DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-11: The preamble of claims 1-11 recite “electrode coating device” which is intended use and applicant is advised it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartlett (US Patent 4,106,437; hereafter ‘437).
Claim 1: ‘437 is directed towards a coating device (title) comprising:
a die block including a first die and a second die coupled to each other (see abstract & #s 40 & 42, Figs. 2 & 3), and at least one of the first die and the second die having an accommodating portion for accommodating slurry (see cavity in # 40, Fig. 3);
a shim plate partially disposed along a circumference of the accommodating portion between the first die and the second die to form a discharge port through which the slurry is discharged (see shim 44, Figs. 2 & 3); and
an expansion plate coupled to the shim plate (shim 46 reads on the expansion plate);
wherein the shim plate includes:
a first section disposed on the opposite side of the discharge port (see Figs. 2 & 3);
a second section extending from both ends of the first section toward the discharge port (see Figs. 2 & 3); and
a third section extending from a center of the first section toward the discharge port to divide the discharge port into a first discharge port and a second discharge port (see Figs. 2-4),
wherein the expansion plate is disposed in a form expanding a width of the third section in a region corresponding to the accommodating portion (see #46 which overlaps the openings 54 in 44 and thus reads on this limitation, Figs. 2-3).
Claim 2: The expansion plate is disposed on both sides of the third section (Figs. 2-3).
Claim 6: The apparatus of ‘437 further comprises:
a supply port formed through the die block and used as a path for supplying the slurry to the accommodating portion (see #38, Figs. 2-3),
wherein the third section is disposed to face the supply port (see Fig. 3).
Claim 10: ‘437 is directed towards a coating device (title) comprising:
a die block including a first die and a second die coupled to each other (see abstract & #s 40 & 42, Figs. 2 & 3), and at least one of the first die and the second die having an accommodating portion for accommodating slurry (see cavity in # 40, Fig. 3);
a shim plate partially disposed along a circumference of the accommodating portion between the first die and the second die to form a discharge port through which the slurry is discharged (see shim 44, Figs. 2 & 3); and
an expansion plate coupled to the shim plate (shim 46 reads on the expansion plate);
wherein the shim plate includes:
a first section disposed on the opposite side of the discharge port (see Figs. 2 & 3); and
a second section and a third section extending from the first section toward the discharge port, respectively (see Figs. 2-3), and
the expansion plate is disposed in a form of reducing a space between the second section and the third section in a region corresponding to the accommodating portion (see #46 which overlaps the openings 54 in 44 and thus reads on this limitation, Figs. 2-3).
Claim 11: The apparatus of ‘437 further comprises:
a supply port formed through the die block and used as a path for supplying the slurry to the accommodating portion (see #38, Figs. 2-3),
wherein the third section is disposed to face the supply port, and the expansion plate is disposed to be in contact with the third section (see Figs. 2-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘437.
Claim 3: The expansion plate is disposed such that one side is in contact with the first section (see Figs. 2-4).
‘437 does not teach that the expansion plate is formed of a square plate.
However, it would have been obvious to make the expansion plate comprised of several components of which at least a portion is a square plate because changes in shape and size and well as making separable are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §§ 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B) & 2144.041(V)(C).
Claims 4-5: ‘437 does not teach the claimed dimensions.
However, changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §§ 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘437 as applied above, and further in view of Park et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0058834; hereafter ‘834).
Claim 7: The expansion plate of ‘437 includes a flow control portion disposed outside the shim plate (see Figs. 2-4).
‘437 does not teach that the expansion plate and shim plate are coupled or teach the claimed coupling structure.
However, ‘834, which is also directed towards die coaters (title), teaches that shim plates can be coupled using protrusions and grooves (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘834 into the die coater of ‘437 and use protrusions and grooves as taught by ‘834 for coupling between the various components in the die coater of ‘437 because protrusions and grooves are recognized in the art for coupling shims in the art and would have predictably been suitable for the multiple shims (the expansion plate and shim plate) of ‘437.
The combination does not teach the specific location, orientation, or number of protrusions and grooves.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the claimed number of protrusions and grooves with the claimed orientations/locations because it is prima facie obvious to rearrange and duplicate parts for the same intended use without a change in the function. See MPEP §§ 2144.04(III)(C) & (VI)(C).
Claim 8: The combination teaches that the coupling is detachable (see Fig. 6, ‘834).
Claim 9: The flow control portion is disposed on both sides of the third section (see Figs. 2-4, ‘437), and
the combination teaches that the coupling portion connects the two flow control portions and is coupled to the third section (the coupling means as discussed above between the two plates of ‘437).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759