DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 03/17/2026 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 for further examination. Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2023, 10/09/2024 & 04/28/2025 being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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-AlA 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: “edge adjusting material providing means” in claims 1, 7-8 & 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dudley (US 2002/0197535 A1) hereinafter Dudley (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Dudley are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “to apply a slurry to a substrate… to dispense an edge adjusting material adjacent to the slurry to adjust a protrusion formed at an end of the slurry by contacting the slurry”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Dudley since Dudley meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of applying a slurry to a substrate and dispensing an edge adjusting material adjacent to the slurry to adjust a protrusion formed at an end of the slurry by contacting the slurry, if so desired and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), comprising:
a slot die coater (41) capable of applying a slurry (2) to a substrate (4) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; fig 1-5); and
an edge adjusting material providing means (slot, see fig 2a-3) capable of dispensing an edge adjusting material (16) adjacent to the slurry (2) to adjust a protrusion formed at an end of the slurry (2) by contacting the slurry (2) ) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; fig 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “wherein the slurry comprises two adjacent slurry portions, and the edge adjusting material is provided between the two adjacent slurry portions”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Dudley since Dudley meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having slurry comprising two adjacent slurry portions, and the edge adjusting material provided between the two adjacent slurry portions, if so desired and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the slurry (2) is capable of comprising two adjacent slurry portions (44, 52), and the edge adjusting material (16) is capable of being provided between (42) the two adjacent slurry portions (44, 52) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0059]; fig 2b).
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “wherein the edge adjusting material is configured to pull confronting ends of the two adjacent slurry portions due to a difference in surface tension between the slurry and the edge adjusting material”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Dudley since Dudley meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the edge adjusting material configured to pull confronting ends of the two adjacent slurry portions due to a difference in surface tension between the slurry and the edge adjusting material, if so desired and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 3, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the edge adjusting material (16) is capable of pulling confronting ends of the two adjacent slurry portions (44, 52) due to a difference in surface tension between the slurry (2) and the edge adjusting material (16) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0059]; [0072]-[0091]; [0094]; [0099]; fig 2b).
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “wherein the edge adjusting material contains a same solvent as the slurry, and the surface tension of the edge adjusting material is greater than the surface tension of the slurry”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Dudley since Dudley meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the edge adjusting material contain a same solvent as the slurry, and the surface tension of the edge adjusting material be greater than the surface tension of the slurry, if so desired and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 4, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the edge adjusting material (16) is capable of containing a same solvent as the slurry (2), and the surface tension of the edge adjusting material (16) is capable of being greater than the surface tension of the slurry (2) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; [0072]-[0091]; [0094]; [0099]; fig 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “wherein the edge adjusting material comprises a binder-based material having an adhesive force within a predetermined range to prevent deintercalation after drying”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Dudley since Dudley meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the edge adjusting material comprising a binder-based material having an adhesive force within a predetermined range to prevent deintercalation after drying, if so desired and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 5, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the edge adjusting material (16) is capable of comprising a binder-based material having an adhesive force within a predetermined range to prevent deintercalation after drying ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; [0072]-[0091]; [0094]; [0099]; fig 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “wherein the edge adjusting material comprises at least one of: polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based, polyolefin-based, polyimide-based, polyurethane-based, polyester-based, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-based, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR)-based, ceramic-based, or silicone-based materials”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Dudley since Dudley meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the edge adjusting material comprise at least one of: polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based, polyolefin-based, polyimide-based, polyurethane-based, polyester-based, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-based, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR)-based, ceramic-based, or silicone-based materials, if so desired and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 6, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the edge adjusting material (16) is capable of comprising at least one of: polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based, polyolefin-based, polyimide-based, polyurethane-based, polyester-based, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-based, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR)-based, ceramic-based, or silicone-based materials ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; [0072]-[0091]; [0094]; [0099]; fig 1-5).
As regards to claim 7, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the slot die coater (41) comprises: two die blocks (46); a shim plate (64+66) provided between the two die blocks (46) and forming a slot (see fig 2a-3) communicating with a discharge port (see fig 2a-3) of the slot die coater (41); and a manifold (see fig 2a-3) formed in one or more of the two die blocks (46), the manifold (see fig 2a-3) accommodating the slurry (2) therein, and the edge adjusting material providing means (slot, see fig 2a-3) is formed on the shim plate (64+66) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; fig 1-5).
As regards to claim 8, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the edge adjusting material providing means (slot, see fig 2a-3) is provided in a flow path (see fig 2a-3) formed on at least one side of the shim plate (64+66), and the flow path (see fig 2a-3) formed on the shim plate (64+66) is configured to receive a discharge of the edge adjusting material (16) therethrough (see fig 2a-3) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; fig 1-5).
As regards to claim 9, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the shim plate (64+66) includes a shim prong (see fig 2a-3), and the flow path is provided as a straight groove on one side of the shim prong (see fig 2a-3) of the shim plate (64+66) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; fig 1-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley as applied to claim 1 above.
As regards to claim 10, Dudley discloses an electrode coating device (abs; fig 1-10), wherein the edge adjusting material providing means (slot, see fig 2a-3) is an edge adjusting material coater (see fig 2a-3) provided integrally with the slot die coater (41), the edge adjusting material coater (see fig 2a-3) is configured to be disposed within the slot die coater (41), and the edge adjusting material coater (see fig 2a-3) is configured to discharge the edge adjusting material (16) therefrom toward the substrate (4) ([0009]; [0012]; [0014]; [0020]; [0050]-[0068]; fig 1-5), however Dudley does not disclose provided separately from the slot die coater and disposed above or below the slot die coater.
Although Dudley does not explicitly disclose the edge adjusting material coater provided separately from the slot die coater and disposed above or below the slot die coater, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Dudley to be dividable/separated as recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the edge adjusting material coater provided separately from the slot die coater integral, since it would be desirable to have separate pieces for engineering design purposes, since merely making something integral is obvious and making elements integral was held to have been obvious. Nerwin v. Erlichman 168 USPQ 177 (PO BdPatApp 1969); In re Wolfe 116 USPQ 443 (CCPA 1958); In re Howard 150 US 164 (USSC 1893), and would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the edge adjusting material coater above or below the slot die coater, since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights