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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the final Office Action dated April 29, 2026 was submitted with the request for continued examination on July 29, 2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 15 and 16 were added. Claims 3, 4, 9, 13 and 14 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 15 and 16 are currently pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 10-12 over Kim in view of Umehara and Kimura (¶¶ 9-22 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 10-12 over Kim in view of Umehara and Fujiwara (¶¶ 23-34 of the Office Action) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and these rejections have therefore been maintained as detailed below. The limitations added to claim 1 and new claims 15 and 16 have also been addressed below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Umehara and Fujiwara et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2010-51845 A, cited in IDS submitted June 9, 2023, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a die coater shim for simultaneously applying an electrode slurry and an insulating coating liquid on a current collector (FIGS. 3 and 5, Abstract of Kim, simultaneous coating slot die including shim plate #50), the die coater shim comprising: a base configured to extend in a width direction (FIGS. 3 or 5 of Kim, rear section of shim #50 extending in the width direction); first and second guides disposed on each end of the base in the width direction, wherein the first and second guides configured to protrude and extend from the base in a direction orthogonal to the width direction and terminate at a respective protruding edge (FIGS. 3 or 5 of Kim, forward sections of shim #50 projecting orthogonally from base portion and forming discharge flow paths #51 therebetween); a first electrode slurry slit extending between an inner corner of the protruding edge of the first guide and an inner corner of the protruding edge of the second guide in the width direction, the first electrode slurry slit disposed between the first and second guides in the width direction (FIGS. 3 or 5 of Kim, discharge flow path #51 disposed between inside corners of forward sections of shim #50 projecting orthogonally from base portion); and first and second insulating coating liquid slits including a groove formed on a surface of each of the first and second guides disposed on a second surface of the base, wherein one end of each of the grooves forms an insulating coating liquid discharge path, the insulating coating liquid discharge paths terminating at a respective outlet configured to discharge the insulating liquid therefrom (FIGS. 3 and 5 of Kim, discharge passages #53b which terminate at an outlet).
Kim does not specifically disclose each of the outlets being positioned along the protruding edge of the respective first and second guides and spaced apart in the width direction from the inner corner of the respective first and second guides. Moreover, in Kim the outlets are positioned adjacent the inside corners of the shim (FIG. 5 of Kim). Umehara, however, discloses a shim for a die coater for simultaneously depositing and electrode material and an insulating material (FIG. 11 of Umehara, shim #83I) comprising insulating material discharge passages (FIG. 11, insulator paste discharge slots #83S2) having outlets spaced from the inside corners of the outer guides forming the discharge slot #83S1 for the electrode material (FIG. 11 of Umehara, spacing #DD). According to Umehara, if the spacing is too small, the insulator material may override the electrode material layer ([0185] of Umehara). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the outlets from the inner corner of the respective first and second guides in the die coater shim of Kim. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent the discharged insulator material from overriding the electrode material layer as taught by Umehara ([0185] of Umehara).
Kim also does not specifically disclose that the first electrode slurry slit including a first step portion, wherein a thickness of the first step portion is smaller than a thickness of the base, wherein the thickness of the first step portion forms a first stepped space relative to a first surface of the base, wherein the first stepped space forms an electrode slurry discharge path. Fujiwara, however, discloses a spacer or shim for depositing a liquid using a slot-die coating method wherein the shim has a stepped region forming a discharge path for the liquid (FIGS. 1-2 of Fujiwara). According to Fujiwara, the stepped region allows for control of the pressure in the manifold to control liquid leakage, to prevent air from remaining in the manifold and to prevent deformation of the coater ([0020] of Fujiwara). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a stepped region in the shim plate of Kim. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to control of the pressure in the manifold to control liquid leakage, to prevent air from remaining in the manifold and to prevent deformation of the coater as taught by Fujiwara ([0020] of Fujiwara).
Regarding the limitation that the first and second insulating coating liquid slits are disposed on a second surface of the base disposed opposite the first surface on which the step portion is formed, Kim discloses forming the insulating coating slits on the surface of the shim opposite the slurry supply (FIG. 3 of Kim) and Fujiwara discloses supplying the slurry to the die coater from the surface facing the stepped portion of the shim (FIGS. 2a and 3a of Fujiwara). The combination of Kim and Fujiwara therefore suggest disposing the insulating coating liquid slits on the surface of the shim opposite the stepped portion.
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwara discloses that the step portion extends to a partial area in the width direction between the first and second guides, wherein the first and second guides protrude and extend from the partial area in the direction orthogonal to the width direction (FIGS. 1-2 of Fujiwara, portion of shim 5 extends in a width direction between portion of shim 4 extending from base).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the die coater shim further comprising: a third guide positioned between the first and second guides, wherein the third guide protrudes and extends from the base in the direction orthogonal to the width direction (FIG. 3 of Kim, central projection of shim plate #50); and third and fourth insulating coating liquid slits including a pair of grooves formed on a surface of the third guide, wherein one end of each of the pair of grooves forms an insulating coating liquid discharge path (FIG. 3 of Kim, double passage portion #55), and Fujiwara suggests that the step portion includes a first step portion and a second step portion, wherein the first step portion is disposed between the first and third guides and the second step portion is disposed between the third and second guides, wherein the electrode slurry slit includes the first electrode slurry slit and a second electrode slurry slit, wherein the second electrode slurry slit includes a second step portion, wherein a second thickness of the second step portion is smaller than the thickness of the base, wherein the thickness the second step portion forms a second stepped space relative to the first surface of the base, wherein the second stepped space forms a second electrode slurry discharge path. Moreover, as set forth above, Fujiwara provides motivation to form a stepped region in the shim plate of Kim (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses that an outlet of the third insulating coating liquid slit faces the first guide and an outlet of the fourth insulating coating liquid faces the second guide (FIGS. 3 and 5 of Kim, discharge passages #55).
Regarding claim 7, Kim and Fujiwara suggest that a width of each of the first and second step portions are equal (FIG. 3 and 5b of Kim, discharge flow paths #51 are of equal width; FIGS. 1-2 of Fujiwara, step extends across width of flow path).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses a die coater (FIG. 3 of Kim, coating slot die) comprising: an upper block having an insulating coating liquid inlet (FIG. 3 of Kim, upper die #10 having insulating coating solution passages #11); a lower block coupled to the upper block (FIG. 3 of Kim, lower die #20; FIG. 2, [0039] of Kim, upper and lower dies #10 #20 coupled together via fastening means #70), wherein the lower block includes a manifold configured to accommodate an electrode slurry (FIG. 3 of Kim, dam part #21 of lower die #20); and a die coater shim interposed between the upper block and the lower block so as to form a slit (FIG. 3 of Kim, shim plate #50 having discharge passages #51 which form slits in the assembled die coater), wherein the die coater is configured to simultaneously discharge an insulating coating liquid and the electrode slurry through the slit (FIG. 3, [0028] of Kim, insulating coating solution discharged through flow passages #53 #55 in shim plate #50). As set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kim, Umehara and Fujiwara suggest a die coater shim according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Fujiwara discloses that the step portion extends to a partial area in the width direction between the first and second guides, wherein the first and second guides protrude and extend from the partial area in the direction orthogonal to the width direction (FIG. 1 of Fujiwara, step portion of shim #5 covers partial area in width direction between projections of shim #4).
Regarding claim 11, Fujiwara discloses that: a boundary between the base and the step portion coincides with a rear end of the manifold provided in the lower block, wherein the rear end of the manifold is disposed adjacent to the base of the die coater (Abstract, FIGS. 1-2 of Fujiwara, stacked shim formed by first and second shims #4 #5; FIG. 2a of Fujiwara, rear end of manifold #22 adjacent base or rear portion of shim #4); and an end portion of the step portion coincides with a front end of the manifold or protrudes from the front end of the manifold, wherein the front end of the manifold is disposed further away from the base of the die coater than the rear end of the manifold (FIG. 2a of Fujiwara, end portion of step formed by shim #5 protrudes from the front end of manifold).
Regarding claim 12, Fujiwara does not specifically disclose that the end portion of the step portion protrudes 10 mm or less from the front end of the manifold. Fujiwara, however, discloses that the distance that the end portion of the step extends from the front of the manifold (FIG. 1b, distance #L1) can be adjusted to prevent liquid leakage and to prevent air from remaining in the manifold ([0023] of Fujiwara). Fujiwara therefore establishes that the distance #L1 is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., to prevent liquid leakage and to prevent air from remaining in the manifold) ([0023] of Fujiwara). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance #L1 in the modified method, including providing a distance L1 as recited in claim 12. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses that the insulating coating liquid discharge path is defined by each groove of the first and second insulating coating liquid slits and a bottom surface of the upper block (FIG. 3 of Kim).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Umehara and Fujiwara as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kimura et al. (International Patent Publication No. WO 2013/137385 A1, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below).
Regarding claim 15, Kim does not specifically disclose that the die coater shim is monolithic. Kimura, however, discloses a monolithic spacer or shim for depositing an electrode slurry having stepped regions adjacent the edges of the discharge paths (FIG. 7, [0025] of Kimura). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified die coater shim as a monolithic shim since Kimura establishes that it was known to do so. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that neither Kimura nor Fujiwara suggests a positional relationship between the step portion and the insulated coating slits (pg. 6, 3rd full ¶ of the amendment). Kim, however, discloses forming the insulating coating slits on the surface of the shim opposite the slurry supply (FIG. 3 of Kim) and Fujiwara discloses supplying the slurry to the die coater from the surface facing the stepped portion of the shim (FIGS. 2a and 3a of Fujiwara). The combination of Kim and Fujiwara therefore suggest disposing the insulating coating liquid slits on the surface of the shim opposite the stepped portion.
The applicant also asserts that Fujiwara teaches a two-layer shim structure and that the proposed modification of Kim with Fujiwara not result in the claimed structure or would be rendered inoperative (pg. 6, 4th full ¶ of the amendment). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights