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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on March 18, 2025 was received has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-15 are in the application and pending examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “electrode collector” in Fig. 2 as described in the specification is withdrawn based on Applicant’s arguments.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is maintained. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
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: “receiving part” in claims 1, 5-8, and 11-12.
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.
This term is being interpreted as “slurry receiving part” as described in the Abstract, paragraphs 18-27, 39-40, 44-45, and 49-52 and shown in the drawings as “left slurry receiving part” 421, and “right slurry receiving part” 411 in Fig. 2.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the reference numerals S1 and S2 do not appear necessary for the claim to be understood.
Claim 16: “a slot die” should be “the slot die”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,834,052 to Fukumura et al (hereinafter Fukumara) and US Pat. Num. 5,425, 967 to Tomaru (hereinafter Tomaru) and US Pat. Pat. Num. 5,183,508 A1 to Cholinski et al (hereinafter Choinski) and US Pat. Pub. Num. 20080018009 A1 to Ciliske et al (hereinafter Ciliske) . (US Pat. Pub. No. 20030087038 A1 to Su et al (hereinafter Su) is being used as an evidentiary reference) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,834,052 to Fukumura et al (hereinafter Fukumara) and US Pat. Num. 5,425, 967 to Tomaru (hereinafter Tomaru) and US Pat. Num. 5,399,196 B1 to Ichikawa et al (hereinafter Ichikawa). (US Pat. Pub. No. 20030087038 A1 to Su et al (hereinafter Su) is being used as an evidentiary reference).
Regarding claim 1, Fukumara teaches a slot die coating apparatus (15) for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry, (See Fukumara, col. 3, lines
55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62, and Abstract), the slot die coating apparatus
comprising: a coating roller (1); and a discharge opening (7, 8, 9) configured to
discharge the electrode active material slurry ( See Fukumara, col. 3, lines 15-24).
Fukumara teaches a slot die comprising two or more dies (slide coater including channel 7, and extrusion die including channels 8-9). ( See Fukumara, Fig. 3, col. 3, lines 15-24, col. 5, lines 25-40, and Abstract.) Examiner is considering a dual die to be equivalent to two or more dies based on evidentiary reference Su. (See Su, Abstract, paragraph 11, and Figs. 6-13)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Regarding claim 1, Fukumara does not explicitly teach an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect.
Ichikawa is directed to a patch coating apparatus
Ichikawa teaches an air vent (16a-b) installed in the slot die so that it is directly
connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening (6) connect. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect, because Ichikawa teaches this structure can be effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Regarding claim 1, Fukumara does not explicitly teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees.
Ichikawa teaches an angle formed by the air vent (17a-b) and the discharge opening (6) at a point where the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees, because Ichikawa teaches this structure is effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for coating an electrode collector). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Fukumara in view of Tomaru in view of Ichikawa would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. opening configured to discharge). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Fukumara in view of Tomaru in view of Ichikawa would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Fukumara teaches the slot die comprises a left die (portion of 15 extending from upper left side of 15 to above 8 ) and a right die (portion of 15 extending from just below 8 to lower right side of 15). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62. ) Regarding claim 3, Fukumara teaches the left die comprises a first left die (portion of 15 extending from upper left side of 15 to above 7) and a second left die (portion of 15 extending under 7 to above 8 ). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62.)
Regarding claim 4, Fukumara teaches a left discharge opening (end of 7) is formed by a combination of the first left die (portion of 15 extending from upper left side of 15 to above 7 on upper on left) and the second left die (portion of 15 extending under 7 and above 8 ). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62.)
Regarding claim 5, Fukumara teaches a left slurry receiving part (10) is formed in the first left die (portion of 15 extending from upper left side of 15 to above 7). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62.) Regarding claim 6, Fukumara teaches a left slurry receiving part (10) is communicated with the left discharge opening (end of 7). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62.)
Regarding claim 7, Fukumara does not explicitly teach the air vent passes through the first left die to be communicated to the left slurry receiving part. Ichikawa teaches the air vent (16a) passes through the first left die to be communicated to the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left of 5 in Figs. 4-6) (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the air vent passes through the first left die to be communicated to the left slurry receiving part, because Ichikawa teaches this structure is effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.). (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Regarding claim 8, Fukumara does not explicitly teach the air vent is formed at a portion at which the left slurry receiving part and the left discharge opening are connected to each other. Ichikawa teaches the air vent (16a) is formed at a portion at which the left slurry receiving part and the left discharge opening are connected to each other ( die coater portion to the left of 5 in Figs. 4-6). (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the air vent is formed at a portion S 1 at which the left slurry receiving part and the left discharge opening are connected to each other, because Ichikawa teaches this structure is effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.). (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Regarding claim 9, Fukumara teaches the right die (portion of 15 extending from below 8 to lower right side of 15) comprises a first right die (portion of 15 extending from just below 8 to just above 9) and a second right die (portion of 15 extending from just below 9 to lower right side of 15). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62. )
Regarding claim 10, Fukumara teaches a right discharge opening (9) is formed by a combination of the first right die (portion of 15 extending from just below 8 to just above 9 ) and a second right die (portion of 15 extending from just below 9 to lower right side). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62. )
Regarding claim 11, Fukumara teaches a right slurry receiving part (12) is formed in the second right die (portion of 15 extending from just below 9 to lower right side of 15). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62. )
Regarding claim 12, Fukumara teaches the right slurry receiving part (12) is communicated with the right discharge opening (end of 9). (See Fukumara, Fig. 3, and col.3, lines 55-60, col. 4, col. 4, lines 40-47, 50-62.)
Regarding claim 13, Fukumara does not explicitly teach the air vent passes through the second right die to be communicated to the right slurry receiving part.
Ichikawa teaches the air vent (16a) passes through the right die to be communicated to the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the right of 5 in Figs. 4-6). (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the air vent passes through the second right die to be communicated to the right slurry receiving part, because Ichikawa teaches this structure is effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.).
Regarding claim 14, Fukumara does not explicitly teach the air vent is formed at a portion S2 at which the right slurry receiving part and the right discharge opening are connected to each other. Ichikawa teaches the air vent (16a-b) is formed at a portion at which the right slurry receiving part (22) and the right discharge opening (14) are connected to each other. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the air vent is formed at a portion S2 at which the right slurry receiving part and the right discharge opening are connected to each other, because Ichikawa teaches this structure is effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.).
Regarding claim 15, Fukumara does not explicitly teaches the air vent comprises a valve. Ichikawa teaches the air vent comprises a valve (17a-b). (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the air vent comprising a valve, because Ichikawa teaches this structure is effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.).
Regarding claim 16, Fukumara teaches a slot die (15) extending in a longitudinal direction, the slot die having a first side (upper side of 15 in Fig. 3 ) and a second side (lower side of 15 in Fig. 3, adjacent 19 ) in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 16, Fukumara teaches the slot die comprises a first slot die coating apparatus according to claim 1 at the first side of the slot die, and
the slot die comprises a second slot die coating apparatus according to claim 1 at the second side of the slot die.
Fukumara teaches a slot die comprising two or more dies (slide coater including channel 7, and extrusion die including channels 8-9). ( See Fukumara, Fig. 3, col. 3, lines 15-24, col. 5, lines 25-40, and Abstract.) Examiner is considering a dual die to be equivalent to two or more dies based on evidentiary reference Su. (See Su, Abstract, paragraph 11, and Figs. 6-13)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 16 (i. e. slot die extending in a longitudinal direction). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Fukumara in view of Tomaru in view of Ichikawa would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,834,052 to Fukumura et al (hereinafter Fukumara) and US Pat. Num. 5,425, 967 to Tomaru (hereinafter Tomaru) and US Pat. Num. 5,399,196 B1 to Ichikawa et al (hereinafter Ichikawa) and (US Pat. Pub. No. 20030087038 A1 to Su et al (hereinafter Su) as an evidentiary reference) as applied to claim 16 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20060283535 A1 to Jeong (hereinafter Jeong) and US Pat. Num. 4,338,364 to Kennon (hereinafter Kennon).
Regarding claim 17, Fukumara does not explicitly teach the air vent of the first slot die coating apparatus is bent toward a center of the slot die in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the air vent of the second slot die coating apparatus is bent toward a center of the slot die in the longitudinal direction.
Jeong is directed to a slot coating die.
Jeong teaches the air vent (245) of the first slot die coating apparatus is bent toward a center (244) of the slot die in the longitudinal direction. (See Jeong, Abstract, Fig. 4, and paragraphs 54-62.)
Kennon teaches it is known to have two vents connected together to a single suction source. (See Kennon, Abstract, col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 18.)
It would have been obvious to choose to the air vent of the first slot die coating apparatus is bent toward a center of the slot die in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the air vent of the second slot die coating apparatus is bent toward a center of the slot die in the longitudinal direction, i.e., it would have been “obvious to try” the air vent of the first slot die coating apparatus is bent toward a center of the slot die in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the air vent of the second slot die coating apparatus is bent toward a center of the slot die in the longitudinal direction to find the optimal location for a single ventilation fan to remove exhaust. (See Kennon, Abstract, col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 18.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
The previous rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,834,052 to Fukumura et al (hereinafter Fukumara) and US Pat. Num. 5,425, 967 to Tomaru (hereinafter Tomaru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030183167 A1 to Kitazawa et al (hereinafter Kitazawa) and US Pat. Num. 5,976,256 to Yukihiro Kawano (hereinafter Kawano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claims 7-8 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,834,052 to Fukumura et al (hereinafter Fukumara) and US Pat. Num. 5,425, 967 to Tomaru (hereinafter Tomaru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030183167 A1 to Kitazawa et al (hereinafter Kitazawa) and US Pat. Num. 5,976,256 to Yukihiro Kawano (hereinafter Kawano) as applied to claim 6 and claim 12, respectively, further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080018009 A1 to Ciliske (hereinafter Ciliske) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Double Patenting
The previous rejection of claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Pat. Num. 11,819,876 B2 to Kim et al (Application No. 17/431,561 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim ) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and US Pat. Num. 5,976,256 to Yukihiro Kawano (hereinafter Kawano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Pat. Num. 11,819,876 B2 to Kim et al (Application No. 17/431,561 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim ) and US Pat. Num. 5,399,196 to Ichikawa (hereinafter Ichikawa) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Kim teaches a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry; the slot die coating apparatus comprising: a coating roller, at least a slot die comprising two or more dies (lower and upper die) ; a discharge opening (discharge part) configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (electrode active material slurry ) is discharged in a direction on which gravity acts; and an air vent (upper and lower air vent) installed in the slot die. (See claim 1 of Kim.)
Kim does not explicitly teach a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (first and second coating solution) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts.
AAPA teaches a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (electrode active slurry) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraph 8, Fig. 1. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry, because AAPA teaches this structure is useful for applying an electrode slurry onto a collector. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraphs 6-9, Fig. 1. )
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Regarding claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect.
Ichikawa teaches an air vent (16a-b) installed in the slot die so that it is directly
connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening (6) connect. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect, because Ichikawa teaches this structure can be effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Regarding claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees.
Ichikawa teaches an angle formed by the air vent (17a-b) and the discharge opening (6) at a point where the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees, because Ichikawa teaches this structure can be effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Kim in view of AAPA and Ichikawa would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. opening configured to discharge). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Kim in view of AAPA and Ichikawa would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
The previous rejection of claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/008,594 to Lee et al (hereinafter Lee) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and US Pat. Num. 5,976,256 to Yukihiro Kawano (hereinafter Kawano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/008,594 to Lee et al (hereinafter Lee) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and US Pat. Num. 5,399,196 to Ichikawa et al (hereinafter Ichikawa) .
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of Lee teaches a slot die coating apparatus (dual slot die coater) the slot die coating apparatus comprising: at least a slot die comprising two or more dies (first and second outer die block) ; a discharge opening (first, second slot) configured to discharge through which the material slurry (first and second coating solution) is discharged in a direction on which gravity acts; and an air vent (first air vent, second air vent) installed in the slot die. (See claim 2 of Lee.)
Lee does not explicitly teach a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry.
AAPA teaches a slot die coating apparatus (10) for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry (30). (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraph 8, Fig. 1. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry, because AAPA teaches this structure is useful for applying an electrode slurry onto a collector. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraphs 6-9, Fig. 1. )
Lee does not explicitly teach a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a coating roller; a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (first and second coating solution) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts.
AAPA teaches a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a coating roller; a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (electrode active slurry) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraph 8, Fig. 1. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry, because AAPA teaches this structure is useful for applying an electrode slurry onto a collector. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraphs 6-9, Fig. 1. )
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Regarding claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect.
Regarding claim 1, Lee does not explicitly teach an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect.
Ichikawa teaches an air vent (16a-b) installed in the slot die so that it is directly
connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening (6) connect. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect, because Ichikawa teaches this structure can be effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Regarding claim 1, Lee does not explicitly teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees.
Ichikawa teaches an angle formed by the air vent (17a-b) and the discharge opening (6) at a point where the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees, because Ichikawa teaches this structure can be effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Lee in view of AAPA would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. opening configured to discharge). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Lee in view of AAPA would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
The previous rejection of claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Pat. Num. 12,115,554 B2 to Kim and Sang Hoon Choy et al (hereinafter Choy ) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and US Pat. Num. 5,976,256 to Yukihiro Kawano (hereinafter Kawano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Pat. Num. 12,115,554 B2 to Kim and Sang Hoon Choy et al (hereinafter Choy ) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and US Pat. Num. 5,399,196 B1 to Ichikawa et al (hereinafter Ichikawa).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Choy teaches a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry; the slot die coating apparatus comprising: a coating roller, at least a slot die comprising two or more dies (lower and upper die) ; a discharge opening (discharge part) configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (electrode active material slurry ) is discharged in a direction on which gravity acts; and an air vent (upper and lower air vent) installed in the slot die. (See claim 1 of Choy.)
Choy does not explicitly teach a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (first and second coating solution) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts.
AAPA teaches a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (electrode active slurry) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraph 8, Fig. 1. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry, because AAPA teaches this structure is useful for applying an electrode slurry onto a collector. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraphs 6-9, Fig. 1. )
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Regarding claim 1, Choy teaches an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect (right air vent is directly connected to a portion (S2) at which the right receiving part (411) and the right discharge opening connect (406).) (See claim 1 of Choy.)
Regarding claim 1, Choy does not explicitly teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees.
Ichikawa teaches an angle formed by the air vent (17a-b) and the discharge opening (6) at a point where the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees, because Ichikawa teaches this structure can be effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Choy in view of AAPA and Ichikawa would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. opening configured to discharge). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Choy in view of AAPA and Ichikawa would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
The previous rejection of claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Application No. 18/379,836 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim ) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and US Pat. Num. 5,976,256 to Yukihiro Kawano (hereinafter Kawano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Application No. 18/379,836 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim ) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and US Pat. Num. 5,399,196 B1 to Ichikawa et al (hereinafter Ichikawa).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Kim teaches a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry; the slot die coating apparatus comprising: a coating roller, at least a slot die comprising two or more dies (lower and upper die) ; a discharge opening (discharge part) configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (electrode active material slurry ) is discharged in a direction on which gravity acts; and an air vent (upper and lower air vent) installed in the slot die. (See claim 1 of Kim.)
Kim does not explicitly teach a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (first and second coating solution) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts.
AAPA teaches a slot die coating apparatus comprises: a discharge opening configured to discharge the electrode active material slurry (electrode active slurry) is discharged in an opposite direction on which gravity acts. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraph 8, Fig. 1. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slot die coating apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry, because AAPA teaches this structure is useful for applying an electrode slurry onto a collector. (See publication of the instant application, US Pat. Num. 20220080451 A1 to Kim, paragraphs 6-9, Fig. 1. )
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an air vent installed in the slot die so that it is directly connected to a point at which the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening connect (an air vent is formed at the portion (S) at which the lower slurry receiving part and the lower discharge opening connect are connected to each other) (See claim 1 of Kim.)
Regarding claim 1, Choy does not explicitly teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees.
Ichikawa teaches an angle formed by the air vent (17a-b) and the discharge opening (6) at a point where the slurry receiving part ( die coater portion to the left and right of 5 in Figs. 4-6) and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-17; and Figs. 1-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an angle formed by the air vent and the discharge opening at a point where the slurry receiving part and the discharge opening are connected is from 30 degrees to 90 degrees, because Ichikawa teaches this structure can be effective for venting the die coater and allowing the paint to be changed without requiring disassembly of the die coater. (See Ichikawa, Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-31; col.2, lines 23-33; col. 3, lines 7-37; and Figs. 1-6.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for coating an electrode collector with an active material slurry). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Kim in view of AAPA would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. opening configured to discharge). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Kim in view of AAPA would be capable of this intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. US Pat. Num. 5,399,196 B1 to Ichikawa et al (hereinafter Ichikawa) is being added to address the new limitation added to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20060283535 A1 to Jeong (Fig. 4 between outlet 242 and vent 245). US Pat. Num. 6,258,167 B1 to Yukihiro Kawano (hereinafter Kawano)..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717