DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/291647 filed January 24, 2024. Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 11, 2026.
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 and 5-6 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.
Claim 1 was amended to recite a traveling path that has a horizontal portion and a vertical portion, and then require a first coating portion that applies the slurry while the sheet moves along the horizontal portion of the traveling path, and a second that applies the slurry while the sheet moves along the vertical portion of the traveling path, where the second coating portion is arranged after the first. However, this wording actually contradicts the claimed invention as it was described in the original claims and the specification. As seen in the figure, the first coating portion (110) applies the coating as the electrode moves vertically or, as worded in the specification, is moved “in a horizontal direction with respect to the direction in which gravity acts”, and then the second coating portion (120) applies the coating as a the electrode moves horizontally, or as worded in the specification, is moved “in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which gravity acts”. Based on the context of the specification and figure, it is clear that “horizontal direction with respect to the direction in which gravity acts” actually means a direction parallel to the direction in which gravity acts, with the second direction being perpendicular to the direction in which gravity acts (i.e., the horizontal direction).
Therefore since the inventive concept, specification and figure clearly contradict the new claim language, claim 1 is indefinite. It seems likely that the claims are intended to require the opposite of what they actually say, and for the purposes of Examination this interpretation will be used.
Claim 2 recites “wherein each of the first coating portion and the second coating portion are configured to be applied by at least one of a slot-die coater or a slot-nozzle coater” which is unclear because claim 1 defines the first and second coating portions as being the actual structural elements which perform the coating applications themselves, not a coating which can be applied. For the purposes of examination, claim 2 will be understood as requiring the first and second coating portions to include coating application devices which comprise at least one of a slot-die coater or a slot-nozzle coater.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 107626538, translation filed by Applicant on 4/9/2025 used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1: Yang et al. discloses an electrode coating device in which a strip (8) which is an electrode sheet is conveyed first in a downward direction with respect to gravity, and then after rounding a tension roller (4) is conveyed in a horizontal direction (perpendicular direction) with respect to gravity, such that the traveling path includes a vertical portion and then a horizontal portion, the device including a front coating die head (1) and a reverse coating die head (2), where the reverse coating die head (2) is provided first in the movement path and coats the strip (8) with an electrode material while it is travelling vertically, where the side that it coats becomes the lower side of the strip (8) after the strip begins to travel horizontally, then downstream from the reverse coating die head (2) the front coating die head (1) coats the opposite side of the strip (8) with an electrode material as it is travelling horizontally, where the front coating die head (1) is followed by a drying box (3) which dries the applied electrode coatings (pages 6-8; figure 2). Yang et al. does not explicitly state that the ensuing electrode layers each have a porosity, but porosity is a property intrinsic to all solid matter, so each of these electrode layers formed by Yang et al. inherently have a porosity.
Regarding claim 2: Yang et al. discloses that the coating die heads (1, 2) are dies which provide a curtain coating, which is a definition of “slot-die coater” (pages 6-8; figure 2).
Regarding claim 3: Yang et al. does not explicitly disclose a distance or speed with which the strip (8) moves from the reverse coating die head (2) to the front coating die head (1). However, the limitation “are spaced apart along the traveling path such that any point of the electrode sheet takes 2 seconds or less to travel from the first coating portion to the second coating portion” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In this case, this limitation is both determined by the actual physical spacing but also the traveling speed of the sheet, such that the entire limitation is a functional intended use limitation. The apparatus of Yang et al. is capable of sending the strip (8) at a speed necessary to limit the time between coating heads to 2 seconds, regardless of the actual spacing between heads. If Applicant wishes to claim an actual structural arrangement between the coating portions then an actual structural limitation is needed, not one that depends on a process factor.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. as applied to claims 1-3 above and further in view of Watanabe et al. (WO 2016143511, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claims 5-6: Yang et al. discloses a drying box (3) downstream of the front coating die head (1) but fails to explicitly disclose any heating means within the drying box. However, Watanabe et al. discloses a similar double sided coating apparatus in which an electrode sheet (10) is fed into a drying unit (DR) after having been coated on both sides by two separate coating nozzles (3A, 3B), and where the drying unit (DR) includes an IR heater (DR1) followed by a hot air dryer (DR2) which are two drying portions (pages 3, 10; figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a drying unit that includes both an irradiation heater that uses infrared heaters and a hot air dryer after the IR heater because Watanabe et al. shows that this is functionally equivalent to a generic drying unit like that of Yang et al. as well as a well-known arrangement for this type of device, and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06) and using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/28/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
