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 January 2, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1-2, 7, 21, and 24 were amended. Claims 6, 9, 12, 16, 21-43, and 45-86 were cancelled. Claims 87-90 were added. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-20, and 87-90 are in the application and pending examination. Claim 44 has been withdrawn. Replacement Paragraphs 30 and 33 correct minor typographical errors.
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 previous objection to the drawings for including the “bearing” and “support plate” in claim 9 and “an x-axis module configured to move the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser up and down along an x-axis” in claim 18 and “wherein the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar arranged under the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser” in claim 19 are withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 18-19 and cancellation of claim 9.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is maintained.
The previous objection to paragraph 29 is withdrawn based on the amendment to the specification to replace the term(s) “implementations”.
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: “wherein a body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar” in claim 1, “press a second opposing surface of the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that the electrode sheet deflects toward the at least one support bar” in claim 87, and “compression force” in claim 89, and “press directly against” in claim 90.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 for reciting:
“device configured to implement an electrode glue coating… applicator configured to coat a glue”.
is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous objection to claims 2, 7, and 18 are withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 2, 7, and 18.
The previous objection to claims 12 and 16 are withdrawn based on the cancellation of claims 12 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to Hyuong Sun Lee (hereinafter Lee) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 6.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 87-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,299,186 to Pipkin et al (hereinafter Pipkin).
Regarding claim 1, Avalos teaches a coating device configured to implement glue coating comprising: at least one applicator configured to coat a glue onto two opposite sides (underside or bottom, top) of an electrode sheet (4) ; and at least one roller assembly (10) configured to guide the electrode sheet (4) past the at least one applicator (8 , 12). ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.) Examiner is considering a strip of aluminum to be equivalent to an electrode sheet and resin to a glue coating.
Regarding claim 1, Avalos does not explicitly teach a coating device configured to implement an electrode glue.
Lee is directed to coating a metal web or sheet that is used in fabricating electrodes for batteries and electrochemical cells.
Lee teaches a coating device configured to implement an electrode glue. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.) Examiner is considering an electrode slurry to be equivalent to an electrode glue.
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 coating device configured to implement an electrode glue, because Lee teaches this would enable electrodes for used in batteries and electrochemical cells to be made. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Regarding claim 1, Avalos does not explicitly teach at least one support bar arranged under the at least one applicator.
Lee teaches at least one support bar (supports 34, 36) arranged under the at least one applicator. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
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 teach at least one support bar arranged under the at least one applicator, because Lee teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired orientation to receive coating and allow batteries and electrochemical cells to be made. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Regarding claim 1, Avalos does not explicitly teach a body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar.
Pipkin is directed to an apparatus for applying viscous fluid to a moving substrate.
Pipkin teaches a body of the at least one applicator is configured to press smooth surfaces of the applicator against the substrate to seal the opening for dispensing viscous fluid. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.) Examiner is considering an exit guide roll 14 to be equivalent to a support bar.
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 teach a body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar because Pipkin teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.)
Regarding claim 2, Avalos teaches the at least one applicator comprises a plurality (8, 12) of applicators. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Regarding claim 5, Avalos teaches the electrode sheet comprises a thin aluminum sheet. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Regarding claim 7, Avalos teaches the at least one applicator is configured to apply the glue on two edges of the electrode sheet. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 22-23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Regarding claim 87, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the at least one applicator is configured to contact a first surface of the electrode sheet and a press a second opposing surface of the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that the electrode sheet deflects toward the at least one support bar.
Pipkin teaches a body of the at least one applicator is configured to press smooth surfaces of the applicator against the substrate to seal the opening for dispensing viscous fluid. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.) Examiner is considering an exit guide roll 14 to be equivalent to a support bar.
Pipkin teaches the body of the at least one applicator (10) is configured to contact a first surface of the substrate (side of web contacting 10) and a press a second opposing surface of the electrode sheet (side of web contacting 14) directly against the at least one support bar (14) such that the substrate (W) deflects toward the at least one support bar (14). (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.)
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 body of the at least one applicator is configured to contact a first surface of the electrode sheet and a press a second opposing surface of the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that the electrode sheet deflects toward the at least one support bar, because Pipkin teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3,col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.)
Regarding claim 88, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar such that a tension force is established in the electrode sheet.
Pipkin teaches the body of the at least one applicator (10) is configured to press the substrate (W) against the at least one support bar (14) such that a tension force is established in the substrate (W). (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.) Examiner is considering an exit guide roll 14 to be equivalent to a support bar.
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 body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar such that a tension force is established in the electrode sheet, because Pipkin teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.)
Regarding claim 89, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the electrode sheet is configured to be arranged between the body of the at least one applicator and the at least one support bar, and wherein the body of the at least one applicator is configured to exert a compression force against the electrode sheet and the at least one support bar.
Pipkin teaches the body of the substrate (W) is configured to be arranged between the body of the at least one applicator (10) and the at least one support bar (14), and wherein the body of the at least one applicator is configured to exert a compression force against the electrode sheet and the at least one support bar (14). (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.) Examiner is considering an exit guide roll 14 to be equivalent to a support bar.
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 body of the electrode sheet is configured to be arranged between the body of the at least one applicator and the at least one support bar, and wherein the body of the at least one applicator is configured to exert a compression force against the electrode sheet and the at least one support bar, because Pipkin teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.)
Regarding claim 90, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip that is configured to press the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet.
Pipkin teaches the body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip (area between 30 and 32) that is configured to press the substrate (W) directly against the at least one support bar (14) such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend (portion of W extending to the left of the outermost right side portion of 14) is formed in the substrate (W). (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.) Examiner is considering an exit guide roll 14 to be equivalent to a support bar.
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 body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip that is configured to press the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet, because Pipkin teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.)
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240290936 A1 to Kobaisy Ali et al (hereinafter Kobaisy Ali) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,299,186 to Pipkin et al (hereinafter Pipkin) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240290936 A1 to Kobaisy Ali et al (hereinafter Kobaisy Ali).
Regarding claim 3, Avalos does not explicitly teach the at least one applicator comprises a metering slot coating applicator.
Kobaisy Ali is directed to coating an electrode. (See Kobaisy Ali, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6, 13, 16-17, 20-25, 37-38, 72, 80, 87, 115-116, 124, 126-128, 178, 182, and 186 and Figs. 1-6.)
Kobaisy Ali teaches the at least one applicator comprises a metering slot coating applicator. (See Kobaisy Ali, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6, 13, 16-17, 20-25, 37-38, 72, 80, 87, 115-116, 124, 126-128, 178, 182, and 186 and Figs. 1-6.)
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 teach the at least one applicator comprises a metering slot coating applicator, because Kobaisy Ali teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired deposited coating composition. (See Kobaisy Ali, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6, 13, 16-17, 20-25, 37-38, 72, 80, 87, 115-116, 124, 126-128, 178, 182, and 186 and Figs. 1-6.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230019231 A1 to Rust, III et al (hereinafter Rust, III ) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,299,186 to Pipkin et al (hereinafter Pipkin) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230019231 A1 to Rust, III et al (hereinafter Rust, III ).
Regarding claim 4, Avalos does not explicitly teach the coating device is configured to be mounted adjacent a slitting machine.
Rust, III is directed to the production of electrodes.
Rust, III teaches the coating device is configured to be mounted adjacent a slitting machine. (See Rust, III, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 122, 166, 212 and Figs. 1-18A, 18B.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating device is configured to be mounted adjacent a slitting machine, because Rust, III teaches this would allow the substrate to have delineated population of electrode structures in the web. (See Rust, III, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 122, 166, 212 and Figs. 1-18A, 18B.)
The previous rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,134,773 to Joseph B. Kejha (hereinafter Kejha ) are withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 9.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,299,186 to Pipkin et al (hereinafter Pipkin) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,134,773 to Joseph B. Kejha (hereinafter Kejha ).
Regarding claim 8, Avalos does not explicitly teach the at least one roller assembly is attached to a bracket and supported by the bracket.
Kejha is directed to the production of electrochemical cells from a web.
Kejha teaches the at least one roller assembly (26) is attached to a bracket (bracket attaching 26 to ceiling) and supported by the bracket. (See Kejha, Abstract, col. 5, lines 39-52 and Fig. 5.)
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 teach the at least one roller assembly is attached to a bracket and supported by the bracket, because Kejha teaches this would allow the substrate to travel in the desired direction. (See Kejha, Abstract, col. 5, lines 39-52 and Fig. 5.)
The previous rejection of claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050098101 A1 to Shen et al (hereinafter Shen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160164069 A1 to Takahashi et al (hereinafter Takahashi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 12 and 16.
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,299,186 to Pipkin et al (hereinafter Pipkin) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050098101 A1 to Shen et al (hereinafter Shen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160164069 A1 to Takahashi et al (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 10, Avalos does not explicitly teach the at least one applicator comprises a first vertical dispenser, a second vertical dispenser, a first horizontal dispenser, and a second horizontal dispenser
Avalos teaches at least one first vertical dispenser (8) includes a first head at a first location (8) and a second head at a second location, Avalos teaches the first location is located vertically above the substrate at position where the substrate (4) travels horizontally. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Avalos does not teach a second vertical dispenser.
Shen teaches an arm and sprayer assembly configured to spray the solution on a substrate located vertically below the sprayer assembly on a table. (See Shen, Abstract, paragraphs 26-28, 31, and 49-52, Figs. 1-5.)
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly includes multiple nozzles (22, 22) . (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second vertical dispenser, because Shen teaches the spray assembly can include a single nozzle or multiple nozzles as art recognized equivalents. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Avalos does not teach a first horizontal dispenser and a second horizontal dispenser.
Takahashi is directed to coating an electrode.
Takahashi teaches a first horizontal dispenser (102b) located a horizontal distant from the substrate where the substrate travels vertically. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3A and 5A.)
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly includes multiple nozzles (22, 22). (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second vertical dispenser, because Shen teaches the spray assembly can include a single nozzle or multiple nozzles as art recognized equivalents. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Avalos does not teach a first horizontal dispenser and a second horizontal dispenser.
Takahashi is directed to coating an electrode.
Takahashi teaches a first horizontal dispenser (102b) located a horizontal distant from the substrate where the substrate travels vertically. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3A and 5A, paragraphs 48-50.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second vertical dispenser, because Takahashi teaches a first horizontal dispenser allows the coating to occur on the second surface of the substrate. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3A and 5A, paragraphs 48-50.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Avalos does not teach a second horizontal dispenser.
Shen teaches an arm and sprayer assembly configured to spray the solution on a substrate located vertically below the sprayer assembly on a table. (See Shen, Abstract, paragraphs 26-28, 31, and 49-52, Figs. 1-5.)
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly includes multiple nozzles (22, 22) . (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second horizontal dispenser, because Shen teaches the spray assembly can include a single nozzle or multiple nozzles as art recognized equivalents. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 11, Avalos does not teach further comprising a first y-axis module.
Shen teaches and y-axis module ( arm 23 on left in Fig. 3). (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-51.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a first y-axis module, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate desired movement between the nozzle and the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 13, Avalos does not teach the first y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser.
Shen teaches the first y-axis module is configured with an arm and 3 axis NC system. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53, 82, 107 .) Examiner is considering an arm and 3 axis NC system to be equivalent to one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate total control of the distance and the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 14, Avalos does not teach further comprising a first z-axis module configured to move the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser up and down along a z axis.
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly mount is capable of vertical movement based on structure including vertical track, bracket, and y-axis module. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a first z-axis module configured to move the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser up and down along a z axis, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate vertical movement and the desired spacing between the nozzle and substrate in a z-direction. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 50-53, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 15, Avalos does not teach comprising a second y-axis module.
Shen teaches comprising a second y-axis module (23 on right in Fig. 3). (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-51.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprising a second y-axis module, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate the desired movement for multiple nozzles across the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 17, Avalos does not teach the second y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first horizontal dispenser and the second horizontal dispenser.
Shen teaches the y-axis module is configured with an arm and 3 axis NC system. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53, 82, 107.) Examiner is considering an arm and 3 axis NC system to be equivalent to one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first horizontal dispenser and the second horizontal dispenser, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate total control of the distance and the substrate and allow this set of dispensers to have the desired location relative to the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 18, Avalos does not teach an x-axis module configured to move the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser up and down along an x-axis.
Shen teaches an x-axis module (portion of arm which rides on track 24 in x direction) configured to move the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser in an x-axis direction while the dispensers move up and down. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53, 82, 107.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an x-axis module configured to move the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser up and down along an x-axis, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate total control of the distance and the substrate and allow this set of dispensers to have the desired location relative to the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 19, Avalos does not teach the at least one support bar comprises a first support bar arranged under the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser; and wherein the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser relative to the electrode sheet.
Lee teaches a first support bar (supports 34, 36) arranged opposite the first vertical dispenser (14). (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
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 teach at least one support bar comprises a first support bar arranged under the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser, because Lee teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired orientation to receive coating and allow batteries and electrochemical cells to be made. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Further regarding claim 19, Avalos does not teach the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser relative to the electrode sheet.
Takahashi teaches wherein the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar (roller(s) underneath conveyor and across from 102a, 102b in Fig. 3A) arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser (102b) and/or the second horizontal dispenser (102a). (See Takahashi, Fig. 3a, 5a, paragraphs 43-50.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser relative to the electrode sheet, because Takahashi teaches this structure would facilitate coating on front and back of the electrode with the desired pattern. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3a, 5a, paragraphs 43-50.)
Regarding claim 20, Avalos does not explicitly teach the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet against the first support bar.
Lee teaches the first vertical dispenser (14) and/or the second vertical dispenser (6) are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet (30) against the first support bar (36). (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet against the first support bar, because Lee teaches this would allow the substrate to have the coating on both sides of the substrate with the desired weight and/or thickness. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Regarding claim 20, Avalos teaches the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet against the first support bar, such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet.
Pipkin teaches the body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip (area between 30 and 32) that is configured to press the substrate (W) directly against the at least one support bar (14) such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend (portion of W extending to the left of the outermost right side portion of 14) is formed in the substrate (W). (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.) Examiner is considering an exit guide roll 14 to be equivalent to a support bar.
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 vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet against the first support bar, such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet, because Pipkin teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See Pipkin, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 39-46, 55-65; col. 3, lines 43-53; col. 3, lines 15-25; 35-45; col. 4, lines 10-20.)
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 87-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,386,998 to McIntyre et al (hereinafter McIntyre).
Regarding claim 1, Avalos teaches a coating device configured to implement glue coating comprising: at least one applicator configured to coat a glue onto two opposite sides (underside or bottom, top) of an electrode sheet (4) ; and at least one roller assembly (10) configured to guide the electrode sheet (4) past the at least one applicator (8 , 12). ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.) Examiner is considering a strip of aluminum to be equivalent to an electrode sheet and resin to a glue coating.
Regarding claim 1, Avalos does not explicitly teach a coating device configured to implement an electrode glue.
Lee is directed to coating a metal web or sheet that is used in fabricating electrodes for batteries and electrochemical cells.
Lee teaches a coating device configured to implement an electrode glue. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.) Examiner is considering an electrode slurry to be equivalent to an electrode glue.
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 coating device configured to implement an electrode glue, because Lee teaches this would enable electrodes for used in batteries and electrochemical cells to be made. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Regarding claim 1, Avalos does not explicitly teach at least one support bar arranged under the at least one applicator.
Lee teaches at least one support bar (supports 34, 36) arranged under the at least one applicator. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
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 teach at least one support bar arranged under the at least one applicator, because Lee teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired orientation to receive coating and allow batteries and electrochemical cells to be made. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Regarding claim 1, Avalos does not explicitly teach a body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar.
McIntyre is directed to an apparatus for applying viscous fluid to a moving substrate.
McIntyre teaches a body of the at least one applicator (7) is configured to press smooth surfaces of the applicator against the substrate to seal the opening for dispensing viscous fluid. (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
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 teach a body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar because McIntyre teaches this would allow the uniformity of the coating to be adjusted. (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
Regarding claim 2, Avalos teaches the at least one applicator comprises a plurality (8, 12) of applicators. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Regarding claim 5, Avalos teaches the electrode sheet comprises a thin aluminum sheet. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Regarding claim 7, Avalos teaches the at least one applicator is configured to apply the glue on two edges of the electrode sheet. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 22-23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Regarding claim 87, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the at least one applicator is configured to contact a first surface of the electrode sheet and a press a second opposing surface of the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that the electrode sheet deflects toward the at least one support bar.
McIntyre teaches the body of the at least one applicator (7) is configured to contact a first surface of the substrate (side of web contacting 7) and a press a second opposing surface of the electrode sheet (side of web contacting 9) directly against the at least one support bar (9) such that the substrate 5) deflects toward the at least one support bar (5). (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
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 body of the at least one applicator is configured to contact a first surface of the electrode sheet and a press a second opposing surface of the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that the electrode sheet deflects toward the at least one support bar, because McIntyre teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
Regarding claim 88, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar such that a tension force is established in the electrode sheet.
McIntyre teaches the body of the at least one applicator (7) is configured to press the substrate (5) against the at least one support bar (9) such that a tension force is established in the substrate (5). (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
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 body of the at least one applicator is configured to press the electrode sheet against the at least one support bar such that a tension force is established in the electrode sheet, because McIntyre teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
Regarding claim 89, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the electrode sheet is configured to be arranged between the body of the at least one applicator and the at least one support bar, and wherein the body of the at least one applicator is configured to exert a compression force against the electrode sheet and the at least one support bar.
McIntyre teaches the body of the substrate (5) is configured to be arranged between the body of the at least one applicator (7) and the at least one support bar (9), and wherein the body (portion of 7 including 11) of the at least one applicator is configured to exert a compression force against the electrode sheet and the at least one support bar (9). (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
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 body of the electrode sheet is configured to be arranged between the body of the at least one applicator and the at least one support bar, and wherein the body of the at least one applicator is configured to exert a compression force against the electrode sheet and the at least one support bar, because McIntyre teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
Regarding claim 90, Avalos does not explicitly teach the body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip that is configured to press the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet.
McIntyre teaches the body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip (area between 30 and 32) that is configured to press the substrate (W) directly against the at least one support bar (9) such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend (portion of 5 extending below the top side portion of 9) is formed in the substrate (5). (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
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 body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip that is configured to press the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet, because McIntyre teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,386,998 to McIntyre et al (hereinafter McIntyre) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240290936 A1 to Kobaisy Ali et al (hereinafter Kobaisy Ali).
Regarding claim 3, Avalos does not explicitly teach the at least one applicator comprises a metering slot coating applicator.
Kobaisy Ali is directed to coating an electrode. (See Kobaisy Ali, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6, 13, 16-17, 20-25, 37-38, 72, 80, 87, 115-116, 124, 126-128, 178, 182, and 186 and Figs. 1-6.)
Kobaisy Ali teaches the at least one applicator comprises a metering slot coating applicator. (See Kobaisy Ali, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6, 13, 16-17, 20-25, 37-38, 72, 80, 87, 115-116, 124, 126-128, 178, 182, and 186 and Figs. 1-6.)
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 teach the at least one applicator comprises a metering slot coating applicator, because Kobaisy Ali teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired deposited coating composition. (See Kobaisy Ali, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6, 13, 16-17, 20-25, 37-38, 72, 80, 87, 115-116, 124, 126-128, 178, 182, and 186 and Figs. 1-6.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,386,998 to McIntyre et al (hereinafter McIntyre) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230019231 A1 to Rust, III et al (hereinafter Rust, III ).
Regarding claim 4, Avalos does not explicitly teach the coating device is configured to be mounted adjacent a slitting machine.
Rust, III teaches the coating device is configured to be mounted adjacent a slitting machine. (See Rust, III, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 122, 166, 212 and Figs. 1-18A, 18B.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating device is configured to be mounted adjacent a slitting machine, because Rust, III teaches this would allow the substrate to have delineated population of electrode structures in the web. (See Rust, III, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 122, 166, 212 and Figs. 1-18A, 18B.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,386,998 to McIntyre et al (hereinafter McIntyre) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,134,773 to Joseph B. Kejha (hereinafter Kejha ).
Regarding claim 8, Avalos does not explicitly teach the at least one roller assembly is attached to a bracket and supported by the bracket.
Kejha teaches the at least one roller assembly (26) is attached to a bracket (bracket attaching 26 to ceiling) and supported by the bracket. (See Kejha, Abstract, col. 5, lines 39-52 and Fig. 5.)
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 teach the at least one roller assembly is attached to a bracket and supported by the bracket, because Kejha teaches this would allow the substrate to travel in the desired direction. (See Kejha, Abstract, col. 5, lines 39-52 and Fig. 5.)
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20020050325 A1 to Avalos (Avalos) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220305516 A1 to HyuongSun Lee (hereinafter Lee) and US Pat. Num. 4,386,998 to McIntyre et al (hereinafter McIntyre) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20050098101 A1 to Shen et al (hereinafter Shen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160164069 A1 to Takahashi et al (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 10, Avalos does not explicitly teach the at least one applicator comprises a first vertical dispenser, a second vertical dispenser, a first horizontal dispenser, and a second horizontal dispenser
Avalos teaches at least one first vertical dispenser (8) includes a first head at a first location (8) and a second head at a second location, Avalos teaches the first location is located vertically above the substrate at position where the substrate (4) travels horizontally. ( See Avalos, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 11, 14, 23, 25, 27, and 36-40.)
Avalos does not teach a second vertical dispenser.
Shen teaches an arm and sprayer assembly configured to spray the solution on a substrate located vertically below the sprayer assembly on a table. (See Shen, Abstract, paragraphs 26-28, 31, and 49-52, Figs. 1-5.)
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly includes multiple nozzles (22, 22) . (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second vertical dispenser, because Shen teaches the spray assembly can include a single nozzle or multiple nozzles as art recognized equivalents. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Avalos does not teach a first horizontal dispenser and a second horizontal dispenser.
Takahashi is directed to coating an electrode.
Takahashi teaches a first horizontal dispenser (102b) located a horizontal distant from the substrate where the substrate travels vertically. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3A and 5A.)
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly includes multiple nozzles (22, 22) . (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second vertical dispenser, because Shen teaches the spray assembly can include a single nozzle or multiple nozzles as art recognized equivalents. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Avalos does not teach a first horizontal dispenser and a second horizontal dispenser.
Takahashi is directed to coating an electrode.
Takahashi teaches a first horizontal dispenser (102b) located a horizontal distant from the substrate where the substrate travels vertically. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3A and 5A, paragraphs 48-50.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second vertical dispenser, because Takahashi teaches a first horizontal dispenser allows the coating to occur on the second surface of the substrate. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3A and 5A, paragraphs 48-50.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Avalos does not teach a second horizontal dispenser.
Shen teaches an arm and sprayer assembly configured to spray the solution on a substrate located vertically below the sprayer assembly on a table. (See Shen, Abstract, paragraphs 26-28, 31, and 49-52, Figs. 1-5.)
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly includes multiple nozzles (22, 22) . (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one applicator comprises a second horizontal dispenser, because Shen teaches the spray assembly can include a single nozzle or multiple nozzles as art recognized equivalents. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 11, Avalos does not teach further comprising a first y-axis module.
Shen teaches and y-axis module ( arm 23 on left in Fig. 3). (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-51.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a first y-axis module, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate desired movement between the nozzle and the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 13, Avalos does not teach the first y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser.
Shen teaches the first y-axis module is configured with an arm and 3 axis NC system. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53, 82, 107 .)Examiner is considering an arm and 3 axis NC system to be equivalent to one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate total control of the distance and the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 14, Avalos does not teach further comprising a first z-axis module configured to move the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser up and down along a z axis.
Shen teaches the sprayer assembly mount is capable of vertical movement based on structure including vertical track, bracket, and y-axis module. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a first z-axis module configured to move the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser up and down along a z axis, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate vertical movement and the desired spacing between the nozzle and substrate in a z-direction. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 50-53, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 15, Avalos does not teach comprising a second y-axis module.
Shen teaches comprising a second y-axis module (23 on right in Fig. 3). (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-51.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprising a second y-axis module, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate the desired movement for multiple nozzles across the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 17, Avalos does not teach the second y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first horizontal dispenser and the second horizontal dispenser.
Shen teaches the y-axis module is configured with an arm and 3 axis NC system. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53, 82, 107 .) Examiner is considering an arm and 3 axis NC system to be equivalent to one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first vertical dispenser and the second vertical dispenser.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second y-axis module is configured with one or more actuators, motors, and/or gears to provide y-axis movement of the first horizontal dispenser and the second horizontal dispenser, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate total control of the distance and the substrate and allow this set of dispensers to have the desired location relative to the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 18, Avalos does not teach an x-axis module configured to move the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser up and down along an x-axis.
Shen teaches an x-axis module (portion of arm which rides on track 24 in x direction) configured to move the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser in an x-axis direction while the dispensers move up and down. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 50-53, 82, 107 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an x-axis module configured to move the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser up and down along an x-axis, because Shen teaches this structure would facilitate total control of the distance and the substrate and allow this set of dispensers to have the desired location relative to the substrate. (See Shen, Figs. 3-4a, paragraphs 29, 72, 77.)
Regarding claim 19, Avalos does not teach the at least one support bar comprises a first support bar arranged under the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser; and wherein the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser relative to the electrode sheet.
Lee teaches a first support bar (supports 34, 36) arranged opposite the first vertical dispenser (14) . (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
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 teach at least one support bar comprises a first support bar arranged under the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser, because Lee teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired orientation to receive coating and allow batteries and electrochemical cells to be made. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Further regarding claim 19, Avalos does not teach the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser relative to the electrode sheet.
Takahashi teaches wherein the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar (roller(s) underneath conveyor and across from 102a, 102b in Fig. 3A) arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser (102b) and/or the second horizontal dispenser (102a). (See Takahashi, Fig. 3a, 5a, paragraphs 43-50 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one support bar comprises a second support bar arranged opposite the first horizontal dispenser and/or the second horizontal dispenser relative to the electrode sheet, because Takahashi teaches this structure would facilitate coating on front and back of the electrode with the desired pattern. (See Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 3a, 5a, paragraphs 43-50 .)
Regarding claim 20, Avalos does not explicitly teach the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet against the first support bar.
Lee teaches the first vertical dispenser (14) and/or the second vertical dispenser (6) are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet (30) against the first support bar (36). (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet against the first support bar, because Lee teaches this would allow the substrate to have the coating on both sides of the substrate with the desired weight and/or thickness. (See Lee, Abstract, paragraph 36-38 and 47.)
Regarding claim 20, Avalos teaches the first vertical dispenser and/or the second vertical dispenser are configured to contact and/or engage a surface of the electrode sheet against the first support bar, such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet.
McIntyre teaches the body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip (area between 30 and 32) that is configured to press the substrate (5) directly against the at least one support bar (9) such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend (portion of 5 extending below the top side portion of 9) is formed in the substrate (5). (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
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 body of the at least one applicator defines a slot nozzle tip that is configured to press the electrode sheet directly against the at least one support bar such that a dent, deformation, and/or bend is formed in the electrode sheet, because McIntyre teaches this would allow the opening to be sealed so that a uniform coating can be formed on the moving substrate. (See McIntyre, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 1, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 3, lines 35-62.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-20, and 87-90 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.
US Pat. Num. 4,299,186 to Pipkin et al (hereinafter Pipkin) is being used to address the new limitations added to claim 1 in a first set of rejections and US Pat. Num. 4,386,998 to McIntyre et al (hereinafter McIntyre) is being used to address the new limitations added to claim 1 in a second set of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Num. 3,941,902 to Wennerblom teaching a surface (1a in Fig. 4) pressed against the web receiving a coating. US Pat. Pub. No. 20140102362 A1 to Uwe Wagner teaching a surface (mouthpiece 32) pressed against the web receiving a coating. (See Wagner, Fig. 2 and paragraphs 16-19.)
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/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717