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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on June 15, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1 and 5 were amended. Claims 2 and 6 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are in the application. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, “a first area that discharges the paint in a predetermined first discharge amount in the absence of the first slit and a second area that is displaced from the first area in the first direction and discharges the paint in a second discharge amount less than the first discharge amount in the absence of the first slit” in claims 2 and 5 and “the coated body is a current collector of a secondary battery, and the paint is an electrode slurry of the secondary battery” in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The objection to the drawings regarding claim 6 is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 6.
The objections to the drawings regarding claims 2 and 5 is withdrawn based on Applicant’s comments.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the amendment to the title
The specification was amended to replace the phrase “ absence of the first slit” with the phrase “does not exist”. Clarification of the amended phrase “does not exist” for support in the priority document is requested.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “when the first slit does not exist”. This wording is confusing because slit typically refers to the discharge opening in a slit nozzle. In this application, the term “first slit” is being used to refer to the internal circumferential pathway around an end portion of the rotating body and not a discharge opening.
Based on Figs. 5A-5B, 6A-6C and paragraphs 35, 49, 57, 64, 76, and 81; a suggested revision is “when the first slit is absent in the first area” or “the first circumferential path around the rotating body in the first area is absent”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “rotating body” in claim 1 and “supply device” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “forming” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “bordering or providing a limit on one side” while the accepted meaning is “shaping” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
The term “long circumferential portion ” and “short circumferential portion ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long circumferential portion ” and “short circumferential portion ” 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 the purpose of prosecution, Examiner is interpreting these terms as follows: first circumferential portion, second circumferential portion, where the first circumferential portion has a circumference which has a greater value than a circumference of the second circumferential portion.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim 1 recites:
” a first area that discharges the paint in a predetermined first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist and a second area that is displaced from the first area in the first direction and discharges the paint in a second discharge amount less than the first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist ”. This claim language lacks clarity.
Based on Figs. 5A-5B, 6A-6C and paragraphs 35, 49, 57, 64, 76, and 81, a suggested revision is as follows:
” a first area that discharges the paint in a predetermined first discharge amount when the first circumferential path around the rotating body in the first area is absent circumferential path around the rotating body in the first area is absent .
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 previous rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017109151 A to Endo Koichiro (hereinafter Koichiro) in view of JP 2020022928 A to Kitsuta Hirotaka (hereinafter Hirotaka) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1 and 5 and cancellation of claims 2 and 6.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017109151 A to Endo Koichiro (hereinafter Koichiro) in view of JP 2020022928 A to Kitsuta Hirotaka (hereinafter Hirotaka) and US Pat. Num. 5, 516, 273 to Delmore et al (hereinafter Delmore).
Regarding claim 1, Koichiro teaches a coating die (1) that applies a paint to a coated body (SB), comprising: a manifold (2) that temporarily stores the paint; a discharge port (61) that discharges the paint in the manifold toward the coated body; and a rotating body (50) rotatably accommodated in the manifold and having an outer surface that faces an inner surface of the manifold, a gap (42)between the inner surface and the outer surface being capable of forming a first slit through which the paint directed toward the discharge port passes, wherein the manifold, the discharge port, and the rotating body are elongated in a first direction (direction into the page in Fig. 1) intersecting a discharge direction of the paint from the discharge port (61), and the rotating body is rotatable about a rotational axis extending in the first direction. ( See Koichiro, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and MT page 2, paragraphs 5-6, page 5, paragraphs 5-6.)
Regarding claim 1, Koichiro does not explicitly teach the rotating body a long circumferential portion having a predetermined first length in a circumferential direction of the rotational axis at a predetermined position in the outer surface, and has a short circumferential portion having a second length shorter than the first length in the circumferential direction of the rotational axis at a position in the outer surface displaced from the long circumferential portion in the first direction, the long circumferential portion forming the first slit longer than the first slit formed by the short circumferential portion.
Hirotaka is directed to a die coater.
Hirotaka teaches the rotating body a long circumferential portion (31’, 37’) having a predetermined first length in a circumferential direction of the rotational axis at a predetermined position in the outer surface, and has a short circumferential portion ( 35’, 33’ ) having a second length shorter than the first length in the circumferential direction of the rotational axis at a position in the outer surface displaced from the long circumferential portion in the first direction, the long circumferential portion forming the first slit longer than the first slit formed by the short circumferential portion. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rotating body a long circumferential portion having a predetermined first length in a circumferential direction of the rotational axis at a predetermined position in the outer surface, and has a short circumferential portion having a second length shorter than the first length in the circumferential direction of the rotational axis at a position in the outer surface displaced from the long circumferential portion in the first direction, the long circumferential portion forming the first slit longer than the first slit formed by the short circumferential portion, because Hirotaka teaches this would suppress stagnation in the manifold and form a coating film having a more uniform thickness on the object to be coated. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Koichiro does not explicitly teach
the first slit formed in the first area is made longer than the first slit formed in the second area to reduce a difference between the predetermined first discharge amount and the second discharge amount,
the rotating body has the long circumferential portion in a portion in the outer surface included in the first area and has the short circumferential portion in a portion in the outer surface included in the second area.
Hirotaka teaches the first slit formed in the first area is made longer than the first slit formed in the second area to reduce a difference between the predetermined first discharge amount and the second discharge amount,
the rotating body has the long circumferential portion in a portion in the outer surface included in the first area and has the short circumferential portion in a portion in the outer surface included in the second area. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first slit formed in the first area is made longer than the first slit formed in the second area to reduce a difference between the predetermined first discharge amount and the second discharge amount,
the rotating body has the long circumferential portion in a portion in the outer surface included in the first area and has the short circumferential portion in a portion in the outer surface included in the second area, because Hirotaka teaches this would suppress stagnation in the manifold and form a coating film having a more uniform thickness on the object to be coated. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Koichiro does not explicitly teach the coating die includes a first area that discharges the paint in a predetermined first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist and a second area that is displaced from the first area in the first direction and discharges the paint in a second discharge amount less than the first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist.
Delmore teaches a cylindrical insert with a flow controlling peripheral surface.
Delmore teaches the coating die uses a cylindrical insert to provide a first area that discharges the paint in a predetermined first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist and a second area that is displaced from the first area in the first direction and discharges the paint in a second discharge amount less than the first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist. (See Delmore, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and col. 7, line 7-22, col. 37 to col. 8, line 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the coating die includes a first area that discharges the paint in a predetermined first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist and a second area that is displaced from the first area in the first direction and discharges the paint in a second discharge amount less than the first discharge amount when the first slit does not exist, because Delmore teaches the peripheral surface of a cylindrical would enable the flow to be controlled to produce the desired flow profile. (See Delmore, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 7, line 7-22, col. 37 to col. 8, line 3. )
Regarding claim 3, Koichiro teaches a supply port (30) that supplies the paint to the manifold from outside. ( See Koichiro, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and MT page 2, paragraphs 5-6.)
Koichioro does not explicitly teach a position of the long circumferential portion in the first direction overlaps a position of the supply port in the first direction.
Hirotaka teaches a position of the long circumferential portion in the first direction overlaps a position of the supply port in the first direction. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a position of the long circumferential portion in the first direction overlaps a position of the supply port in the first direction, because Hirotaka teaches this would suppress stagnation in the manifold and form a coating film having a more uniform thickness on the object to be coated. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
Regarding claim 4, Koichiro does not explicitly teach the long circumferential portion is disposed in a central portion of the rotating body in the first direction.
Hirotaka teaches a position of the long circumferential portion in the first direction overlaps a position of the supply port in the first direction. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a position of the long circumferential portion in the first direction overlaps a position of the supply port in the first direction, because Hirotaka teaches this would suppress stagnation in the manifold and form a coating film having a more uniform thickness on the object to be coated. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
Regarding claim 5, Koichiro does not explicitly teach the coating die also has a second slit through which the paint directed from the manifold toward the discharge port passes, and the second slit has a small resistance portion that corresponds to the first area and generates a predetermined first flow resistance in the paint and a large resistance portion that corresponds to the second area and generates a second flow resistance larger than the predetermined first flow resistance in the paint.
Hirotaka teaches the coating die also has a second slit through which the paint directed from the manifold toward the discharge port passes, and the second slit has a small resistance portion that corresponds to the first area and generates a predetermined first flow resistance in the paint and a large resistance portion that corresponds to the second area and generates a second flow resistance larger than the first flow resistance in the paint. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the coating die also has a second slit through which the paint directed from the manifold toward the discharge port passes, and the second slit has a small resistance portion that corresponds to the first area and generates a predetermined first flow resistance in the paint and a large resistance portion that corresponds to the second area and generates a second flow resistance larger than the first flow resistance in the paint, because Hirotaka teaches this would suppress stagnation in the manifold and form a coating film having a more uniform thickness on the object to be coated. (See Hirotaka, Fig. 5, page 8, third paragraph to page 9, fourth paragraph, page 10, paragraphs 1-3.)
Regarding claim 7, Koichiro teaches the coating die (1) that applies a paint to a coated body (SB) according to; and a supply device (T) that supplies the paint to the coating die (1). ( See Koichiro, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and MT page 2, paragraphs 5-6.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the reference to US Pat. Num. 5,516,273 to Delmore.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Num. 5,750,159 to Delmore et al teaches dies for extruding one or more fluid streams. US Pat. Num. 3,938,468 to Kirschner al teaches dies with an insert with varying circumference i.e. greater relief on the end of the bar.
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Art Unit 1717
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights