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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 4/5/2024 is fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 4/5/2024 are accepted.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/13/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
The 102 rejection is removed in view of the amendment.
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 6 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.
New claim 6 requires that the second guide portion is wider than the first guide portion. However, the examiner could not find written support for changing the size of the guide portion (either a first and second portion of the same guide or different guides with different sizes). To the contrary, the specification indicates that the first and second guide portions 511 and 512 continuously mass-produce coated portions at regular intervals [0068], which indicates that they are the same size/width.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHI et al. (JP H11126602; citations to machine translation) in view of SASSA et al. (US 2018/0198095).
Regarding claims 1 and 2,
NISHI teaches a method of coating a negative and positive electrode material for a secondary battery onto a continuous substrate abstract. As shown in figs. 6, 7 and 13-14 the deposition is performed from discharge port (ejecting from a coating die) 56. A rotary screen 21 or moving film 65 (guide portion) with openings 22 allows for the formation of coating portions 16 and uncoated portions 16b (starting and ending of coating portions), [0037]. Negative and positive electrode layers for a secondary battery contain necessarily contain their respective cathode and anode active materials.
The NISHI reference does not expressly teach the coating die and guide portion as being located on a first side of the substrate while a first and second conveying roll are located on the second (opposing) side of the substrate. However, SASSA when performing a die coating method on a continuously conveyed substrate, the substrate 10 can be driven by two or more rollers 31 on one side of a substrate while die coating 50, see [0156], from the opposing side of the substrate as shown in SASSA Figs. 6 and 9. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to convey the substrate in NISHI using multiple rolls according to SASSA as a known conveying mechanism to work with slot coating. In addition, NISHI shows in fig. 10 that conventionally known methods of roll coating similarly use multiple conveying rollers on each side of the substrate to convey the substrate albeit in a roller deposition process. The examiner also notes that the claim language does not preclude the die coated from being positioned directly opposite a conveying roller, as long as there are two rollers positioned on the opposite side of the continuously long substrate.
Regarding claim 3,
NISHI teaches the formation of coating portions and uncoated portions using a rotary screen or moving film as described above. The moving film as shown in Fig. 8 is considered to have a “wide guide portion” that is associated with the start and end part of the coating area.
Regarding claim 4,
NISHI teaches the substrate is continuously traveling [0009], and the rotary screen and film 65 are designed to repeatedly pass between the discharge port (die) and substrate in Figs. 6-7.
Regarding claim 5,
NISHI teaches including a cleaning unit 80 can be used to clean a blocking shutter 68 after it passes between the discharge port and substrate Figs. 13-14.
Regarding claim 6,
NISHI teaches that the blocking member is used to form the non-coated part and further teaches that the length of the blocking portion can be changed to change the length of the coated portion [0021]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use various lengths (widths) of blocking members to achieve a desired length/width of coating areas.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights