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 .
Election/Restrictions
No claim is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 29, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II for elections (1) through (8) and Species I for elections (9) and (10) in the reply filed on October 29, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species election (1), (9) and (10) because the operating position, in (1), experimental result charts, in (9) and (10), do not appear to be relevant to the pending claim set. This is not found persuasive because these species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 and the Applicant fails to submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second circulation tube configured to (capable of) move a part of the electrode slurry from the main body to the storage must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Elected Figure 3 shows that the second circulation tube 40 configured to (capable of) move a part of the electrode slurry from the circulation tube 30 to the third opening 14 or main body 10 and does not configure to move a part of the electrode slurry from the main body (10) to the storage 60. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
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 2 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 “and” in line 6 of claim 2 rendering the claim indefinite because limitations from lines 4-5 require the “second opening/closing member and the third opening/closing member respectively open” and limitations in lines 7-8 require the “second opening/closing member and the third opening/closing member respectively close!” It is unclear how the second opening/closing member and the third opening/closing member are both open and close at the same time? Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
The preamble of the claims fails to limit the structure of the claimed invention. If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. MPEP 2111.02. The preamble of the claims recites an “electrode slurry.” The recitation “electrode slurry” has been considered to merely indicate the intended use of the control device. Electrode slurry are not positively recited limitations and fail to structurally limit the claimed invention. It is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim because the body of the claim, standing alone, fully describes the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 昌宏 中川 Nakagawa et al. (JP4092462. IDS provided by the Applicant. Nakagawa hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Nakagawa discloses an electrode slurry control device (Figs. 1-16c, especially the first embodiment in Fig. 1) comprising: a main body (Fig. 1) having a receiving port (bottom of tank T) configured to (capable of) receive electrode slurry (M) from an outside storage (tank T); a coater (D) configured to (capable of) discharge the electrode slurry onto a substrate (W); a supply tube (3a) configured to (capable of) supply the electrode slurry from the main body to the coater, the supply tube being connected to the main body through a first connection tube (at Va) having a first opening/closing member (in Va); a first circulation tube (14) configured to (capable of) move a part of the electrode slurry from the main body to the storage, the first circulation tube being connected to the main body by a second connection tube (at 13) having a second opening/closing member (in 13); and a second circulation tube (7) configured to (capable of) move a part of the electrode slurry from the main body to the storage, the second circulation tube being connected to the main body by a third connection tube (at Vb) having a third opening/closing member (in Vb).
Nakagawa fails to disclose wherein an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the second connection tube is smaller than an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the first circulation tube, and wherein an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the third connection tube is larger than an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the second connection tube.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the second connection tube smaller than an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the first circulation tube, and an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the third connection tube is larger than an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the second connection tube, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, the limitations are merely result effective variables, where the variables are the diameters of the first, second and third connection tubes and the results are the flow rates within the first, second and third connection tubes. Therefore, the first, second and third opening/closing members within the first, second and third connection tubes are effectively the equivalent to the variable diameters of the inner peripheral surface of the first, second and third connection tubes and thus changes the results – the desired flow rates within the first, second and third connection tubes.
With respect to claim 2, Nakagawa discloses wherein the electrode slurry control device is configured such that when the first opening/closing member closes the first connection tube, the second opening/closing member opens the second connection tube, the third opening/closing member opens the third connection tube (in recycling mode within the pump 2), or the second opening/closing member and the third opening/closing member respectively open the second connection tube and the third connection tube (in full recycling mode within the pump 2 and apparatus 11), and wherein when the first opening/closing member opens the first connection tube, the second opening/closing member and the third opening/closing member respectively close the second connection tube and the third connection tube (in dispensing mode).
With respect to claim 6, Nakagawa discloses the electrode slurry control device of claim 1, further comprising: a confluent tube (downstream of tank T) connected to the (downstream of) first circulation tube and the second circulation tube, the confluent tube being configured (capable of) such that the electrode slurry moving to (toward) the main body through the first circulation tube and the electrode slurry moving to the main body through the second circulation tube are merged (upstream of tank T) in the confluent tube.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of 章一 田口 Taguchi et al. (JP2014149083. IDS provided by the Applicant. Taguchi hereinafter).
With respect to claim 3, Nakagawa discloses the electrode slurry control device of claim 1 except for wherein an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the first connection tube is smaller than an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the supply tube, and wherein the first opening/closing member has a conical shape, a diameter of a conical lateral surface of the first opening/closing member facing the first connection tube gradually decreases in a direction from an end of the first opening/closing member toward the first connection tube, and a cone angle of the conical lateral surface is 110 to 150 degrees.
However, Taguchi teaches a control device (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a main body (Figs. 1-2) having a receiving port (bottom of tank 110) configured to (capable of) receive electrode slurry from an outside storage (110); a coater (104) configured to (capable of) discharge the electrode slurry onto a substrate (W); a supply tube (116, 118) configured to (capable of) supply the electrode slurry from the main body to the coater, the supply tube being connected to the main body through a first connection tube (at 26. Fig. 1) having a first opening/closing member (26); a first circulation tube (122) configured to (capable of) move a part of the electrode slurry from the main body to the storage, the first circulation tube being connected to the main body by a second connection tube (at 28) having a second opening/closing member (28). Taguchi further teaches wherein the first opening/closing member has a conical shape (lower portion of 26), a diameter of a conical lateral surface of the first opening/closing member facing the first connection tube gradually decreases in a direction (top to bottom) from an (top or middle) end of the first opening/closing member toward the first connection tube, and a cone angle of the conical lateral surface is 110 to 150 degrees (Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a opening/closing member having a conical shape, as taught by Taguchi, to Nakagawa’s opening/closing member, in order to open and close the fluid passage (Figs. 1 and 2).
Nakagawa and Taguchi fail to disclose wherein an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the first connection tube is smaller than an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the supply tube. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the first connection tube is smaller than an average diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the supply tube, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, the limitations are merely result effective variables, where the variables are the diameters of the first, second and third connection tubes and the results are the flow rates within the first, second and third connection tubes. Therefore, the first, second and third opening/closing members within the first, second and third connection tubes are effectively the equivalent to the variable diameters of the inner peripheral surface of the first, second and third connection tubes and thus changes the results – the desired flow rates within the first, second and third connection tubes.
With respect to claim 4, Nakagawa discloses the electrode slurry control device of claim 1 except for wherein the second opening/closing member has a conical shape, a diameter of a conical lateral surface of the second opening/closing member facing the second connection tube gradually decreases in a direction from an end of the second opening/closing member toward the second connection tube, and a cone angle of the conical lateral surface is 110 to 150 degrees.
However, Taguchi teaches a control device (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a main body (Figs. 1-2) having a receiving port (bottom of tank 110) configured to (capable of) receive electrode slurry from an outside storage (110); a coater (104) configured to (capable of) discharge the electrode slurry onto a substrate (W); a supply tube (116, 118) configured to (capable of) supply the electrode slurry from the main body to the coater, the supply tube being connected to the main body through a first connection tube (at 26) having a first opening/closing member (26); a first circulation tube (122) configured to (capable of) move a part of the electrode slurry from the main body to the storage, the first circulation tube being connected to the main body by a second connection tube (at 28) having a second opening/closing member (28). Taguchi further teaches wherein the second opening/closing member has a conical shape (lower portion of 28), a diameter of a conical lateral surface of the second opening/closing member facing the second connection tube gradually decreases in a direction (top to bottom) from an (top or middle) end of the second opening/closing member toward the second connection tube, and a cone angle of the conical lateral surface is 110 to 150 degrees (Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a opening/closing member having a conical shape, as taught by Taguchi, to Nakagawa’s opening/closing member, in order to open and close the fluid passage (Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Smith (US 9440252).
With respect to claim 5, Nakagawa discloses the electrode slurry control device of claim 1, except for wherein the third opening/closing member is a ball valve having a through-hole extending therethrough, and an average diameter of the inner peripheral surface of the third connection tube is equal to an average diameter of the through-hole.
However, Smith teaches a control device (Figs. 1-11) comprising: a connection tube (in 10. The flow paths leading to the output apertures 13a, 13b) and wherein an opening/closing member (80) is a ball valve having a through-hole (81) extending therethrough, and an average diameter of the inner peripheral surface of the connection tube is equal to an average diameter of the through-hole (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a ball valve having a through-hole, as taught by Smith, to Nakagawa’s opening/closing member, in order to open and close the connection tube (Col. 2, lines 19-26 and Figs. 1-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a fluid control device: Flint. Chandler, Kerr et al., Walter, Norris, Doyle et al. Nachtman.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 November 3, 2025