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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are examined.
Claims 13-17 and 20 are withdrawn with traverse.
Claims 6-8 and 18-19 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections; therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the interview conducted May 18, 2026, it was stated “the plurality of bores comprises a single layer of bores” in the proposed amendment does not limit to only a single layer and is interpreted as “at least a single layer of bores”, i.e., one or more layers of bores. It was suggested to amend “comprises” to “consists” would further limit “a single layer”. However, amended claim 1 recites “overflow control features consists of a plurality of bores”, and “the plurality of bores comprises a single layer of bores” is retained. For examination purposes, the limitation “plurality of bores comprises a single layer of bores” will be interpreted as reciting “plurality of bores consists a single layer of bores”.
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”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata (JP S53144909 A, an English machine translation was previously provided) in view of Stampfl (US 2016/0288412 A) and Meenakshisundaram (WO 2023/064488 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahata discloses a tape casting apparatus (pg. 2 – apparatus for forming a thin film on a substrate), 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 – film substrate 1 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 – film thickness setting plate 14 of labyrinth structure 7) 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 – film thickness setting plate 11 of 7) 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), wherein,
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
the first end, the first side wall, the second side wall, and the second blade define a first cavity (FIG. 2 depict a first cavity defined by first end, first side wall, second side wall, and second blade) 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 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
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
the overflow control feature consists 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
wherein the plurality of bores consists 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.
Analogous art Stampfl discloses a doctor knife 11 to uniformly distribute the material 6 upon adjustment of a specified layer thickness (¶ [0065]). The doctor knife comprises two parallel doctor blades 16 and 17 (¶ [0068]).
Stampfl further discloses:
the overflow control feature consists a plurality of bores (¶ [0068] – overflow channels 19) that are equally spaced (FIG. 6 depicts 19 equally spaced) along a width of the second blade (16), extending from the first edge of the second blade to the second edge of the second blade (FIG. 6 depicts 19 extending from a first edge to a second edge of 16)
wherein the plurality of bores consists a single layer of bores (FIG. 6 depicts a single layer of 19) positioned at an overflow height (FIG. 6 depicts 19 positioned at a 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. 6 depicts 19 positioned at uniform height).
PNG
media_image7.png
458
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Stampfl FIG. 6
Takahata and Stampfl disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to recoating devices/doctor blades. 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 and to apply the single layer of overflow channels at an overflow height in Stampfl to the escape hole in Takahata to cause the material in the chamber to be available again for the subsequent distribution step (¶ [0032]), to drain the slurry (Takahata pg. 4, L 9-10) and return excess slurry to original position (Takahata pg. 6, L 3-4) to 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, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Modified Takahata does not disclose 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.
Analogous art Meenakshisundaram discloses a recoating system comprising a carrier film, a first blade and a second blade (FIG. 2A, ¶ [00117-00118]). A blade 400A form openings that are uniformly distributed (FIG. 4A, ¶ [00158]).
Meenakshisundaram further discloses 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 below depict the openings at the overflow height are about 2/3 of a total height of the blade).
PNG
media_image8.png
419
1156
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
419
1131
media_image9.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 plurality of bores at an overflow height of about 2/3 a total height of the blade 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 (¶ [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 (Takahata pg. 4, L 9-10) and return excess slurry to original position (Takahata pg. 6, L 3-4) to 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 height 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). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would optimize the height of the opening/escape hole to drain the slurry and return excess slurry to original position improving productivity of the product.
Regarding claim 2, modified 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_image10.png
694
477
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Takahata FIG. 4
Regarding claim 3, modified 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_image11.png
469
527
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated Takahata FIG. 4
Regarding claim 4, modified 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).
Regarding claim 5, modified 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_image12.png
469
527
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Annotated Takahata FIG. 4
Regarding claim 9, modified Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 6.
Modified Takahata 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 (¶ [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 to prevent accumulation of resin and prevent resin spill-over (Meenakshisundaram ¶ [00157]) and 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). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would optimize the diameter of the opening/escape hole to prevent accumulation of resin and prevent resin spill-over.
Regarding claim 10, modified Takahata discloses the tape casting apparatus of claim 1,
Takahata does not disclose two or more second blades positioned within the reservoir.
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 11, modified 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).
Regarding claim 12, modified 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “single layer of bores” interpreted as “one or more layer of bores” deviates from the plain recitation of the claim.
The claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation “the plurality of bores comprises a single layer of bores” does not limit to only a single layer and is interpreted as “at least a single layer of bores”, i.e., one or more layers of bores.
Applicant argues Meenakshisundaram does not disclose 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 because the openings are distributed across a number of different heights.
Meenakshisundaram discloses 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 below depict the openings at the overflow height are about 2/3 of a total height of the blade).
PNG
media_image8.png
419
1156
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
419
1131
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Meenakshisundaram FIG. 4A and 4C
Although Meenakshisundaram discloses openings at varying heights, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an optimal arrangement of the openings to maintain a constant resin volume between the blade and the blade that forms the layer of resin (¶ [00157]) and 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]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the height 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).
Applicant argues in Meenakshisundaram the flow of the slurry does not “stack up” in front of blade 170B or recirculation zone.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights