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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on October 14, 2025 was received. Claim 18 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued July 14, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 4,424,762) on claims 18-20, and as anticipated by Kuniyasu et al. (US 2014/0178587) on claims 18-19 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 18 to require the web pass downward between the slot opening between the upper and lower lips, where the web is steadied against the web positioning element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. in view of Kuniyasu et al. and Pipkin et al. (US 4,142,010).
Regarding claim 18: Tanaka et al. discloses a coating apparatus having an extruder (1) which is a slot die coating head with a doctor edge (5) which is an upper lip, a back edge (6) which is a lower lip, and a slot (4) formed between the doctor edge (5) and back edge (6) (col. 3 lines 14-32, figures 1-5), where Tanaka et al. discloses that guide rollers are arranged in order to guide the support (W) which is a web being coated which can be considered to be arranged opposite the back edge (6), the support (W) passing through a slit defined by the guide rollers and extruder (1) where the doctor edge (5) has edges (51, 52, 53) which form a web positioning element which is a portion of the upper lip that protrudes up to the plane formed by the surface of the support (W), such that there is an offset between the upper lip and the lower lip in the cross section (col. 4 lines 26-62, figure 1).
The preamble limitation “for double-sidedly coating a porous web with a dope” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the coating head can be used as part of an apparatus to coat both sides of a porous web with a dope.
Tanaka et al. shows that the support (W) moves upwardly relative to the upper lip such that it fails to disclose downward movement such that the web positioning element contacts the support (W) upstream of the slot. However, Kuniyasu et al. discloses a similar slot die head having an offset lip where the lip offset can be either an overbite or underbite such that it can be on either the upstream end or downstream end of the lip (par. 56, 128, fig. 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the doctor edge (5) of Tanaka et al. to be either on the upstream or downstream side as taught by Kuniyasu et al. because Kuniyasu et al. teaches that these are functionally equivalent arrangements that can be made by one of ordinary skill in the art based on known factors and variables (par. 56) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Tanaka et al. and Kuniyasu et al. still fail to explicitly disclose that the web moves downwardly past the slot. However, Pipkin et al. discloses a similar slot die system which feeds the web (W) downwardly past both web contacting surfaces (30, 32) (col. 2 lines 6-44, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try moving the web of Tanaka et al. downwardly past the extruder as taught by Pipkin et al. rather than upwardly because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 19: Tanaka et al. discloses that the counter elements are guide rollers (col. 4 lines 35-48).
Regarding claim 20: Tanaka et al. discloses that the support (W) curves due to contact with the doctor edge (5) where the angle at which it curves is complementary to the angle (alpha) of one of the edge surfaces (62), Which Tanaka et al. discloses can be 165 degrees, such that the angle at which the support (W) curves with respect to the reference plane would be 15 degrees (col. 4 lines 3-9, 35-48, figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Tanaka et al., Kuniyasu et al. and McIntyre et al. fail to teach moving the web downwardly past the slot such that the web contacts the web positioning element which is upstream of the slot opening.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the new combination of references. Tanaka et al., Kuniyasu et al. and Pipkin et al. combine to teach a slot die coater which can have either lip include the web positioning element (i.e. overbite vs underbite) and feed the web either upwardly or downwardly such that either of the upstream lips can be configured to contact the web and have the claimed web positioning element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
11/25/2025
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717