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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A) claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato Hirotaka (JP H11226469 A) (hereinafter Hirotaka) and further in view of Harris et al. (US Pat. No.: 7,152,815 B2) (hereinafter Harris).
Regarding claim 1, Hirotaka discloses a slot die coating apparatus (1), adapted for coating on a substrate (3), comprising: an upper mold (4), including an upper inlet (10) and a first slurry storage slot (4a) connected to the upper inlet; a lower mold (5), including a lower inlet and a second slurry storage slot (5a) connected to the lower inlet; and a shim group (6-8), sandwiched between the upper mold and the lower mold, comprising: a central shim plate (8); an upper shim plate (6), having at least one notch (6a) and sandwiched between the central shim plate and the upper mold, wherein the notch is connected to the first slurry storage slot to dispense a slurry from the upper inlet for coating; and a lower shim plate (7), sandwiched between another side of the central shim plate and the lower mold and having at least one first flow path slot (7a) and at least one second flow path slot (7a) to dispense a slurry from the lower inlet for coating, which are connected to the second slurry storage slot (Fig. 1-2). Hirotaka is silent about wherein the first flow pate slot and the second flow path slot are located at two ends of the notch respectively and are partially overlapped with the notch.
Harris also discloses a slot die coating apparatus. The apparatus includes three shim plates (14, 16 and 18) which are sandwiched between mold (12) and (20) (Fig. 1); The lower shim plates have two flow paths (56, 58) and the upper plate has notch (60, 68 and 62). The two flow paths (56, 58) are located at two ends of the notch and are partially overlapped with the notch (Fig. 1). The benefit of doing so would have been to allow the liquid to be dispensed independently with different patterns.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize shim plates as taught by Harris within the apparatus as taught by Hirotaka. The beneft of doing so would have been to allow the nozzle to dispense liquid independently with different pattern.
Regarding claim 2, Hirotaka discloses wherein the central shim plate (13) separates completely the first slurry storage slot (6a) and the second slurry storage slot (7a).
Regarding claim 3, Harris discloses a width of the notch (60, 68 and 62) of the upper plate is slightly larger than a distance between an inner side wall of the first flow path slot (56) and an inner side wall of the second flow path slot (58).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirotaka and Harris as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Wang An-Bang (EP 2679314 A1) (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the limitations of claim 1-3 are taught by the combined teaching of Hirotaka and Harris. They are both silent about limitations of claim 4 and 5.
Wang also discloses a slot die coating apparatus. The slot die coating apparatus includes image-capturing system (56) (corresponding to sensor) connected to computer (57) to instantly observe the interval between coating module (100) and the substrate (90) for adjustment (Fig. 1). Wang further discloses coating system (60) has an image-capturing system (64), and the image-capturing system (64) (corresponding to sensor) is connected to a computer (65) to instantly observe the interval between the coating module (100) and the substrate (90) for adjustment. Thus, Wang discloses the use of sensor to adjust the coating module and speed of substrate. The similar image-capturing system (56) can be used to detect relative position of an obstacle of the substrate and adjust the coating module to dispenses appropriate amount of liquid.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize sensor and controls as taught by Wang within the apparatus as taught by the combined teaching of Hirotaka and Harris. The benefit of doing so would have been to dispense appropriate amount of liquid on substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights