DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on June 16, 2026 was received. Claims 2-3 were canceled. Claims 1 and 5-6 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 27, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The clam rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1-11 and 16 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seok on claims 1-3 and 11 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hua on claims 1-4 and 11 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.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The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua on claim 5 is withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Che (US 2023/0347373).
In regards to claim 1, Che teaches coating shim (400) which is positioned between an upper die (200) and a lower die (300) (fig. 1), the coating shim has a plurality of protruding portions (fig. 1, 3, 9-10) so that slurry flows along the flow paths, the shim comprising:
a coupling portion coupled to the first and second dies (fig. 1, 3, 9, annotated 10 below);
two first protruding portions protruding from one side of the coupling portion and spaced apart from one another (fig. 1, 3, 9, annotated 10 below); and
a second protruding portions positioned between the two or more first protruding portions (fig. 1, 3, 9, annotated 10 below),
wherein the second protruding portions includes a groove (see second slurry outlet-21, outlet section 242) through which the slurry flows (fig. 3-8, 10-11; para. 99-100, 102-107, 122);
except for the outlet, the groove has a structure having three sides closed by an inner wall of the one or more second protruding portions (fig. 3+4-6, 10+11).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Che teaches shows a width of the groove in the second protruding portion is less than the width of the flow path (see annotated fig. 10), where one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize this difference in width provides the function of second protruding portions is configured to coat one surface of a substrate with the electrode slurry in an amount smaller than the electrode slurry applied through the plurality of flow paths.
In regards to claim 4, Che teaches the coating shim is within a range of 0.2-5 mm, and the height h2 of the groove (second slurry outlet 21) is 5%-95% of the thickness of the coating shim (para. 105), which provides the claimed height of the groove is 0.1 mm to 3 mm.
In regards to claim 5, Che as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach a volume of the groove is 0.1 volume% to 60 volume% of a volume of the flow path provided between the first and second protruding portions.
However, Hua shows the width/volume of the flow path is considerably more than the volume of the groove (second slurry outlet 21) (see annotated fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have sized the groove within the range of 0.1 volume% to 60 volume% of a volume of the flow path, since 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 (MPEP-2144.05-II-A).
Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 11, Che teaches the flow direction is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the coupling portion, and the flow paths are surrounded by structures having two sidewalls and one rear-wall opposite of the flow direction (fig. 1, annotated fig. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 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 with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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