CTNF 18/655,480 CTNF 93108 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibatani (JP-2020001247-A - of record) . Regarding claim 1 , Shibatani teaches a battery electrode material coating device ( electrostatic screen printing apparatus) comprising: a conveying unit configured to convey an electrically conductive base material (substrate holder 10 is not particularly limited as long as the substrate 20 can be disposed thereon, and is not particularly limited, and may be a fixed type, a movable type, or A type corresponding to a roll-shaped substrate may be used, as long as the substrate 20 can be arranged at the time of electrostatic printing; the base material 20 is placed on the base material holder 10); a hopper configured to store powder (powder 15 as a raw material is introduced into powder supply means 12); an electrically conductive screen (conductive screen 11 on which a pattern P having a predetermined shape is formed); a voltage applying unit configured to apply a voltage between the conveying unit and the hopper (voltage application unit 13); and an ultrasonic transducer (ultrasonic vibrator 14) (Fig 1 and ¶0014-0031). While Shibatani discloses a device comprising an electrically conductive screen and an electrically conductive screen, Shibatani does not explicitly disclose a device comprising a hopper including an electrically conductive screen nor an ultrasonic transducer connected to a sidewall of the hopper as instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Shibatani such that the hopper includes the electrically conductive screen and the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a sidewall of the hopper as instantly claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Regarding claim 2 , as applied to claim 1, Shibatani teaches a discharge port of the hopper (Fig 1). Shibatani does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the screen is installed in a discharge port of the hopper. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Shibatani such that the screen is installed in a discharge port of the hopper as instantly claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Regarding claim 3 , as applied to claim 1, Shibatani teaches an ultrasonic transducer and a hopper (Fig 1). Shibatani does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a portion of the hopper that is located below a middle portion in an up-down direction of the hopper. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Shibatani such that the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a portion of the hopper that is located below a middle portion in an up-down direction of the hopper as instantly claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Regarding claim 4 , as applied to claim 1, Shibatani teaches the hopper is disposed in such a manner that a longitudinal direction of the hopper is perpendicular to a conveying direction of the base material by the conveying unit (Fig 1). Shibatani does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a middle portion in the longitudinal direction of the hopper. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Shibatani such that the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a middle portion in the longitudinal direction of the hopper as instantly claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-35 Claims 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/679524 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Regarding claims 1-4 , the limitations recited in claims 1 and 5 of the reference application disclose a similar apparatus. The reference application teaches a battery electrode material coating device, comprising a conveying unit configured to convey an electrically conductive base material; a hopper configured to store powder; an electrically conductive screen; a voltage applying unit configured to apply a voltage; and an ultrasonic transducer connected to a sidewall of the hopper. The reference application does not explicitly teach a battery electrode material coating device comprising a hopper including an electrically conductive screen; a voltage applying unit configured to apply a voltage between the conveying unit and the hopper; an ultrasonic transducer connected to a sidewall of the hopper; wherein the screen is installed in a discharge port of the hopper; wherein the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a portion of the hopper that is located below a middle portion in an up-down direction of the hopper; and wherein the hopper is disposed in such a manner that a longitudinal direction of the hopper is perpendicular to a conveying direction of the base material by the conveying unit, and the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a middle portion in the longitudinal direction of the hopper. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in reference application such that device comprises a hopper including an electrically conductive screen; a voltage applying unit configured to apply a voltage between the conveying unit and the hopper; an ultrasonic transducer connected to a sidewall of the hopper; wherein the screen is installed in a discharge port of the hopper; wherein the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a portion of the hopper that is located below a middle portion in an up-down direction of the hopper; and wherein the hopper is disposed in such a manner that a longitudinal direction of the hopper is perpendicular to a conveying direction of the base material by the conveying unit, and the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a middle portion in the longitudinal direction of the hopper as instantly claimed with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. 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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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. /JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/655,480 Page 2 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/655,480 Page 3 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/655,480 Page 4 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/655,480 Page 5 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/655,480 Page 6 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/655,480 Page 7 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/655,480 Page 8 Art Unit: 1743
Prosecution Insights