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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,819,876 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Present Application US’876 Claim 1 Coating roller lower die, comprising -- lower discharge opening (through which slurry is discharged) and -- lower slurry receiving part communicating with lower discharge opening -- lower air vent upper die -- located on upper side lower die -- upper discharge opening -- upper air vent lower air vent formed at portion S at which lower slurry receiving part and lower discharge opening are connected Claim 1 Coating roller lower die, comprising -- lower discharge part (allow discharge of slurry therethrough) -- lower slurry receiving part communicating with lower discharge part ( i.e. opening) -- lower air vent upper die, -- located on upper side lower die -- upper discharge part (to allow slurry therethrough) -- upper air vent lower air vent located at an area between lower slurry receiving part and the lower discharge part Claim 2: upper die comprises -- first upper die -- second upper die -- upper spacer -- the upper discharge opening formed by sequentially coupling first upper die, upper spacer, and second upper die. Claim 1 upper die comprises -- first upper die -- second upper die -- upper spacer -- sequentially coupl ed first upper die, second upper die , with upper spacer in between Claim 3: Claim 3 Claim 4: -- upper slurry receiving part communicating with upper discharge opening Claim 4 -- upper slurry receiving part communicating with upper discharge part ( i.e. opening) Claim 5 Claim 5 Claim 6 lower die comprises -- a first lower die -- a second lower die -- a lower spacer -- the lower discharge opening is formed by sequentially coupling the first lower die, the lower spacer, and the second lower die Claim 1 the lower die comprises -- a sequentially coupled first lower die -- second lower die, with a -- lower spacer interposed therebetween, wherein the lower discharge part ( i.e. opening) is disposed between the first lower die and the second lower die Claim 7 lower slurry receiving part is formed in the second lower die Claim 1 lower slurry receiving part is formed in the second lower die, wherein the lower slurry receiving part is communicated with the lower discharge part, Claims 8,9 the lower air vent passes through the first upper die , the second upper die, and the first lower die to be communicated with the lower slur r y receiving part Claims 1,6 the lower air vent passes through the second upper die and the first lower die to be communicated with the lower slurry receiving part the lower air vent passes through the first upper die to be communicated with the lower slurry receiving part. Claim 10 the upper spacer comprises -- a first opening -- interposed in only the remaining part except for one side of a peripheral area, in which the first upper die and the second upper die face each other. Claims 1,7 upper die comprises a sequentially coupled first upper die and second upper die, with an upper spacer interposed therebetween the upper spacer has a planar staple shape in which one side comprises a first opening. Claim 11 Claim 8 Claim 12 Claim 9 Claim 13 Claim 10 Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 2, the phrase “ an first” should be written “a first.” In Claim 2, the phrase “ an second” should be written “a second.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2-11 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. In C laim s 2 and 6, Applicants recite “sequentially coupling , ” and this appears to be directed to how parts are assembled ; this is not clearly a structural limitation. It is suggested that the claim be amended to recite that the components “ are adapted to allow for coupling ” or are coupled in the recited order . Examiner interprets the limitations to require that the recited components are coupled in the recited sequence. In claim 1 0 , Applicants recite “ the upper spacer comprises a first opening and is interposed in only a remaining part except for one side of a peripheral area , in which the first upper die (101A-1) and the second upper die (101A-2) face each other . ” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear w hat the bolded language with respect to the upper spacer or first opening . This language is deemed awkward and confusing. It is interpreted to be synonymous with the limitation “planar staple shape in which one side comprises a first opening,” recited in corresponding Claim 7 of US 11,819,876, issuing from the parent application. Claims 3-11 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 2. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al (CN109261438 ) . Regarding Claim 1, Peng et al. (CN’438) teach a slot die coating apparatus (Figures; [0007]) capable of coating an electrode active material slurry onto an electrode collector, the slot die coating apparatus comprising: a coating roller 20 ; a lower die 1 (Figs. 1, 3) comprising a lower discharge opening (Fig. 3 , see 4, 13,41; [0037]) through which a second electrode active material slurry is capable of being discharged, and a lower slurry receiving part ( cavity 11,Figs. 5-9; [0037] ) communicated with the lower discharge opening ( id .) ; and an upper die 3 located on the upper side of the lower die and having an upper discharge opening ( see 5, 31, 51; Figs. 1-3,5; [0037] ), through which a first electrode active material slurry is capable of being discharged, wherein an upper air vent is installed in the upper die [0046] and a lower air vent is installed in the lower die [0016] , wherein the lower air vent 25 is formed at the portion (first fluid distribution cavity portion 11) , at which the lower slurry receiving part and the lower discharge opening are connected to each other [0046] . The dies are sequentially coupled as evidenced by [0007, 0021]. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 . 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. Claim (s) 2- 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al . (CN109261438 ) . Regarding Claim s 2 and 6, CN’438 provides a slot die apparatus for coating an electrode active material slurry on a substrate such as a current collector, the apparatus comprising a coating roller (20, see Fig. 7), a lower die (1; see Fig. 2) having a lower discharge part for discharging a first slurry, and an upper die (3; see Fig. 2) located on an upper side of the lower die and having an upper discharge part for discharging a second slurry, an upper air vent (32, [0016, 0046]), a lower air vent (25, [1116, 0046]), respective spacers (i.e., gaskets, [0007, 0037) and respective slurry receiving parts (11, 21 as shown in Figs. 5-6). CN’438 provides for the lower die (1), a middle die (2), and upper die (3) in Fig. 2 (see snapshot below as taken from the supplemental EPO search report (10 pages, w/PTO receipt date 5/19/2022; supplied by Applicants). CN’438 does not explicitly set forth the apparatus having the upper die with a first upper die and second upper die AND /OR a lower die having a first lower die and a second lower die (i.e., four die parts in total). However, CN’438 illustrates in Fig. 4 (see snapshot below as taken from the supplemental EPO search report (10 pages, w/PTO receipt date 5/19/2022; supplied by Applicants) a different embodiment. While not explicitly set forth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the die parts in three total die parts (see Fig. 2; upper, middle, and lower die) or even four total die parts (see Fig. 4; first upper die, second upper die, first lower die, and second lower die) in so long as double layer coating of the two slurries results on the substrate or current collector. The resulting construction of the slot die coating apparatus to have four total die parts as oppose to three die parts would yield predictable results. The double layer coating of the first and second slurries on the current collector would still efficiently result. Thus, no inventive effort would have been required. Regarding claims 3 - 5 , 7, see above and Figs. 1 and 4, and an upper air vent (32, [0016, 0046]) along with lower air vent (25, [1116, 0046]). With obvious duplication of die parts, it would have been obvious either a) to duplicate the cavities for each duplicated die part or b) to locate a cavity within one of the obvious additional die parts. See , also, MPEP 2144.04. Regarding C laim s 8-9, 11 , suitable placement of the air vent to degas the slurry from a respective die part would require only routine skill in the art. Regarding C laim 1 0 , see respective spacers (i.e., gaskets, [0007, 0037]). Regarding C laim 1 3 , it would have been within the purview of one skill in the art to have a respective air vent of desired shape (i.e., L-shape or bent structure) to efficiently degas the slurry without introducing further gas into an interior of the slot die coating apparatus. Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al . (CN109261438 ) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al (US 2013/0025535) . Regarding Claim 12, t he teachings of CN’438 have been mentioned above. CN’438 is silent concerning use of a valving for the air vent(s). However, Choi et al. (US’535) is analogous art in the field of slot die coating and recognizes the use of air venting with the inclusion of valving (420, see Figs. 3) to open and close to prevent discharge of coating material [0043]. I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide valving on a respective CN’438 air vent , because US’535 suggests a vent valve to prevent unwanted discharge of coating material. Conclusion The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gibson et al (US6540833). No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5346 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Cleveland can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1418 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER M WEDDLE Examiner Art Unit 1712 /ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712