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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 1 includes the recitation “the movable rod being located so that the minimum distance between its perimeter and the substrate is equal to or less than between 0.5 and 2 times the thickness of the coating”, which appears to be an attempt to tie the claimed apparatus to an article that may be processed therein and the resulting outcome of said process. Therefore, the bounds of the claim are indeterminate since neither of these features is an actual structural feature of the apparatus and are variable. In order to expedite examination, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. See rejections based on intended use provided below. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 1 includes the recitation of “an external side provided with a step.” This is unclear on whether this feature is with the coating head or intended to be part of the inlet lip. In order to expedite examination, the Examiner has assumed the aforementioned recitation is part of the coating head and has examined this application accordingly.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “it” in line 9 and “its” in line 10. However, it is not distinctly clear whether “it” and “its” refers to and whether these terms refer to the same part. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has interpreted “it” and “its” to refer to the movable rod. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the generatrix” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the generatrix” as “a generatrix.” Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “movable rod” in claim 1 and subsequent claims implies that the rod moves in some manner when the apparatus is in use. However, nothing in the specification or claims indicate the type of movement the rod performs when the apparatus is in use. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “movable rod” as simply a rod capable of movement. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The term “generatrix” is not a common term in the art. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “generatrix” as a “point, line or surface whose motion generates a line, surface, or solid.” (See e.g. Merriam-Webster.com).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mladota (U.S. Patent No. 4167914), as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Hirshburg ‘365 (U.S. Patent No. 5380365, herein referred to as Hirshburg ‘365).
Regarding claim 1, Mladota teaches an extrusion coater with an elongated slot coating head (see e.g., Figure 2, 29) along with an elongated, rotatable, cylindrical rod (54) substantially as claimed. (See abstract). Mladota also teaches a fluid passage channel (28), which opens into a fluid discharge region and is delimited by a first edge (edge of 46) and a second edge (47) with the fluid being intended to form a coating on a substrate (22) arranged on a rotating roller (49) located in the discharge region and a movable rod (e.g., moving/rotating rod 54) that partially delimits the fluid discharge region and is arranged following the first edge (edge of 46) of the fluid passage channel. (See Col. 3, lines 9-15). Mladota does not explicitly teach the movable rod being located so that the minimum distance between its perimeter and the substrate is equal to or less than between 0.5 and 2 times the thickness of the coating.
Regarding the claim limitation “the movable rod being located so that the minimum distance between its perimeter and the substrate is equal to or less than between 0.5 and 2 times the thickness of the coating”, which appears to be and has been interpreted as an intended use of the apparatus related to a process that may be performed therein on a desired substrate. It is noted that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Additionally, regarding the reliance of the claim language on the article worked upon and the coating applied thereto, the courts have ruled the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Also, see above, regarding related rejection under 35 USC 112b.
Mladota further teaches the coating head (29) with an inlet lip provided with: a straight internal side (internal side edge of 46), which forms a second angle with the plane defined by the centre of the rod and the generatrix of the rod closest to the substrate, a portion of the internal side of the inlet lip defining the second edge (edge of 47) of the fluid passage channel; a flat face (top edge of 46) arranged forming a first angle with the straight internal side and a third angle with the plane tangent to the movable rod that passes through the generatrix of the perimeter of said movable rod closest to the substrate; and an external side. (See Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 From Mladota; Col. 3, lines 9-15).
Mladota does not teach a step. However, Hirshburg ‘365 discloses a slide bead coating apparatus with a step (28 and 29). Hirshburg ‘365 teaches that this break and the associated offset limit the extent of the liquid film available for being drawn up through extensional forces thereby allowing for proper surface drainage. (See Col. 5, lines 1-5 and lines 31-33). Hirshburg ‘365 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of coating apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mladota to incorporate the teachings of Hirshburg ‘365 by providing a step in the coating head to allow for proper surface drainage.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 From Mladota. )]
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 from Mladota
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distance between tangent plane of moveable rod, closest to substrate and flat face of the inlet lip (Coating gap))]
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, Hirshburg ‘365 teaches the flat face of the inlet lip (24) that has an extension preferentially between 0.5mm and 5.0mm and most preferably with a distance between 2.0mm and 5.0mm between. Hirshburg ‘365 teaches that this distance results in a preferred liquid film transient duration lasting 1 to 3 seconds to establish a uniform static contact line. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a coating head with a flat face inlet lip that has an extension between 2mm and 5mm. (See Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1 from Hirshburg ‘365; Col. 5, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 3, while Mladota does not explicitly teach a coating head with a third angle between -20° and +20°, Hirshburg ‘365 does teach that the flat face (24) should be angled down and away from the tangent to the substrate (6) at the location of the coating by at least 10°. Hirshburg ‘365 discloses that if the flat face (referred to as coater face) diverges from the substrate even by approximately 15° or more, the duration of the transient liquid film will be greater than five (5) seconds which is longer than when the flat face is approximately parallel to the substrate surface, which results in the transient liquid film terminating in less than one second. A short termination of the transient liquid film leads to streak defects and irregularities in the static contact line since the bead lower meniscus terminus cannot reach an equilibrium position for steady-state operation. (See Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1 From Hirshburg ‘365; Hirshburg ‘365, Col. 4, lines 62-65; Col. 2, lines 3-19). 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 Mladota and the teachings of Hirshburg ‘365 and optimize the third angle in order to reduce streak defects and irregularities when performing coating operations.
Regarding claim 4, Mladota teaches a coater without a step, which is equivalent to a coating head wherein the third angle is equal to zero. (See Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 From Mladota; Col. 3, lines 9-15).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, Hirshburg ‘365 teaches a coating head with the distance between the plane tangent to the movable rod that passes through the generatrix of said movable rod, closest to the substrate, and the flat face of the inlet lip (24) is between 0 and 3mm. Hirshburg ‘365 teaches that the closest distance between the flat face (24) and the substrate surface (coating gap) is typically 0.1mm to 0.5mm resulting in a differential pressure that produces a stable bead having a static contact line on the flat face of the inlet lip and a dynamic contact line with the substrate. (See Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1 From Hirshburg ‘365; Col. 4, lines 40-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating apparatus of Mladota based on the teachings in Hirshburg ‘365 to have the range recited in the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, Hirshburg ‘365 teaches a coating head with the vertical distance between the plane tangent to the movable rod that passes through the generatrix of said movable rod, closest to the substrate, and the flat face of the inlet lip (24) is between -3mm and 3mm. Hirshburg ‘365 teaches that the closest distance between the flat face (24) and the substrate surface (coating gap) is typically 0.1mm to 0.5mm resulting in a differential pressure that produces a stable bead having a static contact line on the flat face of the inlet lip and a dynamic contact line with the substrate. (See Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1 From Hirshburg ‘365; Col. 4, lines 40-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating apparatus of Mladota based on the teachings in Hirshburg ‘365 to have the range recited in the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Hirshburg ‘365 does not explicitly teach a coating head where the vertical distance is equal to zero. Rather, Hirshburg ‘365 teaches that this distance is typically 0.1mm to 0.5mm, as detailed above. This is a difference of merely 0.1mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to reduce this distance by the difference of 0.1mm, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, Hirshburg ‘365 teaches a coating head wherein the step on the external side of the inlet lip is formed by the intersection of a first straight section (28) and a second straight section (29). (See col. 5, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, Hirshburg ‘365 teaches a coating head where in the external side of the inlet lip further comprises a third straight section arranged after the second straight section. (See Figure 4. Annotated Figure 1 from Hirshburg ‘365; col. 5, lines 1-5).
Claims 5, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mladota and Hirshburg ‘365 as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11 above and in view of Hirshburg ‘440 (U.S. Patent No. 5332440, herein referred to as Hirshburg ‘440).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mladota discloses the coating head substantially as claimed and described above. However, modified Mladtoa fails to teach a coating head where in the first angle (alpha angle) is explicitly between 30° and 60°. Hirshburg ‘440 does teach that the first angle (alpha angle) is preferably between 45° to 135° and explains that for angles greater than 100° the operational latitude decreases by resulting in a smaller range of differential pressures that can maintain a uniform bead; this in turn reduces productivity. (See Figure 3. Annotated Figure From Hirshburg ‘440. Col. 4, lines 56-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating apparatus of modified Mladota based on the teachings in Hirshburg ‘440 to have the range recited in the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
[AltContent: textbox (Flat face of inlet lip (5b))]
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, Hirshburg ‘440 does teach a coating head with a first straight section (22) on the external side of the inlet lip. Although, Hirshburg ‘440 does not teach the first straight section of the external side of the inlet lip to be parallel to the straight internal side of the inlet lip, Hirshburg ‘440 does teach that the angle (beta angle) between the first straight section (22) to the flat face to be preferably at least 90° for most configurations and to not exceed 155°. Hirshburg ‘440 further explains that the beta angle is more preferably to be 120° to 145° because when the beta angle is less than 90° and/or the angle between the straight internal side of the inlet lip and the flat face (alpha angle) is less than 45°, the lip tip becomes structurally weak thereby increasing fabrication and operational difficulties. For beta angles greater than 155°, the surface contact can become erratic resulting in irregularities and undesirable streak effects. The beta angle directly affects the pitch of the wall being claimed. Furthermore, although this application does not explicitly state the angle that the first straight section of the external side of the inlet lip is to the flat face of the inlet lip, this application’s Figure 2 shows that the angle between the flat face of the inlet lip and the first section of the step of the external side of the inlet lip to be greater than 90°. While Hirshburg ‘440 does not explicitly disclose the claimed extension, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Hirshburg ‘440 to have the first straight section of the external side of the inlet lip parallel to the straight internal side of the inlet lip recited in the claim; and therefore, it is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the first straight section of the external side of the inlet lip parallel to the straight internal side of the inlet lip (relative dimension) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. Moreover, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimension of the first straight section of the external side of the inlet lip parallel to the straight internal side of the inlet lip. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). (See Figure 3. Annotated Figure 1 From Hirshburg ‘440 below; col. 4, lines 60-68; col. 5, lines 1-14.)
[AltContent: textbox (Flat face of inlet lip (5b))]
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, Hirshburg ‘365 teaches a coating head where in the external side of the inlet lip further comprises a third straight section arranged after the second straight section. (See Figure 4. Annotated Figure 1 from Hirshburg ‘365; col. 5, lines 1-5).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second straight section)][AltContent: textbox (Third straight section)][AltContent: arrow]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pubs. 2014/0234584 discloses a coating apparatus with a rotating rod and a roller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SUZANNE C CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights