DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on May 28, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 9, 13, and 15-16 were amended. Claims 1-8 were cancelled. Claims 19-20 were added. Claims 9-20 are in the application and pending examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) due to the assertion of missing parts such as a ‘fixing apparatus’ mentioned in claim 16 is withdrawn based on Applicant’s Arguments.
The limitation in claim 10 “ the electrically-charged region is formed to pass through the planar flow in the width direction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawing missing parts must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0018] The electrically-charged region is formed by corona discharge. The electrically-charged region is formed to pass through the film-like flow in the width direction. Therefore, the film-like flow (aerosol) is expected to be uniformly charged in the width direction. That is, it is expected to reduce the variation in amount of charges in the width direction.
[0033] 10. The film-like flow has a flow direction and a width direction. The width direction is orthogonal to the flow direction. The electrically-charged region may be formed to pass through the film-like flow in the width direction.
[0107] The present production method includes forming an electrically-charged region by corona discharge. For example, electrically-charged region 40 may be formed to pass through film-like flow 1 in the width direction (X-axis direction). Thus, it is considered that variation in amount of charges in the width direction can be reduced.
The specification is objected to for the phrase “ the electrically-charged region is formed to pass through the planar flow in the width direction”.
A suggested revision is as follows:
“ the planar flow the electrically-charged region
Paragraph 127 that the fixing apparatus is “not shown” should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “support part”, “electric-field-forming apparatus”, and “charging apparatus” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The fixing apparatus in claim 16 is no longer being considered under 112(f) based on the inclusion of the structure of the roll.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to based on the phrases “is to support”, “is to form”, and “is to form”. A suggested revision is as follows: “is configured to support” or “supports”, etc.
Claim 15 is objected to based on the phrases “is to blow”. A suggested revision is as follows: “is configured to blow ” or “applies”.
Claim 16 is objected to based on the phrases “is to apply”. A suggested revision is as follows: “is configured to apply ” or “applies”.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 is objected to for the phrase “ the electrically-charged region is formed to pass through the planar flow in the width direction”.
A suggested revision is as follows:
“ the planar flow the electrically-charged region
Claim 18 is objected to for the phrase “film-like flow”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 9-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 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 US Pat. Num. 10,654,056 to Nguyen et al (hereinafter Nguyen) .
Regarding Claim 9 : 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) [ See Dupont, para 62; para 80-82]. The apparatus also includes nozzle 11 (aerosol supplying part) [ See Dupont, para 60]. A structure similar to the claimed “planar 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) [See Dupont, 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’. [ See Dupont, Abstract, paragraphs 62, 80-82, and 99, Figs. 1-4, and 6.]
Annotated Fig. 1 of Dupont
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 planar 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 [ See Yaniz, column 3, lines 8-61].
Dupont does not teach “in the electric field, an active material layer is formed by adhering a solid component of the planar 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. [See, Faust, 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 [See Faust, column 4, lines 25-41]
Additionally, regarding claim 9, Dupont does not explicitly teach an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension in a thickness direction.
Nguyen is directed to nozzle structure for spray deposition.
Nguyen teaches an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension ( for example, 100 mm) in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension (1 mm) in a thickness direction. [See Nguyen, Abstract, Figs. 1A-1B, column 4, lines 25-41.] Examiner is considering the terms width and length of the rectangular to be interchangeable.
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 aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension in a thickness direction into the invention of Dupont and form an active material film layer, because Nguyen teach that this structure can deposit films that are uniform, fast, independent of the electrical characteristics of the precursor, high efficiency, and low cost. (See Nguyen, Abstract, col. 1, lines 27-31; col. 4, lines 30-36, 46-52, 57-67; col. 6, lines 1-3; 39-42.)
Regarding claim 10: Dupont teaches the flow has a flow direction (downward in annotated Figure above) and the width direction, the width direction is orthogonal to the flow direction, and the electrically-charged region is formed to pass through the flow in the width direction. [ See Dupont, Abstract, paragraphs 62, 80-82, and 99, Figs. 1-4, and 6. ].
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 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.
Regarding claim 19, Dupont does not explicitly teach the rectangular ejection port has an aspect ratio of at least 10 to 50 .
Nguyen teaches an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension ( for example, 100 mm) in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension (1 mm) in a thickness direction. [See Nguyen, Abstract, Figs. 1A-1B, column 4, lines 25-41.] Examiner is considering the terms width and length of the rectangular to be interchangeable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the rectangular ejection port have an aspect ratio of at least 10 to 50, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper ratio for the coating material and substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal uniformity of the aerosol density along the length of the nozzle. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Nguyen, Abstract, col. 1, lines 27-31; col. 4, lines 30-36, 46-52, 57-67; col. 6, lines 1-3; 39-42.)
Regarding claim 20, Dupont does not explicitly teach the rectangular ejection port has an aspect ratio of at least 5 to 100 .
Nguyen teaches an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension ( for example, 100 mm) in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension (1 mm) in a thickness direction. [See Nguyen, Abstract, Figs. 1A-1B, column 4, lines 25-41.] Examiner is considering the terms width and length of the rectangular to be interchangeable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the rectangular ejection port have an aspect ratio of at least 5 to 100, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper ratio for the coating material and substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal uniformity of the aerosol density along the length of the nozzle. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Nguyen, Abstract, col. 1, lines 27-31; col. 4, lines 30-36, 46-52, 57-67; col. 6, lines 1-3; 39-42.)
The previous rejection of claim 12 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
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 US Pat. Num. 10,654,056 to Nguyen et al (hereinafter Nguyen) as applied to claim 9 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].
The previous rejection of claim 13 and 14 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 13-14 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 US Pat. Num. 10,654,056 to Nguyen et al (hereinafter Nguyen) as applied to claim 11.
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 “planar flow.”
Dupont does not teach “aerosol-supplying part includes a flat nozzle, the flat nozzle has an ejection port expanding in the width direction, and the planar flow of the aerosol is ejected from the ejection port”
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.
The previous rejection of claim 16 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 9 and 16.
Claim 16 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 US Pat. Num. 10,654,056 to Nguyen et al (hereinafter Nguyen) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20170098818 A1).
Regarding Claim 16: Dupont et al. and Yaniv specifically do not teach the limitations of claim 16.
However, Faust teach a fixing apparatus is to apply to 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 a fixing apparatus is to apply 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 16: Dupont et al. and Yaniv specifically do not teach the fixing apparatus includes a roller.
Cheng is directed to electrode fabrication.
Cheng teach the fixing apparatus includes a roller. [See Cheng, paragraph 23]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to the fixing apparatus includes a roller, because Cheng teaches this structure leads to a more even coating. [See Cheng, paragraph 23]
The previous rejection of claim 18 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
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 US Pat. Num. 10,654,056 to Nguyen et al (hereinafter Nguyen) as applied to claim 17 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 planar 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 [ See Jansen, Abstract, 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 [See Jansen, para 15-16].
Claims 9-11, 15, and 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) and further in view of Kazuo (JP2002066390A hereinafter Kazuo).
Regarding Claim 9 : 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) [ See Dupont, para 62; para 80-82]. The apparatus also includes nozzle 11 (aerosol supplying part) [ See Dupont, para 60]. A structure similar to the claimed “planar 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) [See Dupont, 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’. [ See Dupont, Abstract, paragraphs 62, 80-82, and 99, Figs. 1-4, and 6.]
Annotated Fig. 1 of Dupont
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 planar 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 [ See Yaniz, column 3, lines 8-61]. Dupont does not teach “in the electric field, an active material layer is formed by adhering a solid component of the planar 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. [See, Faust, 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 [See Faust, column 4, lines 25-41] Additionally, regarding claim 9, Dupont does not explicitly teach an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension in a thickness direction. However, Kazuo teaches an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle (flat internal portion 4) having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension in a width direction ( direction extending top to bottom of 12 in Fig. 1) that is larger than a thickness dimension in a thickness direction (direction coming out of the page) Spraying particles is sprayed through flat space 12 towards a substrate (planar flow) as shown in Fig 4. [See Kazuo, Abstract. para 3-5, 10-12.]. 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 teaches that having a wide-shape jet flow leads to stable and reliable flow of spray. [See Kazuo, Abstract, para 3-5].
Regarding claim 10: Dupont teaches the flow has a flow direction (downward in annotated Figure above) and the width direction, the width direction is orthogonal to the flow direction, and the electrically-charged region is formed to pass through the flow in the width direction. [ See Dupont, Abstract, paragraphs 62, 80-82, and 99, Figs. 1-4, and 6. ].
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 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 teaches 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.
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 Faust (US5110618A) and further in view of Kazuo (JP2002066390A hereinafter Kazuo) as applied to claim 9 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].
Claims 13-14 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 Faust (US 5110618 A) and further in view of Kazuo (JP2002066390A hereinafter Kazuo) as applied to claim 11.
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 “planar flow.”
Dupont does not teach “aerosol-supplying part includes a flat nozzle, the flat nozzle has an ejection port expanding in the width direction, and the planar flow of the aerosol is ejected from the ejection port”
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.
Claim 16 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 Faust (US 5110618 A) and further in view of Kazuo (JP2002066390A hereinafter Kazuo) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20170098818 A1).
Regarding Claim 16: Dupont et al. and Yaniv specifically do not teach the limitations of claim 16. However, Faust teaches a fixing apparatus is to apply to 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 a fixing apparatus is to apply 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 16: Dupont et al. and Yaniv specifically do not teach the fixing apparatus includes a roller. Cheng is directed to electrode fabrication. Cheng teach the fixing apparatus includes a roller. [See Cheng, paragraph 23] It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to the fixing apparatus includes a roller, because Cheng teaches this structure leads to a more even coating. [See Cheng, paragraph 23]
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 Faust (US 5110618 A) and further in view of Kazuo (JP2002066390A hereinafter Kazuo) as applied to claim 17 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 planar 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 [ See Jansen, Abstract, 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 [See Jansen, para 15-16]
Claims 19-20 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 hereinafter Kazuo) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 10,654,056 to Nguyen et al (hereinafter Nguyen).
Regarding claim 19, Dupont does not explicitly teach the rectangular ejection port has an aspect ratio of at least 10 to 50 .
Nguyen teaches an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension ( for example, 100 mm) in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension (1 mm) in a thickness direction. [See Nguyen, Abstract, Figs. 1A-1B, column 4, lines 25-41.] Examiner is considering the terms width and length of the rectangular to be interchangeable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the rectangular ejection port have an aspect ratio of at least 10 to 50, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper ratio for the coating material and substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal uniformity of the aerosol density along the length of the nozzle. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Nguyen, Abstract, col. 1, lines 27-31; col. 4, lines 30-36, 46-52, 57-67; col. 6, lines 1-3; 39-42.)
Regarding claim 20, Dupont does not explicitly teach the rectangular ejection port has an aspect ratio of at least 5 to 100 .
Nguyen teaches an aerosol-supplying part comprising a flat nozzle having a rectangular ejection port, the rectangular ejection port having a width dimension ( for example, 100 mm) in a width direction that is larger than a thickness dimension (1 mm) in a thickness direction. [See Nguyen, Abstract, Figs. 1A-1B, column 4, lines 25-41.] Examiner is considering the terms width and length of the rectangular to be interchangeable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the rectangular ejection port have an aspect ratio of at least 5 to 100, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper ratio for the coating material and substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal uniformity of the aerosol density along the length of the nozzle. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Nguyen, Abstract, col. 1, lines 27-31; col. 4, lines 30-36, 46-52, 57-67; col. 6, lines 1-3; 39-42.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-20 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. 10,654,056 to Nguyen et al (hereinafter Nguyen) is being used to address the new limitations added to independent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20170043369 A1 to Grosso et al (hereinafter Grosso), US Pat. Pub. No. 20100224665 A1 to Vinnay et al (hereinafter Vinnay), and US Pat. Num. 5,326,598 A1 to Seaver et al (hereinafter Seaver).
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
Prosecution Insights