DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-8 and 11-16 in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Brien (US 4,259,055).
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).
In regards to claim 2, O’Brien teaches the tab-42 (structure) is integral with the strip-38 and the extensions-40 (fig. 2-4).
In regards to claim 3, 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 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 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 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Park (US 2015/0053133).
In regards to claims 6-7, 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 because Park teaches it will help reduce defects and maintain flow rates (para. 17).
In regards to claim 8, O’Brien 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 in view of 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien as applied to claims 1-5 and 11 above, and further in view of Izumi (JP2006-102598, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claim 12, O’Brien teaches the shim-34 and tab-42 as discussed above, but 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).
Claims 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien and Izumi as applied to claims 1-5 and 11-12 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.
Conclusion
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