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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “A battery electrode material application device” and “a conductive base material”. The inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein a plurality of inclined plates”. Claim 1 recites “an inclined plate”. Therefore, it is unclear if a plurality of inclined plates includes “an inclined plate” recited in claim 1 or additional inclined plates. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to be “wherein the inclined plate is one of a plurality of inclined plates provided along a conveyance direction of the base material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibatani (JP-2020001247A, citations from IDS submission) in view of Hoshina (JP-2007029860A, citations from IDS submission) and further in view of Miller et al. (US 5,279,221, hereinafter Miller).
Per independent claim 1:
Shibatani discloses an electrostatic printing application device (see annotated Fig. 1 and [0015]-[0019]) comprising:
a hopper configured to be able to accommodate powder;
a conductive screen disposed between the conveyance unit and the hopper;
a voltage application unit capable of applying a voltage between the conveyance unit and the screen;
PNG
media_image1.png
528
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shibatani does not teach a conveyance unit and an inclined plate that extends obliquely downward from the screen.
Hoshina discloses a powder scattering apparatus (see abstract) comprising a powder diffusing means 8 located below a powder ejection nozzle 6 wherein the powder diffusing means 8 contains an inclined plate 9 ([0019] and Fig. 1-4). The inclined plate 9 allows for arranging the powder in to any desired design pattern ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have added an inclined plate, such as one taught by Hoshina, under the conductive screen of Shibatani in order to receive the powder and scatter it in a desired design pattern. Note that Shibatani discloses the desirability to form designed patterns in an electrostatic screen printing method ([0002]). With regards to the placement of the inclined plate below the conductive screen (as opposed to above it), this is to ensure that the inclined plate allows for the scattering of the powder prior to it landing on the substrate, similar to Hoshina (the inclined plate 9 is the last structure prior to the powder reaching the substrate).
Shibatani/Hoshina do not teach a conveyance unit. Shibatani does disclose that there is a base material holder.
Miller discloses a screen printing apparatus and method (see title and abstract) comprising a conveyor means 350 beneath a screen apparatus 300 (see col. 12, lines 19-25 and Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have substituted the base material holder of Shibatani/Hoshina with a conveyor which holds the base material, as taught by Miller. One would have been motivated to do so because Miller discloses that conveyors are known substrate holders in the field of screen printing and this would allow the conveyance of a plurality of substrates, thereby increasing the efficiency of the printing process (i.e. assembly line).
Per claim 2, the inclined plate extends to a vicinity of the base material conveyed by the conveyance unit (see Fig. 1-3 of Hoshina which shows the plate 9 extending to a vicinity of base material 1).
Per claim 3, Hoshina discloses that there can be a plurality of powder nozzles and a plurality of inclined plates (see Fig. 1). It would have been further obvious to have included a plurality of the inclined plates of Hoshina in the apparatus of Shibatani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accommodate the entire length of the conductive screen. Further, a plurality of inclined plates allows for more customization on the scattering of the powder, thereby increasing the complexity of the pattern design.
Per claim 4, Fig. 2-3 of Hoshina shows that the inclined plate is set to be approximately 45 degrees.
Per claim 5, Shibatani discloses a frame body that holds the screen is provided below the hopper and an ultrasonic transducer is connected to a side wall of the frame body (see annotated Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/655,480 (hereinafter US ‘480) in view of Shibatani (JP-2020001247A, citations from IDS submission) in view of Hoshina (JP-2007029860A, citations from IDS submission).
Per instant claim 1, claims 1-2 of US ‘480 discloses a battery electrode material coating device comprising a conveying unit, a hopper, an electrically conductive screen which is installed in a discharge port of the hopper, a voltage applying unit configured to apply a voltage between the conveying unit and the hopper.
However, claims 1-2 of US’ 480 fails to teach a voltage applying unit configured to apply a voltage between the conveying unit and the screen and inclined plate that extends obliquely downward from the screen.
Shibatani discloses an electrostatic printing application device (see annotated Fig. 1 and [0015]-[0019]) comprising:
a hopper configured to be able to accommodate powder;
a conductive screen disposed between the conveyance unit and the hopper;
a voltage application unit capable of applying a voltage between the conveyance unit and the screen;
PNG
media_image1.png
528
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. It would have been obvious to have modified US ‘480 such that a voltage application unit is applied between the screen and the conveying unit in the manner taught by Shibatani. One would have been motivated to do so because Shibatani recognizes that when using a conductive screen below a hopper, it also known in the art to apply the voltage between the screen and the material holder.
US ‘480/Shibatani do not teach an inclined plate that extends obliquely downward from the screen.
Hoshina discloses a powder scattering apparatus (see abstract) comprising a powder diffusing means 8 located below a powder ejection nozzle 6 wherein the powder diffusing means 8 contains an inclined plate 9 ([0019] and Fig. 1-4). The inclined plate 9 allows for arranging the powder in to any desired design pattern ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have added an inclined plate, such as one taught by Hoshina, under the conductive screen of US ‘480/Shibatani in order to receive the powder and scatter it in a desired design pattern.
Per instant claim 2, the inclined plate extends to a vicinity of the base material conveyed by the conveyance unit (see Fig. 1-3 of Hoshina which shows the plate 9 extending to a vicinity of base material 1).
Per instant claim 3, Hoshina discloses that there can be a plurality of powder nozzles and a plurality of inclined plates (see Fig. 1). It would have been further obvious to have included a plurality of the inclined plates of Hoshina in the apparatus of US ‘480/Shibatani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accommodate the entire length of the conductive screen. Further, a plurality of inclined plates allows for more customization on the scattering of the powder, thereby increasing the complexity of the pattern design.
Per instant claim 4, Fig. 2-3 of Hoshina shows that the inclined plate is set to be approximately 45 degrees.
Per instant claim 5, claim 1 of US’ 480 recites that the ultrasonic transducer is connected to a side wall of the hopper but fails to teach a frame body that holds the screen is provided below the hopper and an ultrasonic transducer is connected to a side wall of the frame body.
Shibatani discloses a frame body that holds the screen is provided below the hopper and an ultrasonic transducer is connected to a side wall of the frame body (see annotated Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above).
It would have been further obvious to have modified US ‘480 to include a frame body which holds the conductive screen and an ultrasonic transducer connected to a side wall of the body in the manner taught by Shibatani. One would have been motivated to do so because Shibatani recognizes an alternative way of applying ultrasonic forces to a conductive screen for powder coating, thus establishing predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights