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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 13 as amended to depend from claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus can be used to practice another and materially different process. The process, as claimed in claim 13, can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus omitting filtering through a filtering slot (for slurries that are homogenous).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 9, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are examined.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn with traverse.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “overflow control feature” is interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0028] and in claim 6 as “a plurality of bores”.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a single layer of bores” is interpreted as one or more layer of bores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahata (JP S53144909 A, English machine translation is provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Takahata discloses a tape casting apparatus (pg. 2 – apparatus for forming a thin film on a substrate by a coating method), comprising:
a reservoir (pg. 4, L 6 – supply box 8) comprising a first side wall, a second side wall opposite the first side wall (FIG. 2 depict side walls), and a foil sheet (pg. 3, last two lines – reference numeral 1 denotes a film substrate unwound from a roll 2) being moveable along a horizontal axis (pg. 4, L. 2-3 – 5 is a rotating roller for changing the feeding direction of 1) from a first end of the reservoir to a second end of the reservoir (FIG. 2 and 4 depict 1 is feed from a first end to a second end of 8) and extending between the first side wall and the second side wall (FIG. 2 depicts 1 extended from the first side wall and the second side wall);
PNG
media_image1.png
697
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
469
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takahata FIG. 2 and 4
a first blade (pg. 4, L 5-10 – labyrinth structure 7 composed of film thickness setting plate 14) positioned within the reservoir (FIG. 2 and 4 depict 14 in 8), the first blade having a first edge proximate the first side wall (FIG. 2 depicts a first edge proximate the first side wall), a second edge proximate the second side wall (FIG. 2 depicts a second edge proximate the second side wall), and a first blade tip positioned proximate the foil sheet at a casting height (FIG. 4 depicts a first blade tip of 14 positioned proximate 1 at a casting height; pg. 4, L 10-13 – 14 slides up and down within 8 to set thickness of a thin film 10); and
a second blade (pg. 4, L 5-10 – labyrinth structure 7 composed of film thickness setting plate 11) positioned within the reservoir (FIG. 2 and 4 depict 11 in 8), the second blade having a first edge proximate the first side wall (FIG. 2 depicts a first edge proximate the first side wall), a second edge proximate the second side wall (FIG. 2 depicts a second edge proximate the second side wall), and a second blade tip positioned proximate the foil sheet at a filtering height (FIG. 4 depicts a second blade tip of 11 positioned proximate 1 at a filtering height; pg. 4, L 5-8 – slides up and down within the supply box to set thickness of a thin film 10 of a slurry 9), wherein the second blade defines an overflow control feature formed therein (pg. 4, L 9 – escape hole 13),
PNG
media_image3.png
671
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
469
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Takahata FIG. 2 and 4
wherein the first end, the first side wall, the second side wall, and the second blade (FIG. 2 depict a first cavity defined by first end, first side wall, second side wall, and second blade) define a first cavity and wherein the first blade, the second blade, the first side wall, and the second side wall define a second cavity (FIG. 2 depict a second cavity defined by first blade, second blade, first side wall, and second side wall) such that the first cavity is in fluid communication with the second cavity between the foil sheet and the second blade and through the overflow control feature (pg. 4, L 9-10 – escape hole 13 for draining slurry 9; pg. 6, L 3-4 – returns excess slurry 9 to original position via 13; FIG. 4 depicts the first cavity and second cavity in fluid communication between the foil sheet and second blade).
PNG
media_image5.png
673
599
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
469
527
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Takahata FIG. 2 and 4
Regarding claim 2, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1. Takahata further discloses wherein the filtering height is larger than the casting height (FIG. 4 depicts the filtering height of 11 is higher/larger than 14).
PNG
media_image7.png
694
477
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Takahata FIG. 4
Regarding claim 3, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1, wherein a distance between the first end of the reservoir and the second blade is greater than a distance between the second blade and the first blade (Annotated FIG. 4 depicts a distance between the first end of 8 and the 11 is greater than a distance between 11 and 14).
PNG
media_image8.png
469
527
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Takahata FIG. 4
Regarding claim 5, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1, wherein both the first blade and the second blade are movable along a vertical axis (pg. 4, L 5-10 - labyrinth structure 7 slides up and down within the supply box 8 to set the thickness of a thin film 10 of a slurry 9 and is composed of film thickness setting plate 11 and film thickness setting plate 14) perpendicular to the horizontal axis (FIG. 4 depicts the up and down of 11 and 14 is perpendicular to the horizontal axis).
PNG
media_image9.png
469
527
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Takahata FIG. 4
Regarding claim 11, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first blade and the second blade each comprise a straight blade (FIG. 2 and 4 depict 11 and 14 are straight) such that the first blade and the second blade are perpendicular to the first side wall and the second side wall (FIG. 2 and 4 depict 11 and 14 are perpendicular to the first side wall and second side wall).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata (JP S53144909 A), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1.
Takahata discloses labyrinth structure 7 slides up and down within the supply box 8 to set the thickness of a thin film 10 of a slurry 9 and is composed of film thickness setting plate 11 and film thickness setting plate 14 (pg. 4, L 5-10). The thickness is set in advance by 11, and finally set by 14 (pg. 5, last three lines). The film thickness setting plate is adjusted to the desired coating conditions (pg. 7, L14-15)
Takahata does not explicitly disclose wherein both the first blade and the second blade are stationary such that the casting height and the filtering height are fixed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness setting plates “stationary” and “fixed” to achieve desired coating conditions (pg. 7, L14-15) and desired thickness (pg. 4, L 5-10) and form a thin film without pinholes and having a uniform thickness (pg. 6, L 14-16; pg. 7, last two lines) improving the properties of the product and productivity of the product (pg. 3, L 3-5).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata (JP S53144909 A), as applied to claim 1, in view of Meenakshisundaram (WO 2023/064488 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1.
Takahata discloses an escape hole 13 for draining the slurry 9 (pg. 4, L 9-10). The escape hole 13 returns excess slurry 9 to original position (pg. 6, L 3-4).
Takahata does not explicitly disclose wherein the overflow control feature comprises a plurality of bores that are equally spaced along a width of the second blade, extending from the first edge of the second blade to the second edge of the second blade.
Analogous art Meenakshisundaram discloses a recoating system comprising a carrier film, a first blade and a second blade (FIG. 2A, ¶ [00117-00118]).
Meenakshisundaram discloses the overflow control feature comprises a plurality of bores (FIG. 4A, ¶ [00158] – blade form openings) that are equally spaced along a width of the second blade (FIG. 4A, ¶ [00158] – openings are substantially uniformly distributed), extending from the first edge of the second blade to the second edge of the second blade (FIG. 4A depicts the openings extend from the first edge to the second edge).
Takahata and Meenakshisundaram disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to recoating on a film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a plurality of bores along a width in the matter recited above in Meenakshisundaram to the escape hole in Takahata to maintain a constant resin volume between the blade and the blade that forms the layer of resin (e.g. 270) (¶ [00157]), to allow resin to pass through the blade to prevent accumulated resin and/or printed features from flow over the top of the blade (¶ [00158]), to drain the slurry 9 (Takahata pg. 4, L 9-10) and return excess slurry 9 to original position (Takahata pg. 6, L 3-4).
Furthermore, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 7, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 6.
Takahata does not disclose wherein the plurality of bores comprises a single layer of bores positioned at an overflow height such that each bore of the plurality of bores is positioned at a uniform height from the second blade tip of the second blade.
Meenakshisundaram discloses wherein the plurality of bores comprises a single layer of bores positioned at an overflow height (FIG. 4A and 4C depicts a layer of bores positioned at an overflow height) such that each bore of the plurality of bores is positioned at a uniform height from the second blade tip of the second blade (FIG. 4A and 4C depicts the layer of bores positioned at a uniform height from the tip).
PNG
media_image10.png
419
1156
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
419
1131
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Meenakshisundaram FIG. 4A and 4C
Takahata and Meenakshisundaram disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to recoating on a film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a single layer of bores in the matter recited above in Meenakshisundaram to the escape hole in Takahata to maintain a constant resin volume between the blade and the blade that forms the layer of resin (e.g. 270) (¶ [00157]), allow resin to pass through the blade to prevent accumulated resin and/or printed features from flow over the top of the blade (¶ [00158]), to drain the slurry 9 (Takahata pg. 4, L 9-10) and return excess slurry 9 to original position (Takahata pg. 6, L 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 7.
Takahata depicts in FIG. 4 the escape hole is at an overflow height from the tip of 11.
Takahata does not explicitly disclose wherein the overflow height is vertically spaced from the second blade tip of the second blade at a height that is about 2/3 of a total height of the second blade.
Meenakshisundaram disclose wherein the overflow height is vertically spaced from the second blade tip of the second blade at a height that is about 2/3 of a total height of the second blade (FIG. 4A and 4C depict the openings at the overflow height are about 2/3 of a total height of the blade).
Takahata and Meenakshisundaram disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to recoating on a film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the overflow height of the layer of bores in the matter recited above in Meenakshisundaram to the escape hole in Takahata to maintain a constant resin volume between the blade and the blade that forms the layer of resin (e.g. 270) (Meenakshisundaram ¶ [00157]) and allow resin to pass through the blade to prevent accumulated resin and/or printed features from flow over the top of the blade (Meenakshisundaram ¶ [00158]) to prevent printed features/defects from contacting the first blade and allow the first blade to form a layer of resin of uniform thickness (Meenakshisundaram ¶ [0098], [00104]) and to drain the slurry 9 (Takahata pg. 4, L 9-10) and return excess slurry 9 to original position (Takahata pg. 6, L 3-4) form a thin film without pinholes and having a uniform thickness (Takahata pg. 6, L 14-16; pg. 7, last two lines) improving the properties of the product and productivity of the product (Takahata pg. 3, L 3-5).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the diameter of the openings/escape hole, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 6.
Takahata and Meenakshisundaram do not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of bores further comprises a diameter of about 6.35 mm.
However, Meenakshisundaram discloses the openings of blade may maintain a constant resin volume between the blade and the blade that forms the layer of resin (e.g. 270) (¶ [00157]). The openings may have a largest dimension (e.g., diameter) (¶ [00157]). The openings may prevent accumulation of resin and prevent resin spill-over (¶ [00157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the diameter of the openings/escape hole, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the diameter of the openings/escape hole in modified Takahata to maintain a constant resin volume between the blade and the blade that forms the layer of resin and prevent accumulation of resin and prevent resin spill-over (¶ [00157]).
Regarding claim 10, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1,
Takahata does not disclose two or more second blades positioned within the reservoir.
Analogous art Meenakshisundaram discloses a recoating system comprising a carrier film, a first blade and a second blade (FIG. 2A, ¶ [00117-00118]).
Meenakshisundaram further comprising two or more second blades (¶ [00123] – two or more blades 270) positioned within the reservoir (¶ [00130], FIG. 2 – partial enclosure 280, e.g., recoating chamber, may be formed by carrier film, blade, gate, and sidewalls).
Takahata and Meenakshisundaram disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to recoating on a film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the two or more blades in Meenakshisundaram to the film thickness setting plates in Takahata to allow the second blade to capture printed features of any size that would have been caught by first blade and to fill in any streaks or non-uniformity so that first blade can form a substantially uniform layer of resin (¶ [00123]).
Regarding claim 12, Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1.
Takahata does not disclose wherein the first blade and the second blade each comprise a curved blade such that at least a portion of the first blade and the second blade are not perpendicular to the first side wall and the second side wall.
Meenakshisundaram discloses wherein the first blade and the second blade each comprise a curved blade such that at least a portion of the first blade (¶ [00161] – the blade is angled, curved, etc.) and the second blade are not perpendicular to the first side wall and the second side wall (as the blade is angled and/or curved, the blade would not be perpendicular to the sidewalls of the enclosure).
Takahata and Meenakshisundaram disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to recoating on a film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the printed features to be directed towards a location (e.g., side of the blade) to be captured and/or removed (¶ [00161]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP S 61106205 A discloses a similar device for suppressing fluctuations in film thickness and comprising a doctor blade
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754