DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the initial office action of application number 18/446,734 filed on 08/09/2023 and has a foreign priority date of 10/28/2021. Claims 9-18 are currently pending and have been considered below
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 .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings are missing parts such as a ‘fixing apparatus’ mentioned in claim 16. Therefore, the “fixing apparatus” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
3. Claims 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al (US 20100297213 A1) in view of Yaniv et al. (US 8062697 B2) and further in view of Faust (US 5110618 A)
Regarding Claim 9 and 10: Dupont et al. teach an apparatus for patch manufacturing which is comprised of support 31 (support part) which holds a substrate-can be a roll or film-where coating is applied [para 111-129] for conveying a patch as final product, counter-electrode 16 and ring-shaped electrode 12 (corona discharge electrode and charging apparatus) both either polarized or connected to the ground to form electric field and a voltage supply unit 13 (electric field forming apparatus) [para 62; para 80-82]. The apparatus also includes nozzle 11 (aerosol supplying part) [para 60]. A structure similar to the claimed “film-like flow” of aerosol 22 is shown in fig 1 and is formed after aerosol material passes ring-shaped electrodes 12. The aerosol is comprised of chemical molecules (active material) [para 99]. Dupont et al. teach the limitations of claim 10 and is shown in the annotated diagram below. Aerosol 22 is flowing downward in respect to the orientation of the annotated diagram. An electrically charged region is shown labeled as ‘charged region’.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dupont do not specifically teach “the aerosol includes an active material, a binder and a gas, and in the electric field, an active material layer is formed by adhering a solid component of the film-like flow to the substrate by electrostatic force.”
Yaniv et al. teach an inkjet application and uses an atomizer (aerosol) that is comprised of gas, and a CNT (carbon nanotube) solution. Yaniv suggest that the CNT solution could be metallic (Ag, Cu, Au, etc.), alloying (Ni--Ti, Al--Ti, etc.), semi-conductive (Si, TiO.sub.2, etc.), insulating (glass, A1.sub.2O.sub.3, etc.), polymeric, clayey particles, or a mixture of any of the previous [column 3, lines 8-61]. The suggested metallic and polymeric materials correspond to claimed 'active material', and 'binder'. Yaniv also suggest binders can be used in CNT solution so that when applied to a substrate, the CNT solution sticks to substrate [column 3, lines 47-61]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the CNT solution into the invention of Dupont because Yaniv teach that CNT solution has good adhesive properties and sticks to substrate properly [column 3, lines 8-61].
Yaniv do not teach “in the electric field, an active material layer is formed by adhering a solid component of the film-like flow to the substrate by electrostatic force.”
Faust teach an apparatus for coating a substrate with a material which contains vaporizable solvent components and solid components comprises a high-voltage source for generating an electrostatic discharge in an aerosol. The material is coated in an electrostatic field by utilizing electrostatic force. [col 1, lines 25-68 to col 2, lines 1-2].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vaporizable solvent compound in an electric field into the invention of Dupont and form an active material film layer because Faust teach that applying the coating material leads to a higher coating rate [column 4, lines 25-41]
Regarding Claim 11: Dupont et al teach ring-shaped electrodes 12(corona discharge electrode) and they are placed adjacent to aerosol 22 and extends in a horizontal direction (width direction) as shown in fig 2.
Regarding Claim 15: Dupont et al. teach a gas supply container 18 to blow gas so that aerosol 22 is separated from electrodes 12 (corona discharge electrode) as shown in fig 1. [para 106-110]
Regarding Claim 16: Dupont et al. and Yaniv specifically do not teach the limitations of claim 16.
However, Faust teach a dryer 14 (heater) being used for drying applied coating solution on the substrate. The individual films of aerosol anchored in drop or bead form cover the entire surface on the substrate 9, begin transforming into the solid state and are fused to one another and to the substrate surface in the dryer 14. [column 7, lines 40-44]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the heating means into the invention of Dupont because Faust teach that dryer assists fusing the film structure to the substrate and maintain uniformity and homogeneity [para 8].
Regarding Claim 17: Dupont et al and Yaniv et al teach an apparatus as mentioned in paragraph 3, however, Dupont and Yaniv do not teach limitations of claim 17.
Faust teach an apparatus that is comprised of a deflection roller 8 (support) and a substrate 9 in the form of a sheet/film. The roller conveys the substrate 9 by rotating as shown in fig 1 [para 15].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the deflection roller because Faust teach that the roller guides the substrate 9.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al (US 20100297213 A1) in view of Yaniv et al. (US 8062697 B2) and further in view of Faust (US5110618A) and further in view of Matsuura (US 20150129672 A1)
Regarding Claim 12: The combination of Dupont, Yaniv and Faust teach an apparatus described above in paragraph 3. However, they do not specifically teach “the corona discharge electrode includes a plurality of protrusions, and the plurality of protrusions are arranged side by side in the width direction.”
However, Matsuura teach an electrostatic atomizer apparatus comprised of electrode 101 with a smooth surface and the surface has large number of protrusions (plurality of protrusions) and the protrusions are arranged side by side as shown in figure 2. [para 019; para 155; claim 14]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electrode with multiple protrusions like that of Matsuura et al. into the combination of Dupont and Yaniv because Matsuura teach that protrusions assist in efficient atomization which leads to fine particles [para 019].
5. Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al (US 20100297213 A1) in view of Yaniv et al. (US 8062697 B2) and further in view of Faust (US 5110618 A) and further in view of Kazuo (JP2002066390A)
Regarding Claim 13: Dupont et al teach a patch manufacturing apparatus with an aerosol comprised of nozzle 11. The nozzle 11 eject aerosol material as shown in fig 1. The flow of the aerosol 22 corresponds to the “film-like flow.” Dupont, Yaniv, and Faust do not teach “aerosol-supplying part includes a flat nozzle, the flat nozzle has an ejection port expanding in the width direction, and the film-like flow of the aerosol is ejected from the ejection port”
However, Kazuo teach a teach a jet spray cleaning nozzle that has flat internal portion 4 (flat nozzle) and has a spray hole 17 which passes through flat space 12 (port) that expanded in a width direction and vertical direction [fig 1-5; para 10-12]. Spraying particles is sprayed through flat space 12 towards a substrate (fil-like flow) as shown in fig 4.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the nozzle into the combination Dupont, Yaniv and Faust because Kazuo teach that having a wide-shape jet flow leads to stable and reliable flow of spray [para 3-5].
Regarding Claim 14: Dupont et al teach in fig 1 that ring-shaped electrode 12 (corona discharge electrode) has width bigger than the width of nozzle 11 (port). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a ring-shaped electrode would have a larger width than a nozzle port from the drawings disclosed by Dupont.
6. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al (US 20100297213 A1) in view of Yaniv et al. (US 8062697 B2) and further in view of Faust (US 5110618 A) and further in view of Jansen et al. (US 20180056321 A1)
Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Dupont, Yaniv and Faust teach an apparatus described above in paragraph 3. Faust teach a cross section labeled with a dotted line. The cross section is perpendicular (orthogonal) to a rotation axis of support 8 which conveys substrate 9. [para 12].
PNG
media_image2.png
635
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Dupont, Yaniv and Faust do not teach “flow direction of the film-like flow is along a tangential direction of the support part.”
Jansen et al teach a device for coating. The device comprised of nozzle 4 that applies a coating material to a substrate 3. The flow of material is in a tangential direction of roller 2 [para 30-35].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a configuration of the nozzle by Jansen et al. to achieve a flow direction that is tangential to the circumference of the roller and incorporate it into the combination of Dupont, Yaniv and Faust because Jansen teach that the flow direction helps in achieving smooth and even layer, while the nozzle assists in controlling the rotation speed of roller [para 15-16].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/WASIQUL HAQ/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights