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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12 June 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the expiration of US Patent No. 11,819,876 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,377,435 in view of Peng et al. (CN 109261438). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Present Application US’435
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 disposed at the lower discharge opening, defined as elongated from a first end, disposed at an exit portion of the lower slurry receiving part where the second electrode active material slurry is configured to move from the lower slurry receiving part into the lower discharge opening when being discharged, to a second end along a discharge direction
Claim 1
US’435 does not claim a coating roller, which is conventional with a dual slot coater (see Peng CN’438, Figs. 7-9 and throughout the prior art)
first outer die block, comprising
-- first slot
-- first manifold, comprising
-- first air vent
second outer die block,
-- located opposite intermediate die block
-- second slot
-- second air vent
first air vent installed adjacent to a front end of the first manifold without being installed at a first land portion that is a portion where the front end placed on the first outlet side and the first outlet are connected
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.
Claims 1, 11
die block comprises
-- second outer die block
-- intermediate die block
-- second spacer between second outer die block and intermediate die block
-- sequentially coupled, including second spacer between second outer die block and intermediate die block
Claim 3:
upper slurry receiving part formed in the second upper die
Claim 1:
second manifold as a recessed chamber in intermediate die block or second outer die block and communicates with second slot
Claim 4:
-- upper slurry receiving part
communicating with upper discharge opening
Claim 1
-- second manifold communicating with second slot
Claim 5
Upper air vent passes through first upper die to be communicated with the upper slurry receiving part
Claims 1,4,6
Second air vent passes through second outer die block to be communicated with the second manifold
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
Claims 1,10
the first outer die block comprises
-- a sequentially coupled first outer die block
-- intermediate die, with a
-- first spacer interposed therebetween, wherein the first slot (i.e. opening) is disposed between the first outer die block and the intermediate die
Claim 7
lower slurry receiving part is formed in the second lower die
Claim 1
first manifold with recessed chamber is formed in the intermediate die, wherein the first manifold with recessed chamber is communicated with the first slot
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 slurry receiving part
Claims 1,4
the first air vent passes through the second outer die and the intermediate die block to be communicated with the first manifold, which can be located in the first outer die block (i.e. must pass at least part way through first outer die block, too)
The intermediate die can be considered either the second upper die or the second lower die, since the claims do not require both a second upper and a second lower die simultaneously and can be considered merely renaming the same structure or viewing the same structure with a different perspective
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 1,10,11
second spacer comprises a first opening to determine a coating width
Claim 11:
lower air vent is installed to pass through the upper spacer
Claim 11:
first air vent is installed to pass through the second spacer
Claim 12:
upper or lower air vent comprises a valve
Claim 2
wherein the first air vent or the second air vent comprises a pipe forming a channel and a valve
Claim 13
upper air vent and/ or lower air vent has a bent structure
Claim 5
the first air vent or the second air vent has a bent structure
Claim 14
a lower end of the lower air vent is disposed at the first end of the lower discharge opening, and wherein the lower end communicates with the lower slurry receiving part, so as to receive the gas to be vented.
Claims 1-2,4,6-13,15,18-19-20
defined by geometry in the claims
Regarding Claim 1, although the claims in US’435 fail to recite a coating roller, a coating roller is conventional. For example, Peng et al. (CN’438), analogous art in the field of slot die coating, including one comprising a dual slot die with air vents, 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]. It would have been obvious to claim an apparatus including both the claimed slot die and a coating roller adjacent a second end, where coating is discharged, because a coating roller where coating is discharged from a slot of a slot die is conventional and suggested by CN’438. Moreover, the words “lower” and “upper” are prima facie obvious changes in orientation of the claimed apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 2 has been fully considered and overcomes the previous objection. The objection to Claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 2-11 under 35 USC 112(b), to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), and to the rejections of Claims 2-13 under 35 USC 103 has been fully considered and overcomes the previous rejections under these paragraphs. The rejections of Claims 2-11 under 35 USC 112(b), of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), and of Claims 2-13 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s terminal disclaimer with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-13 under non-statutory double patenting have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to the claims, further defining a placement of the lower air vent in relation to an exit portion, has necessitated a double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,377,435 in view of Peng et al. (CN 109261438).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights