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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coating channel and the port baffles at ports of the bath roller recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). As mentioned in paragraph 31 of the Specification, “Fig. 8 is a structural diagram of a double-sided coating device in the related art.” Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: the unwinding device configured to release a substrate, the double-sided coating device is configured to perform double-sided coating on the substrate, the post-treatment is configured to perform post-treatment on a dried material, and the winding device is configured to wind a finished product after post-treatment in claim 1; the coating units in claim 3; the corona device is configured to treat a surface of the substrate in claim 7; the air-cooling device is configured to cool a thermally cured material, the cooling and ironing device is configured to cool and iron a cooled material, and the steam rewetting device is configured to perform steam rewetting on an ironed and cooled material by means of an electrostatic field 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.
In claim 1, the claim limitation “the unwinding device configured to release a substrate” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification discloses in [paragraph 39] and Figure 2 that “the unwinding device configured to release a substrate” has an unwinding shaft. The language in claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in [paragraph 39], Figure 2, or equivalents.
In claim 1, the claim limitation “a winding device is configured to wind a finished product after post-treatment” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification discloses in [paragraph 65] that “a winding device is configured to wind a finished product after post-treatment” has a winding shaft. The language in claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in [paragraph 65] or its equivalents.
In claim 1, the claim limitation “the double-sided coating device is configured to perform double-sided coating on the substrate” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification discloses in [paragraph 13] that “the double-sided coating device is configured to perform double-sided coating on the substrate” as a top coating unit and a bottom coating unit. The language in claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in [paragraph 13] or its equivalents.
In claim 1, the claim limitation “the post-treatment is configured to perform post-treatment on a dried material” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification discloses in [paragraphs 61-63] “the post-treatment is configured to perform post-treatment on a dried material” has an air-cooling device, cooling and ironing device, and a steam rewetting device. The language in claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in [paragraph 61-63] or its equivalents.
In claim 7, the claim limitation “corona device is configured to treat a surface of the substrate” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification fails to disclose specific structure of the corona device to indicate that the corona device can perform the function stated.
In claim 9, the claim limitation “air-cooling device is configured to cool a thermally cured material” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification discloses in [paragraph 62] that the “air-cooling device is configured to cool a thermally cured material” has a fan. The language in claim 9 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in [paragraph 62] or its equivalents.
In claim 9, the claim limitation “cooling and ironing device is configured to cool and iron a cooled material” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification discloses in [paragraph 62] that the “cooling and ironing device is configured to cool and iron a cooled material” has a group of cold cylinders, pipelines, and an air cooler. The language in claim 9 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in [paragraph 62] or its equivalents.
In claim 9, the claim limitation “the steam rewetting device is configured to perform steam rewetting on an ironed and cooled material by means of an electrostatic field” has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the use of a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. Although the specification discloses in [paragraph 63] a proportional valve, this structure alone is insufficient to perform the function of performing steam rewetting on an ironed and cooled material by means of an electrostatic field.
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.
In claim 3, the claim limitation “coating units” is not being interpreted under 112f since the associated structure is included stated within the claim.
Additional Claim Interpretation
The term “disposable” in the preamble of claim 1 is being interpreted by the examiner as referring to the coating and not the device. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The term “CPS” in claim 2 is not further elaborated on in the specification. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “CPS” as an abbreviation for centipoise. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The term “HA” in claim 4 is not further elaborated on in the specification. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “HA” as Shore Hardness A. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The term “surface roughness of less than 0.05” in claim 5 and subsequent claims does not provide a unit of measure. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the unit of measure to be Ra in micro-meters. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The term “rpm” in claims 4-5 is not further elaborated on in the specification. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “rpm” as revolutions per minute. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above, the claim limitation “corona device is configured to treat a surface of the substrate” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference thereof in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. In order to expedite examination, any feature capable of performing the claimed function will be considered readable thereon.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above, the claim limitation “the steam rewetting device is configured to perform steam rewetting on an ironed and cooled material by means of an electrostatic field” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference thereof in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. In order to expedite examination, any feature capable of performing the claimed function will be considered readable thereon.
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.
Claim limitation “corona device is configured to treat a surface of the substrate” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function to treat the surface of the substrate. The specification states the power requirements but lacks the structure to achieve these requirements. (Specification 39). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “the steam rewetting device is configured to perform steam rewetting on an ironed and cooled material by means of an electrostatic field” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only mentions a proportional valve related to the steam rewetting device; however, this is insufficient structure to indicate an electrostatic field is generated. (Specification 63). Therefore, the claim (and claims dependent thereon) is (are) indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “run-out accuracy of Grade 5” in claims 4-5 is not a common term in the art nor is it elaborated on within the specification. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting this phrase as referring to the bearing tolerances set forth in standards for dimensional accuracy in rolling bearings with “grade 5” referring to a specific tolerance range identified in the applicable standard. (See https://tflbearing.com/blog/bearing-tolerances.html). Clarification and/or correction is required.
The term “dynamic balance of G2.5/400 rpm” in claim 4 and subsequent is not a common term in the art nor is it elaborated on within the specification. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting this phrase as referring to the balance tolerance of a rotating part with “G2.5/400 rpm” referring to a balancing quality grade that has been set forth in applicable standards to correlate to a vibration velocity with the unit of measure being rpm. (Seehttps://balancemaster.com/ISO-balancing-grades.html). Clarification and/or correction is required.
The term “P/R” in claim 6 is not elaborated on in the specification. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “P/R” as pulses per revolution. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim 8 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. The term “small” recited in claim 8 is describing holes and is a relative term that renders the claim ambiguous and uncertain. The specification fails to provide an objective description (i.e., dimensions or relative proportions) to define the structural size of “small.” As such, one skilled in the art could not determine with reasonable certainty the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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.
[AltContent: textbox (Substrate Roll 17)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Unwinding shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Winding shaft)][AltContent: arrow]Claim 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110665733A) in further view of Pan (CN 116024843A). Zhou discloses a double-sided coating device, comprising: an unwinding device (1) (having an unwinding shaft (See Figure 1: Annotated Figure 1 from Zhou)) with a substrate roll arranged on the unwinding device, and the unwinding device is configured to release a substrate; a double-sided coating device, the double-sided coating device is configured to perform double-sided coating on the substrate released from the unwinding device; a suspension oven (3), the suspension oven is configured to perform double-sided drying on a coated substrate; a post-treatment device (5), the post-treatment device is configured to perform post-treatment on a dried material; and a winding device, the winding device (6) (having a winding shaft (see Figure 1: Annotated Figure 1 from Zhou)) is configured to wind a finished product after post-treatment. (See Zhou Paragraph 16, 21; Figure 1: Annotated Figure 1 from Zhou). Zhou does not disclose a post-treatment device that includes a air-cooling device, cooling and ironing device, and a steam rewetting device arranged sequentially.
Pan discloses a method for making plastic-free heat-sealing paper that teaches after a coating is applied, then the air-cooling occurs in the air-cooling device, then the cooling and ironing occurs in the cooling and ironing device, and then the steam rewetting occurs in the steam rewetting device. (Pan, Paragraph 31-37, 58). The air-cooling occurs by way of a microwave pre-drying that uses microwave pre-drying oven, blower, exhaust fan, and drying tunnel. The cooling and ironing occurs with a cooling roller, cooling tower with circulating cooling water, and an air-cooled heat exchanger. (Pan, Paragraph 58, 66). The steam rewetting occurs by means of an electrostatic field at the first steam rehumidification step using a proportional valve, electrostatic generator, electrostatic bar, and guide rollers (Pan, Paragraph 51, 60, 62, 63). Pan teaches that this sequence allows for control of the moisture content, reduces any unnecessary heat loss, creates an electric field on the substrate that allows steam to be absorbed and rewetting of the substrate to be more uniform (Pan, Paragraph 58, 63). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Pan to have a double-sided coating device comprising an unwinding device with a substrate roll arranged on the unwinding device configured to release the substrate, then have a double-sided coating device perform double-sided coatings, then a suspension oven followed by a post treatment device and a winding device to occur after the post-treatment.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “a coating used in the double-sided coating device is a solvent-free thermosetting organosilicon release agent with a viscosity of 200-500 CPS” 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)); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Also, see above, regarding related rejection under 35 USC 112b. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 9, Pan discloses a post-treatment process that comprises of an air-cooling device, a cooling and ironing device and a steam rewetting device arranged in sequence, with the air-cooling device is configured to cool a thermally cured material (using a microwave pre-drying oven, blower, exhaust fan, and drying tunnel) (Pan, Paragraph 58); the cooling and ironing device is configured to cool and iron a cooled material (cooling roller, and a cooling tower with circulating cooling water flowing between the roller and tower, and an air-cooled heat exchanger) (Pan Paragraph 65, 66); and the steam rewetting device is configured to perform steam rewetting on an ironed and cooled material by means of an electrostatic field (using a proportional valve, electrostatic generator, electrostatic bar, and guide rollers (Pan, Paragraph 51, 60, 62, 63). Pan teaches that this sequence allows for control of the moisture content, reduces any unnecessary heat loss, creates an electric field on the substrate that allows steam to be absorbed and rewetting of the substrate to be more uniform (Pan, Paragraph 58, 63). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Pan to have a double-sided disposable coating device according to claim 1, wherein the post-treatment device comprises an air-cooling device, a cooling and ironing device, and a steam rewetting device, arranged sequentially where the air-cooling device is configured to cool a thermally cured material, the cooling and ironing device is configured to cool and iron a cooled material, and the steam rewetting device is configured to perform steam rewetting on an ironed and cooled material by means of an electrostatic field.
With respect to claim 10, additionally, Pan teaches the steam rewetting amount of the steam rewetting device is controlled by a proportional valve, and through a combination of a production speed of the material (conveying speed of the paper) and a specified rewetting amount (rewetting water volume). Pan teaches that this arrangement of controlling the rehumidfication rate makes the rehumidification more uniform (Pan, Paragraphs 19, 62). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Pan to have a double-sided coating device according to claim 1, that uses a proportional valve that controls the steam rewetting amount through a combination of production speed of the material and a specified rewetting amount in order to make the rehumidification more uniform.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhou (CN 110665733A) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Liu (CN 102773195A). Modified Zhou discloses a double-sided coating device according to claim 1, wherein the double-sided coating device comprises a coating channel and coating units, the coating channel is configured for the substrate to pass through, the coating units are arranged on both sides of the coating channel, and each of the coating units comprises a bath roller (13), metering rollers (not numbered), a transfer roller (16), and a coating roller (14, 15); a bath (11) is formed by the bath roller (13), the metering rollers, and port baffles at ports of the bath roller (13) and the metering rollers; the coating roller (14, 15), the transfer roller (16), the metering rollers and the bath are arranged from the coating channel in a direction away from the coating channel in sequence (as shown in Figure 2 where the rollers are sequential in a direction away from the substrate direction). (See Zhou Paragraph 15, 21; Figure 2: Annotated Figure 2 from Zhou). Zhou does not disclose that the rotational speeds of the metering rollers, the transfer roller and the coating roller are adjustable, nor that the coating amount is adjusted by controlling a speed difference among the metering rollers, the transfer roller, and the coating roller.
PNG
media_image3.png
860
1116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figure 2 from Zhou (CN 110665733A)
Modified Zhou does not disclose baffles at the port of the bath roller and the metering roll, nor the speed difference among the rollers. Liu discloses a solvent-free silicone coating machines using rollers with baffles at two sides of two rollers (roller 4 and roller 5) forming a bath. Liu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of apparatuses where liquid or other fluent material is applied to the surface of the work. Liu discloses that the baffles (baffle 15) at two sides of the rollers contain the liquid used for coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Liu to have a double-sided coating machine with rollers with baffles at two of the rollers to contain the liquid being used for coating. (See Liu, Paragraph 37; Figure 3: Annotated Figure 3 from (CN 102773195A)-Bath/Baffle Feature).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Rollers)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Roller )][AltContent: textbox (Roller )][AltContent: textbox (Bath)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Baffles)]
Figure 3: Annotated Figure 3 from Liu (CN 102773195A)-Bath/Baffle Feature
Liu discloses a solvent-free silicone coating machine that uses rollers where the speed of each roller can be independently regulated and discloses the speed of each roller can be adjusted in terms of a ratio to the adjacent roller, thereby allowing for a speed difference between the rollers. Liu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of apparatuses where liquid or other fluent material is applied to the surface of the work. Liu teaches that this design restrains the vibration of the motor from being transmitted to the coating body part and is beneficial to improving the coating precision. 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Liu to have a double-sided coating machine with rollers that have the coating among adjustable by controlling the speed difference among the rollers to improve coating precision. (See Liu Paragraph 16, 37).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhou does not disclose a vector closed-loop control mode in cooperation with an encoder with resolution greater than 2000 P/R to achieve frequency conversion speed regulation with high-precision and high-rigidity. As mentioned above, Pan discloses a method for making plastic-free heat-sealing paper that relies on a vector-based closed-loop speed control through the feedback of an encoder installed on a motor. Pan teaches that this device for speed control on a coating equipment makes the tension of the substrate more stable. (Pan, Paragraph 48). Although Pan does not explicitly disclose an encoder with a resolution greater than 2000 P/R, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to optimize the apparatus so that the speed control device has the capability to control the equipment for optimal operating conditions, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110665733A) and Liu (CN 102773195A), as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Nozaki et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0198901), Sato (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0096471), Koide (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0085086A1), and Perkett et al. (U.S. Patent 6673391). Modified Zhou discloses a double-sided coating device according to claim 3; however, modified Zhou does not disclose the rollers being in the form of a rigid-flexible combination, and any two adjacent rollers are a rigid roller and a flexible roller.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Steel roller)][AltContent: textbox (Steel roller)][AltContent: textbox (Steel roller)][AltContent: textbox (Rubber roller)][AltContent: textbox (Rubber roller)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Figure 4: Annotated Figure 3 for Liu (CN 102773195A)-Roller Distribution.
Liu discloses a solvent-free silicone coating machines using rollers arranged as a rigid-flexible combination (rubber roller and steel roller that alternates in distribution) so two adjacent rollers are a rigid (steel) roller and a flexible (rubber) roller. Liu discloses that this configuration helps achieve a thin coating and improve coating precision. (Liu Paragraph 36; Figure 4: Annotated Figure 3 for Liu (CN 102773195A)-Roller Distribution). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Liu to have a double-sided coating machine with rollers in a rigid-flexible combination.
Modified Zhou does not teach a rigid roller that is encapsulated with a surface roughness of less than 0.5. Nozaki et al. teaches a toner, developing device and process cartridge that uses a rigid roller encapsulated (covered with an elastic rubber layer) with a surface roughness of 0.05 (0.3 to 2.0 µin Ra, with 2.0 µin Ra equivalent to 0.05 µm Ra). Nozaki teaches that the surface roughness allows for the necessary about of coating (toner) to be carried on the surface of the roller. (See Nozaki et al., Paragraph 141). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Nozaki so the roller would have a surface roughness of 0.05.
Modified Zhou does not disclose a run-out accuracy of Grade 5. Sato discloses an elastic roller and a method of grinding an elastic roller and teaches that keeping a high run-out accuracy and a uniform diameter on the rollers help keep production efficient. (Sato, Paragraph 17). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although Sato does not explicitly disclose a run-out accuracy of Grade 5, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to optimize the run-out accuracy to ensure the production stays efficient.
Modified Zhou does not disclose a dynamic balance of G2.5/400 rpm. Koide discloses a device for driving an endless belt and an image forming apparatus. Koide teaches that adjusting the dynamic balance is essential to reduce power consumption and that accurate dynamic balance insures stable constant-speed control over the belt. (Kiode, Paragraphs 147, 198). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although Koide does not explicitly disclose a dynamic balance of G2.5/400 rpm, at the time of this invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to optimize the dynamic balance to reduce power consumption and because accurate dynamic balance insures stable constant-speed control.
Modified Zhou does not disclose a flexible roller obtained by wrapping a layer of urethane adhesive outside a rigid roller with a harness of 70-80 HA. Perkett et al. discloses a ceramic applicator device where a deformable applicator roll with a covered of polyurethane with a Shore A hardness of 40-80. Perkett teaches that this allows the applicator roll to conform to any surface irregularities or roll irregularities and ensure complete coverage at a uniform thickness. (Perkett et al., Paragraph 7). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Perkett et al. to have a double-sided coating machine with flexible roller obtained by wrapping a layer of urethane adhesive outside a rigid roller with a harness of 70-80 HA.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110665733A) and Liu (CN 102773195A), as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Dorst et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0241477), Nozaki et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0198901), Sato (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0096471), and Koide (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0085086A1). Modified Zhou discloses a double-sided coating device according to claim 3; however, modified Zhou does not disclose a ceramic roller with an alumina surface layer with a surface roughness of less than 0.05, a run-out accuracy of Grade 5, and a dynamic balance of G2.5 /400 rpm.
Dorst et al. discloses a coated ceramic roller used in a roller furnace, where a ceramic roller is necessary for high temperature resistance, creep resistance, and thermal shock resistance, and the alumina surface provides a smooth and not very porous surface. (Dorst et al., Paragraphs 5, 10). 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 Zhou (herein referred to as modified Zhou-A) to incorporate the teachings of Dorst et al. to have a double-sided coating machine with a ceramic roll having an alumina surface layer.
Modified Zhou does not teach a roller with a surface roughness of 0.05. Nozaki et al. teaches a toner, developing device and process cartridge that uses a rigid roller encapsulated (covered with an elastic rubber layer) with a surface roughness of 0.05 (0.3 to 2.0 µin Ra, with 2.0 µin Ra equivalent to 0.05 µm Ra). Nozaki teaches that the surface roughness allows for the necessary about of coating (toner) to be carried on the surface of the roller. (See Nozaki et al., Paragraph 141). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Nozaki so the roller would have a surface roughness of 0.05.
Modified Zhou does not disclose a run-out accuracy of Grade 5. Sato discloses an elastic roller and a method of grinding an elastic roller. Sato teaches that keeping a high run-out accuracy and a uniform diameter on the rollers helps keep production efficient. (Sato, Paragraph 17). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although Sato does not explicitly disclose a run-out accuracy of Grade 5, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to optimize the run-out accuracy to ensure the production stays efficient.
Modified Zhou does not disclose a dynamic balance of G2.5/400 rpm. Koide discloses a device for driving an endless belt and an image forming apparatus. Koide teaches that adjusting the dynamic balance is essential to reduce power consumption and that accurate dynamic balance insures stable constant-speed control over the belt. (Kiode, Paragraphs 147, 198). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although Koide does not explicitly disclose a dynamic balance of G2.5/400 rpm, at the time of this invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou to optimize the dynamic balance to reduce power consumption and because accurate dynamic balance insures stable constant-speed control.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhou (CN 110665733A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Triepel et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0210823). Modified Zhou discloses a double-sided coating device according to claim 1. However, modified Zhou does not disclose a corona device that is configured to treat a surface of the substrate and then the substrate is conveyed to the double-sided coating device for coating.
Triepel et al. discloses a device for the surface treatment of a substrate that includes a corona device and a coating device. Additionally, Triepel et al. discloses the corona device is located upstream of the coating device. Tripel et al. teaches that this allows the corona device to treat the surface of the substrate before the substrate is conveyed to the coating device. Triepel et al. teaches that this arrangement allows the surface tension of the substrate to be altered which then enables good wetting of the substrate. (Triepel et al., Paragraph, 36, 42; Figure 5: Annotated Figure 1 from Triepel et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20190210823)). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Triepel et al. to have a double-sided coating machine with a corona device configured to treat a surface of the substrate before being conveyed to the double-sided coating device (downstream of Corona device) to prepare the substrate for coating.
PNG
media_image6.png
322
590
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Corona device)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Coating device (downstream of Corona device))][AltContent: arrow]
Figure 5: Annotated Figure 1 from Triepel et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20190210823)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhou (CN 110665733A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 105903661A). Modified Zhou discloses a double-sided coating device according to claim 1. Modified Zhou does not teach suspension oven is configured to achieve suspension of the substrate by blowing air through air nozzles, each of the air nozzles comprises an air inlet and an air outlet, and a buffer plate is arranged between the air inlet and the air outlet, and small holes are uniformly formed in the buffer plate.
Li discloses a suspended coating machine and oven configured with air nozzles (14) with an air inlet (122) and an air outlet (147) with a buffer plate (145) arranged between the air inlet and air outlet, and the buffer plate has ventilation holes where the sheets are suspended. Li discloses that this arrangement of the nozzle (14 has a simple structure and low manufacturing cost while allowing for a uniform air blowing speed and a good drying effect. (See Li paragraphs 10, 29-32). 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 Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Li to have a double-sided coating machine with a suspension oven configured to suspend the substrate through air nozzles having an air inlet and an air outlet along with a buffer plate arranged between the air inlet and the air outlet, and small holes are uniformly formed in the buffer plate.
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Air nozzle 24)][AltContent: textbox (Air outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Buffer plate)][AltContent: textbox (Air inlet )]
Figure 6: Annotated Figure 3 from Li (CN 105903661A)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pub 2016/0082467A1 discloses a coating film production method and apparatus; and U.S Patent 9604256B2 discloses a double-sided coater.
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
