DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to an application filed 08/28/2023 in which claims 1-2, 4-9 & 13 have been amended and claims 14-15 have been added in a preliminary amendment filed 08/28/2023. Claims 1-15 in the application are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/07/2023, 04/18/2024 & 07/19/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. 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, “a textured or a smooth roll” recited in claim 5 and “generatrix recessed frustum structure, a generatrix protruded frustum structure, a frustum structure, or a staircase structure” recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
6. 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.
7. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 13, line 3 recites “high-precision repeatable positioning devices” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “high-precision repeatable positioning devices” as any device positioning device. To correct this problem, amend claim 13 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 14, lines 2-3 recites “high-precision repeatable positioning devices” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “high-precision repeatable positioning devices” as any device positioning device. To correct this problem, amend claim 14 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 15, lines 2-3 recites “high-precision repeatable positioning devices” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “high-precision repeatable positioning devices” as any device positioning device. To correct this problem, amend claim 15 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections
8. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-8 & 10-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (US 2017/0157966 A1) hereinafter Becker (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Becker are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “for a lithium-ion battery (LIB) separator… adhesives… separator coating adhesive… coating adhesive droplets… to form incompletely covered coating layers”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Becker since Becker meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of applying adhesives for separator coating adhesive & coating adhesive droplets to form incompletely covered coating layers for a lithium-ion battery (LIB) separator, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Becker discloses a dispensing device for a lithium-ion battery (LIB) separator (abs; fig 1; clm 1), comprising: a coating adhesive transferring device (3+9), wherein the coating adhesive transferring device (3+9) comprises an adhesive accommodating device (3) and a relief roll (9); accommodating grooves (6) for accommodating adhesives (4) are provided on the adhesive accommodating device (3); transferring protrusions (10) are arranged on a rolling surface of the relief roll (9); the transferring protrusions (10) are configured to insert into corresponding ones of the accommodating grooves (6) on the adhesive accommodating device (3) capable of transferring a separator coating adhesive (4); the separator coating adhesive (4) capable of forming coating adhesive droplets covering transferring end surfaces (G) of the transferring protrusions (10); and a planar bottom roll (11) rotates reversely relative to the adhesive accommodating device (3), such that a coating film (12) is driven to move, and the coating adhesive droplets on the transferring protrusions (10) capable of dripping onto the coating film (12) capable of forming incompletely covered coating layers on the coating film (12) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0041]-[0043]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-4).
As regards to claim 2, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), further comprising a feed amount controller (5) and the planar bottom roll (11), wherein the planar bottom roll (11) is located under the coating adhesive transferring device (3+9); a film passing gap (see fig 1) for allowing the coating film (12) to pass through is provided between the planar bottom roll (11) and the coating adhesive transferring device (3+9); and the feed amount controller (5) is configured to detect and control feed amounts (implicit in order to control proper dispensing) when the transferring protrusions (10) on the relief roll (9) are inserted into the accommodating grooves (6) on the adhesive (4) accommodating device (3) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0041]-[0043]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “such that the coating adhesive forms liquid film layers of a uniform thickness on a surface”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Becker since Becker meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of forming liquid film layers of a uniform thickness on a surface, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 3, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), further comprising an application device (7), wherein the application device (7) abuts against the adhesive accommodating device (3), such that the coating adhesive (4) is capable of forming liquid film layers of a uniform thickness on a surface of the adhesive accommodating device (3) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0041]-[0043]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-2).
As regards to claim 4, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the application device (7) comprises a blade (doctor) configured to respectively scrape the adhesive (4) accommodating device (3) ([0021]; [0077]; fig 1; clm 1-2).
As regards to claim 5, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the adhesive accommodating device (3) comprises an anilox roll ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-2).
As regards to claim 6, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein ratios Q of inner diameters d1 of the accommodating grooves (6) to diameters d2 of the transferring end surfaces (G) of the transferring protrusions (10) are greater than or equal to 1.5 ([0036]; [0077]-[0082]; [0084]; fig 1; clm 4).
As regards to claim 7, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the transferring end surfaces (G) of the transferring protrusions (10) are circular surfaces; the transferring end surfaces (G) have diameters d2 between 20 μm and 1 mm; and when the transferring protrusions (10) are inserted into the accommodating grooves (6), the transferring end surfaces (G) and bottoms of the accommodating grooves (6) have spacings L (W) between 20 μm and 250 μm (129 μm) ([0034]; [0036]; [0077]-[0082]; [0084]; fig 1; clm 4).
As regards to claim 8, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the transferring protrusions (10) each are a staircase structure (see fig 2) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0077]-[0084]; fig 1-2 & 5; clm 1).
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “wherein the coating adhesive droplets drip onto the coating film based on a tension difference between different materials”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Becker since Becker meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the coating adhesive droplets drip onto the coating film based on a tension difference between different materials, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 10, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the coating adhesive droplets area capable of dripping onto the coating film (12) based on a tension difference between different materials (features depend on properties of the adhesive rheology (such as viscosity) and rotational speed of the rollers) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0039]-[0069]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-4).
As regards to claim 11, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the relief roll (9) and the coating film (12 - packaging materials, labels, antistatic materials, decoration materials, in security applications, for laser marking, as magnetic element or as lighting element) are made of the different materials (implicit, relief roll not print substrate having a functional coating produced in this way, in particular in packaging materials, labels, antistatic materials, decoration materials, in security applications, for laser marking, as magnetic element or as lighting element) ([0015]-[0069]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “wherein the coating adhesive droplets further drip onto the coating film under actions of gravities and centrifugal forces”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Becker since Becker meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the coating adhesive droplets drip onto the coating film under actions of gravities and centrifugal forces, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 12, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the coating adhesive (4) droplets are further capable of dripping onto the coating film (12) under actions of gravities and centrifugal forces (features depend on properties of the adhesive rheology (such as viscosity) and rotational speed of the rollers) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0039]-[0069]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-4).
As regards to claim 13, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the feed amount controller (5) comprises a high-precision repeatable positioning device (implicit of continuous printing) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0041]-[0043]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-2).
As regards to claim 14, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the feed amount controller (5) comprises a high-precision repeatable positioning device (implicit of continuous printing) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0041]-[0043]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-2).
As regards to claim 15, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the feed amount controller (5) comprises a high-precision repeatable positioning device (implicit of continuous printing) ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0041]-[0043]; [0077]; [0079]; fig 1; clm 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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.
12. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker as applied to claim 8 above (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Becker are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 9, Becker discloses a dispensing device (abs; fig 1; clm 1), wherein the staircase structure comprises a connecting base (see fig 2, rectangle) and a transferring boss (13); a cross-sectional area of the transferring boss (13) is less than a cross-sectional area of the connecting base (see fig 2, rectangle); the transferring boss (13) is a cylindrical structure (see fig 2); the connecting base (see fig 2, rectangle) is a frustum structure; the cylindrical structure has a height h1≤200 μm; and a ratio N of the height h1 of the cylindrical structure to the diameter d2 of each of the transferring end surfaces is less than or equal to 2.5 ([0015]; [0021]; [0026]; [0028]-[0030]; [0077]-[0084]; fig 1-2 & 5; clm 1), however Becker does not disclose a frustum structure.
Although Becker does not explicitly disclose the claimed shape & configuration, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Becker to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the shape & configuration is considered engineering aspects of a device, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape & configuration. Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717