, 162, 175-176, 179-180, and Fig. 2.)
Tokimasa teaches a bending space (space between thickness gage 86) is disposed between the reinforcements. (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 14, 52, 59, 61, 88, 90-91, 96, 116, 147, 162, 175-176, 179-180, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify reinforcements are disposed on a lower surface of the third die block for intermittent contact with the base, and a bending space is disposed between the reinforcements, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper thickness for the optimal overbite for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal overbite length based on the viscosity of the coating solution, the coating velocity, the thickness of the coating, and other factors. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Tokimasa, Abstract, paragraph 14 and Fig. 2.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2019107606 A to Sasano et al (hereinafter Sasano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070092655 A1 to Tokimasa et al (hereinafter Tokimasa) as applied to claim 8 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190118215 A1 to Yamane et al (hereinafter Yamane) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240286337 A1 to Colell et al (hereinafter Colell) .
Regarding claim 9, Sasano does not explicitly teach a servomotor is connected to a center of a bottom of the base and configured to deform the bending space.
Yamane is directed to slot nozzle coating system.
Yamane teaches a motor (56) is connected to a center of a bottom of the base (58) and configured to bend a portion (16, 18) of the slot nozzle die. (See Yamane, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 11-12, 14, 25-26, and 33-37, Abstract, and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motor is connected to a center of a bottom of the base and configured to deform the bending space, because Yamane teaches this configuration would allow the slot nozzle to be bent in the area in which the largest coating pressure is applied. (See Yamane, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 11-12, 14, 25-26, and 33-37, Abstract, and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 9, Sasano does not explicitly teach a servomotor is connected to a center of a bottom of the base.
Colell teaches a servomotor is a known type of motor for adjusting the position of slot die nozzles. (See Colell, Abstract, paragraph 14, Abstract, and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a servomotor is connected to a center of a bottom of the base, because Colell teaches this is an art recognized equivalent structure for adjusting the position of the slot die nozzles. (See Colell, Abstract, paragraphs 12, 14-15, 17, 26, 28, 30, 34, 40, 43, 49-52, 64-65, 67, 71, 75-77, 81, 85, 89, 91, Abstract, and Figs. 1-4.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2019107606 A to Sasano et al (hereinafter Sasano) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070092655 A1 to Tokimasa et al (hereinafter Tokimasa) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080274223 A1 to Peter Cloeren (hereinafter Cloeren).
Regarding claim 11, Sasano does not explicitly teach the reinforcements are symmetrical with respect to a center of the dual slot die coater in the lengthwise direction.
Cloeren is directed a slot die having a flow passageway.
Cloeren teaches the reinforcements (68) are symmetrical with respect to a center of the slot die coater in the lengthwise direction for Z-axis positioning of die body. (See Cloeren, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and 9; paragraphs 64-69, 71-83, 87-91.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the reinforcements symmetrical with respect to a center of the dual slot die coater in the lengthwise direction, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location of the shims, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the desired z-axis positioning. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Cloeren, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and 9; paragraphs 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, 18-23, 25, 29-38, 46-47, 49, 53, 64-69, 71-83, 87-91.)
Regarding claim 12, Sasano does not explicitly teach a first distance between central ones of the reinforcements disposed nearest to the center is larger than a second distance between other ones of the reinforcements.
Cloeren teaches the reinforcements (68) are symmetrical with respect to a center of the slot die coater in the lengthwise direction for Z-axis positioning of die body. (See Cloeren, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and 9; paragraphs 64-69, 71-83, 87-91.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a first distance between central ones of the reinforcements disposed nearest to the center is larger than a second distance between other ones of the reinforcements, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location of the shims, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the desired z-axis positioning of the slot die. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Cloeren, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and 9; paragraphs 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, 18-23, 25, 29-38, 46-47, 49, 53, 64-69, 71-83, 87-91.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 515, 235 to Lee (hereinafter Lee) in view of JP-2019107606 A to Sasano et al (hereinafter Sasano).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Lee recites a dual slot die coater having a first slot and a second slot to deliver a coating solution opposite to gravity (a dual slot die coater having a first slot and a second slot to deliver a coating solution opposite to gravity), the dual slot die coater comprising: a first die block vertically installed (the dual slot die coater comprising: a first die block vertically installed) and integrally formed with a base (20) at a rear end of an upper surface of the base; a second die block positioned in contact with the base and alongside the upper surface of the first die block to form the first slot between the second die block and the first die block (a second die block arranged on the front surface of the second die block to form the first slot between the second die block and the first die block); and a third die block positioned in contact with the base and alongside the second die block to form the second slot between the third die block and the second die block ( a third die block arranged on the front surface of the second die block to form the second slot between the third die block and the second die block ) . (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Lee does not explicitly teach the dual slot die coater comprising: a first die block vertically installed and integrally formed with a base at a rear end of an upper surface of the base.
Sasane teaches the dual slot die coater comprising: a first die block vertically installed and integrally formed with a base at a rear end of an upper surface of the base. (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dual slot die coater comprising: a first die block vertically installed and integrally formed with a base at a rear end of an upper surface of the base, because Sasano teaches this configuration would allow the slot nozzle to be used to coat a web. (See Sasano, Abstract, Fig. 5, Machine Translation; page 2, paragraphs 5-8; page 3, paragraphs 3-7; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, 6-9; page 5, paragraphs 6-7.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717