DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on August 18, 2026 was received. Claim 23 was amended. Claims 34 and 36-37 remain withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued May 22, 2026.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn because applicants response filed August 18, 2026 highlighted the portion which provides the continuous taper.
Claim Objections
Claims 34 and 36-37 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 34 and 36-37 have the incorrect status identifier. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsubara on claims 23-29, 31-32 and 38 are withdrawn because independent claim 23 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu on claims 23-33, 35 and 38-39 are withdrawn because independent claim 23 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu on claims 40-42 are withdrawn because independent claim 23 has been amended.
Claims 23-33, 35 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN108745775, provided translation cited below) in view of Guo (CN111250354, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claims 23 and 43, Wu teaches an extrusion coater (fig. 4) comprising:
an extrusion coater die gasket (insert) provides a recess (fig. 1, 4) which has a distribution region around shorts sides-4 and long side-3, together with an outlet channel around baffle-1 and flow divider plate-2 (fig. 1-3; para. 27),
the outlet channel is directly adjacent to the distribution region, and where a mass flow is flowable from the distribution region through the outlet channel in an outlet direction (shown in fig. 1);
the distribution region is bordered on at least one side along a boundary line which is transverse to the outlet direction (fig. 1);
a concave arc-shaped part-6 of the outlet channel provides a taper along a tapering portion provided in the outlet direction from the boundary line (fig. 1-3; para. 27).
Wu does not explicitly teach the outlet channel tapers along a non-concave tapering portion in the outlet direction from the boundary line to a midpoint of the outlet channel.
However, Guo teaches a discharge port (2, outlet channel) comprising a die head gasket body (11) which comprises an outlet channel which starts along a guide surface (123) and tapers along a non-concave tapering portion (capable of being interpreted of starting around #123) in the outlet direction from the boundary line to a midpoint of the outlet channel (proximate to #122) (see marked up fig. 4; para. 47-48).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1-Guo fig. 4 annotated
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the gasket body as discussed above of Guo onto the extrusion coater die gasket of Wu because Guo teaches it will smoothen the flow of slurry (para. 47).
In regards to claim 24, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the distribution region around the shorts sides-4 and the long side-3, provides the distribution region that is bordered along the boundary line laterally with respect to the outlet channel (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 25, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the distribution region is rectangular (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 26, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the extrusion coater die gasket has an uniform thickness (fig. 4).
In regards to claim 27, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the distribution region around the shorts sides-4 and the long side-3 provides the distribution region is enclosed two-dimensionally on all sides except for the outlet channel (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 28, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the extrusion coater die gasket is capable of providing the boundary line is formed along baffle-1 (projection of the insert) that protrudes from a short side of the distribution region (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 29, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the two baffles-1 (projection of the insert) that protrude from the short sides of the distribution region and provides the outlet channel (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 30, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the concave arc-shaped part-6 that provides the part of the tapering portion which continuously tapers (fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 31, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the outlet channel is delimited mirror-symmetrically as seen in a plan view of the extrusion coater die gasket (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 32, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the tapering portion directly adjoins the boundary line (fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 33, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches proximate to the concave arc-shaped part-6, is a straight portion which provides a constant width to the outlet channel and the tapering portion is spaced apart from the boundary line (fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 35, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches proximate to the concave arc-shaped part-6, is a straight portion which provides a partial constant width to the outlet channel (fig. 1-3).
In regards to claims 38-39, Wu and Guo as discussed, where Wu teaches the concave arc-shaped part-6 to a convex arc part-7 provides a circular-segment-shaped periphery directly further outward, as seen in the outlet direction, adjacent to the tapering portion and comprises a portion of constant width adjacent to and further outward of the circular-segment-shaped periphery (fig. 1-3; para. 27).
In regards to claims 40-42, Wu and Guo as discussed, but do not explicitly teach
the portion of constant width is at least 1.5 times as long as and/or at most 4 times as long as a radius of the circular-segment-shaped periphery, the circular- segment-shaped periphery occupies an angular range of at least 3° and/or at most 15°, the circular- segment-shaped periphery has a radius of at least 3 mm and/or at most 7 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform reasonable experimentation to determine the optimal angular range, width or radius of the concave arc-shaped part-6 to the convex arc part-7 of Wu and Guo and arrive at the specified size and angular range for the concave arc-shaped part-6 to the convex arc part-7, because Wu teaches variability to the extrusion coater die gasket in order to maintain uniform flow rate (para. 10-11, 27).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Wu, the alleged outlet channel (i.e., the space between 1 and 2) is concave in the outlet direction from the alleged boundary line (annotated) to a midpoint of the outlet channel.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
A new grounds rejection of Wu in view of Guo is discussed above, where Guo teaches the claimed distinction.
Conclusion
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights