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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on June 22, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 6-8, 10-14 and 18 were amended and claim 17 was cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued March 23, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The “adjustment device” introduced in claim 18 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means-plus-function. The specification provides no corresponding structure for this phrase. Further, the “control device” remains interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 6-8, 10-11 and 17 are withdrawn because Applicant amended those claims (and cancelled claim 17) to remove the indefinite preference language and/or corrected the lack of antecedent basis. The rejection of claim 18 is maintained because the term “control device” still has no corresponding structure listed in the disclosure, nor is it even mentioned once. Further, claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for an additional reason, as described below.
Claim 18 introduces an “adjustment device” in addition to the “adjusting device” of claim 1, and this renders the claim highly indefinite because nothing in the specification actually suggests that there can be an “adjustment device” which is in any way separate from the aforementioned “adjusting device”. Paragraph 47 shows the sole recitations of the term “adjustment device” as follows:
“FIG. 3 shows a slot adjustment 3.1, 3.2 via an adjustment device that engages the coating die lip. The adjusting device can be, for example, an eccentric shaft, a plunger or a wedge. The adjustment device can be electrically and/or mechanically actuated.” (emphasis added)
It is clear based on these three sentences that the “adjustment device” is in reality the same exact element as the “adjusting device”. Simply by an error of transcription or translation it has been written as “adjustment” in two instances in the specification, rather than “adjusting”. Therefore claim 18 introducing a new “adjustment device” massively confuses the scope of not only the claim, but the overall invention itself, as there has been no prior disclosure explaining how there can be a separate “adjustment device” for a single applicator as claimed. For the purposes of examination, claim 18 will be understood as requiring the same adjusting device of claim 1 to be controlled via the claimed control device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Davydenko et al. (US 2021/0189660) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 5,873,940) on claims 1-8, 10, 12-16 and 18 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Davydenko et al. discloses a device for treating a paper web (13) using two curtain coating dies (1.1, 1.2) applying a treatment substance (2.1, 2.2) to two applicator rolls (7, 8) respectively which create a press nip (N) therebetween to coat respective sides of the paper web (13) with the treatment substance (2.1, 2.2) previously applied to the rolls (7, 8) via the curtain coating dies (1.1, 1.2), where different substances (2.1, 2.2) can be supplied to the dies (1.1, 1.2) depending on the current process (pars. 36-40, 44, figure 1). Davydenko et al. further discloses that it is known to adjust the slot width of the discharge nozzle of curtain coaters, in a range of 0.2 to 1.5mm (pars. 6-7), and that the applicator rolls (7, 8) can be controlled to enable a sump (par. 30), and discloses that the angle of impingement of the curtains (2.1, 2.2) in any mode can be anywhere between -90 degrees and 45 degrees from vertical and can be set or changed specifically to ensure a predefined dwell time (par. 41, 45, figure 1). Regardless, the limitations describing how the angle of impingement is selected are considered to be intended use limitations and are 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 the instant case, Davydenko et al. discloses having an angle of impingement well within the claimed range, and while Davydenko et al. does not explicitly disclose changing this angle depending on the selected mode of operation, this is not a structural difference in any way and therefore does not impact the apparatus claim.
Davydenko et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the dies (1.1, 1.2) of its invention have a slot adjustment mechanism including an electrically and/or mechanically actuable adjusting device applied to the exit slot of the dies (1.1, 1.2) which controls the die width to be between 100 and 500 microns for a film mode or 0.5 to 2mm for a sump mode. However, Takahashi et al. discloses a similar coating die (21) having an improved adjusting means (30, 50, 70) capable of mechanically, electrically, or pneumatically adjusting the slot width (D) of the outlet (4a) to values between 0.1 and 3 mm, or 100 microns to 3mm, in increments of a few microns (col. 4 lines 12-60, figures 1-3 and 5-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adjusting means like that of Takahashi et al. for the dies (1.1, 1.2) of Davydenko et al. such they can operate in a thin film mode at the low end of the range (100 microns) or a sump mode at the high end of the range (2-3mm) because Takahashi et al. discloses that this is a much more precise mechanism for adjusting slot width as the adjustment means can be controlled over the entire length of the die (col. 2 lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 2: Davydenko et al. and Takahashi et al. disclose the above apparatus in which the slot adjustment means (30, 50, 70) can include a mechanically operated bolt (11) (Takahashi et al. figures 1-2) or an electrically actuated heater changing the size of the bolt (73) (Takahashi et al. col. 6 lines 28+, figure 6).
Regarding claim 3: Davydenko et al. discloses that the position of the dies (1.1, 1.2) can be changed in the X direction, relative to the rolls (7, 8) (par. 44, figure 1).
Regarding claim 4: Davydenko et al. discloses that the dies (1.1, 1.2) can be moved horizontally in the X direction but also vertically (par. 44) such that it is capable of maintaining the same curtain height in any mode (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5: Davydenko et al. discloses that at least one of the rolls (8) is a controlled deflection roll (par. 27) which is another way of saying deflection compensation roll (i.e., an S-roll).
Regarding claim 6: Davydenko et al. discloses that the rolls (7, 8) can have a diameter of between 400 and 1800mm (par. 46), encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7: Davydenko et al. discloses that both rolls (7, 8) have a coating cover with a hardness of less than 30 P&J (par. 40), and further discloses that rolls having a hardness of 1-5 P&J are also known to be used in this art (par. 20) such that 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 roll coating cover with a hardness of 0 to 5 P&J because Davydenko et al. shows that this is a known result effective variable for the art (pars. 20-21) and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Regarding claim 8: Davydenko et al. discloses that at least one of the rolls (8) is a controlled deflection roll (par. 27) which is another way of saying deflection compensation roll (i.e., an S-roll), and further discloses that both rolls (7, 8) have a coating cover with a hardness of less than 30 P&J (par. 40). Still further, Davydenko et al. discloses that rolls having a hardness of 1-5 P&J are also known to be used in this art (par. 20) such that 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 roll coating cover with a hardness of 5 to 30 P&J because Davydenko et al. shows that this is a known result effective variable for the art (pars. 20-21, 28) and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Regarding claim 10: Davydenko et al. discloses that the line load of the nip (N) can be between 20kN/m and 200kN/m (par. 40).
Regarding claim 12: Davydenko et al. fails to explicitly disclose the dry content of the paper web (13). However, limitations regarding the material being worked on by an apparatus do not impart patentability to the apparatus claim (MPEP 2115). In the instant case, the apparatus of Davydenko et al. is capable of using a web (13) of paper with dry content of more than 90%, or between 92% and 98%.
Regarding claim 13: Davydenko et al. discloses that the treatment substance (2.1, 2.2) is a starch and has a volumetric flow in the range of 4 l/(min*m) to 30 l/(min*m), overlapping the claimed ranges for both modes (par. 42).
Regarding claim 14: Davydenko et al. discloses that the starch substance (2.1, 2.2) is discharged from the dies (1.1, 1.2) having a solids content of between 10% and 40%, overlapping the claimed ranges for both modes (par. 37). Further, Davydenko et al. discloses that different layers can be controlled to have different solids content (par. 47) such that different starches having different solids content are used for different modes.
Regarding claim 15: Davydenko et al. discloses that the starch substance (2.1, 2.2) has a viscosity of between 20 to 500 mPa s (par. 42).
Regarding claim 16: Davydenko et al. discloses that the starch substance (2.1, 2.2) has a temperature between 55 and 99 degrees Celsius (par. 42).
Regarding claim 18: Davydenko et al. and Takahashi et al. disclose that the position of the slot outlet (4a) is controlled via the adjusting means (30, 50, 70), actuated by additional control means such as wrench or electrical heater (Takahashi et al. figures 1, 6), and that the die heads (1.1, 1.2) can be moved horizontally and vertically by means (Davydenko et al. par. 44) which would be a control device. Davydenko et al. and Takahashi et al. fail to explicitly disclose that these actuators are controlled by the same control device, but it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate all of the various actuators in order to automate the process because integration of parts and automation of an otherwise manual activity are not considered to be patentable advances (MPEP 2144.04).
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Davydenko et al. and Takahashi et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 10, 12-16 and 18 above and further in view of Justus (US 3,080,847) on claim 9 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 9: Davydenko et al. discloses a pair of collecting troughs (9.1, 9.2) which have a funnel shape (par. 46, figure 1), but fails to provide any specific details about the troughs beyond the location shown in the drawings, and therefore fails to explicitly disclose that they are formed laterally of the nip. However, Justus discloses a similar web coating apparatus having two opposing overflow troughs (82) which can be described as funnels, the troughs (82) being arranged laterally of the treatment nip N2 on either end thereof (col. 4, lines 42-52, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use overflow troughs arranged laterally from the nip as taught by Justus for the apparatus of Davydenko et al. because Justus teaches that material from the nip will occasionally overflow regardless, and this allows one to catch and reuse that material (col. 4 lines 42-52).
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Davydenko et al. and Takahashi et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 10, 12-16 and 18 above and further in view of Huovila (WO 9837275) on claim 11 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 11: Davydenko et al. discloses that high web speed is desirable (par. 3) but fails to explicitly disclose any ranges for web speed. However, Huovila discloses a similar web coating apparatus using a pond (7) (which is a sump) of treatment fluid at a nip between rollers (1, 2), and teaches that the web speed for such an apparatus can be between 300-2500 m/min, further defining the range as between 400 to 1000 m/min for a board and 900 and 2200 m/min for a paper web (page 11, 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 web speed like that of Huovila or even optimize it further to be between 250 and 2000 m/min because Huovila teaches that this web speed is a result effective variable which is determined by things like pond size and vibrations in the pond liquid (page 2), and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Davydenko et al. fails to teach or suggest utilizing distinct, mutually exclusive angular ranges tailored to different operating modes, and that the control device in claim 18 is a well-known structural term in the art for directing motors and actuators.
In response:
Regarding the prior art, Applicant’s argument is immaterial to the instant claims because these are apparatus claims, not method claims, and the discussion of selecting two angles for two disparate modes is purely intended use. Applicant has claimed no structural feature which switches the operating angle between two separate modes, only that the angle is selected for a certain range depending on the desired mode, with Davydenko et al. overlapping both of the claimed ranges. Therefore, Davydenko et al. reads on the structural requirements of this limitation- that it is able to set the angle of impingement to these ranges. There is no structural requirement correlated to this angle switching, and therefore it is an intended use limitation which simply states a desired function of the apparatus. Further, Davydenko et al. does state that the apparatus is capable of operating in a distinct sump mode, and while Davydenko et al. does not discuss changing the angle of impingement for this mode, the fact that Davydenko et al. allows for angle changes based on desired dwell time would at the very least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is a result effective variable which would be optimized for the sump mode.
Regarding the control device of claim 18, Applicant’s arguments seem to conflate the act of mechanically and/or electrically actuating the adjusting/adjustment device with a defined, structural feature called a “control device” but even in Applicant’s arguments Applicant has admitted that a control device could be understood as a well-known term for operating an electrical actuator, but fails to consider whether or not one could be understood as a well-known term for operating a mechanical actuator. And this is actually the crux of the issue with this term- the specification provides no explicit mention of a control device and how exactly it is tied to the actuation of the adjusting/adjustment device mentioned in paragraph 47, leaving the scope of the claim unclear because electrical actuation and mechanical actuation require two very different control processes. Simply claiming a “control device” and intending to read in a substantial amount of conflicting information not only from the specification but also from the art leaves the scope of “control device” extremely murky, which is why it remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 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
8/4/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights