DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on June 1, 2026 was received. Claims 2 and 12 were canceled. Claims 1, 7, 11, 13 and 15 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued March 2, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 1, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Brien on claims 1-5 and 11 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien and Park on claims 6-8 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien and Izumi on claim 12 is withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien and Yamazaki on claims 13-14 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US 4,259,055) in view of Izumi (JP2006-102598, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claim 1, O’Brien teaches a extruder (16, slot die coater) comprising:
a lower die plate-22 and an upper die plate-20 (fig. 2-4; col. 1, lines 40-60);
a shim-34 (shim plate) is between the lower die plate-22 and the upper die plate-20 to form a slot-36 (fig. 2; col. 1, lines 45-55);
a cavity-32 (manifold) is in the lower die plate-22 and accommodates a coating solution and flows from a passage-28 to the cavity-32 and out of the slot-36 (fig. 2; col. 1, lines 50-60);
the shim-34 comprises a strip-38 and extensions-40 that provides a plate-shaped member having an open portion that determines a coating width, and a tab-42 (structure) protrudes from the plate-shaped member such that the tab-42 is inserted into the cavity-32 (fig. 2-4; col. 1, lines 45-60).
O’Brien teaches the tab-42 (structure) is integral with the strip-38 and the extensions-40 (fig. 2-4).
O’Brien does not explicitly teach the branch structure includes an extended portion extending downward along a sidewall of the manifold and a bottom portion connected to the extended portion, the bottom portion being disposed along the bottom of the manifold.
However, Izumi teaches a manifold (15) comprising blocks (21, 22, 23) that provides a surface which extends along a sidewall of the manifold and along a bottom of the manifold (fig. 1-3; para. 24-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the blocks of Izumi onto the shim-34 and tab-42 of O’Brien because Izumi teaches it will reduce the variation in flow rate (para. 30).
In regards to claim 3, O’Brien and Izumi as discussed, where O’Brien teaches at a rear portion of the cavity-32 and at a front portion of the cavity-32, a lower surface of the upper die plate-20 and an upper surface of the shim-34 are coupled to each other without a gap, and an upper surface of the lower die plate-22 and a lower surface of the shim-34 are coupled to each other without a gap (fig. 2-4).
In regards to claim 4, O’Brien and Izumi as discussed, where O’Brien teaches the upper surface of the shim-34 is flat and the tab-42 protrudes from the shim-34 (fig. 2-4).
In regards to claim 5, O’Brien and Izumi as discussed, where O’Brien teaches the shim-34 comprises the strip-38 (first part) that serves as a base and two extensions-40 (second part) which extend from the strip-38, the two extensions-40 are to a same side of the strip-38 and extend in a same direction (fig. 2-4).
In regards to claim 11, O’Brien and Izumi as discussed, where O’Brien teaches the tab-42 (structure) protrudes from the plate-shaped member towards a bottom of the cavity and the tab-42 causes a split of the coating solution that provides branch structure to two edges-48 and two notches-46 (fig. 2-4; col. 1, lines 45-60).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien as applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 11 above, and further in view of Park (US 2015/0053133).
In regards to claims 6-7, O’Brien and Izumi as discussed, where O’Brien teaches the shim-34 as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach the structure further comprises two side structures which are configured to be inserted into the manifold in such that an area of contact is established with between the manifold and each of the two side structures of the plate-shaped member to ensure positional reproducibility of the shim plate, each of the two side structures have a shape as corresponding to a cross-sectional shape of the manifold such that the two side structures fit into the manifold and along a bottom of the manifold, wherein the cross-sectional shape is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the manifold.
However, Park teaches a slot die coater comprising a shim-3232 is connected to a movable member-3330, where the movable member-3330 is provided in an inner space-3240 (manifold) of a lower die-3233 (fig. 28-35; para. 109, 129).
Park teaches the movable member-3330 comprises two lateral plate members-3370 (side structures) that are within the inner space-3240, have an area of contact between lateral plate members-3370 and the inner space-3240. Park teaches the two lateral plate members-3370 extend downwards from shim-3232 and along sidewalls of inner space-3240 (fig. 28-35; para. 109, 121).
Park teaches the two lateral plate members-3370 (side structures) have a corresponding shape as the cross-sectional shape of the inner space-3240, such that the two lateral plate members-3370 fit into the inner space-3240 along a side and bottom of the inner space-3240 and the cross-sectional shape is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the inner space-3240 (fig. 28-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the two lateral plate members connected to the shim of Park onto the shim-34 of O’Brien and Izumi because Park teaches it will help reduce defects and maintain flow rates (para. 17).
In regards to claim 8, O’Brien, Izumi and Park as discussed, where O’Brien teaches the shim-34 comprises the strip-38 (first part) that serves as a base and two extensions-40 (second part) which extend from the strip-38, the two extensions-40 are to a same side of the strip-38 and extend in a same direction (fig. 2-4). O’Brien, Izumi and Park teaches the two lateral plate members-3370 extends from the two extensions-40 and along the sidewalls of the cavity/manifold (as shown in Park-fig. 30-35).
Claims 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien and Izumi as applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 11 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (JP2011-124093, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claims 13-14, O’Brien and Izumi as discussed, but do not explicitly teach a plurality of shim injection ports in the bottom portion and the plurality of shim injection ports increase in diameter from a center of the bottom portion to aside of the bottom portion.
However, Yamazaki teaches a component adjusting member-18 within a manifold-21 of a die block-12 (fig. 1-2; para. 18-21).
Yamazaki teaches the component adjusting member-18 comprises a plurality of holes (18a/18b) at least bottom of the manifold-21. Yamazaki teaches the size/diameter of the plurality of holes increases the further the hole is from the supply port-24 in the manifold-21 (fig. 1-3, 5; para. 25, 27, 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the component adjusting member with varying size/diameter of holes of Yamazaki onto the shim-34 and tab-42 of O’Brien and Izumi because Yamazaki teaches it will control of the electrode slurry discharge (para. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
The interchangeable blocks 21, 22, 23 (allegedly corresponding to the claimed "branch structure") do NOT protrude from a plate-shaped member of a shim plate, let alone are integral to a plate-shaped member, as recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant respectfully notes that Izumi teaches that the interchangeable blocks 21, 22, 23 are removable (i.e., NOT integral) with respect to one another, let alone with a plate- shaped member.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Izumi clearly teaches the one of the blocks such as block-23 has a portion-23a which extends away from the sidewall of the die lower plate-12 along with extending downward the sidewall of the die lower plate-12 (fig. 1-2). Further, Izumi was not solely relied upon to teach the argued claim element, where O’Brien teaches the shim protrudes from the sidewall of the die (fig. 2-4).
With regards to the blocks being removable and not integral, this argument is not persuasive as it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP2144.04-V-B).
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights