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 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. Claim(s) s 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazunori Maeda (JP2022041501 A) (hereinafter Maeda) (For citation purpose EP 4209279 A1 is used) and further in view of Ikeuchi Hideki (JP 2008043950 A) (hereinafter Hideki) . Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses A coating apparatus for forming a coating film on a base material by supplying a coating liquid to the base material, the coating apparatus comprising: a coating manifold (11) for supplying the coating liquid (3) to the base material (2) ; a supply channel (21) for supplying the coating liquid to the coating manifold; and a connection channel (24) connecting the supply channel to the coating manifold . Maeda is silent about the connection channel includes at least one branch portion, and the at least one branch portion branches into two branch channels that are equal to each other in channel distance . Hideki also disclose a coating apparatus. The apparatus comprising connection channel ( 303) includes at least one branch portion, and the at least one branch portion branches into two branch channels that are equal to each other in channel distance (Fig. 15 -follow the flow path from left side to right side). The benefit of doing so would have been to apply coating liquid (305) to be evenly distributed from the coating liquid supply source to base material. Give the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to used connection channels as taught by Hideki within the apparatus of Maeda. The benefit of doing so would have been to allow the coating liquid to be applied evenly onto base material. Regarding claim 2, Hideki discloses the at least one branch portion includes: one upstream end portion forming an upstream end of each of the two branch channels; and two downstream end portions forming respective downstream ends of the two branch channels, respectively, and a channel distance between the upstream end portion and one of the two downstream end portions is equal to a channel distance between the upstream end portion and the other of the two downstream end portions (Fig. 15) . Regarding claim 3, Maeda wherein the upstream end portion is provided with a flow rate adjusting portion (Fig. 2, RC 30a-c) that adjusts a flow rate of each of the two branch channels . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7660 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5038 . 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. /VISHAL I PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746