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 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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 17, 19 and 20 are 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.
Claims 1 recites a “shim plate provided between a lower die block and an upper die block of a slot die coater to form a slot and to discharge a coating liquid through an outlet communicating with the slot” and then define it as comprising only “a plurality of protruding parts so as to have a plurality of openings by intermittently cutting one arca, and a blocking part partially blocking a space between the protruding parts.” This does not make sense and there is a disconnect between the body of the claim and preamble making unclear if the shim plate between die blocks is required or only a plurality of protruding part.
Examiner assumes the claim should read: “the shim plate comprising:…” This makes clear the body of the claim is directed only to defining the shim plate, which must reside between die blocks in a slot die coater, and this is how the claim is interpreted. No other interpretation of the claim makes sense.
Claims 2-9 refer back the “shim plate” according to claim 1, but as described, the claim never explicitly defines the limitation are directed to the shim plate, but defines the shim plate between die block in a slot die coater without ever specifying the limitation are limited to the shim plate therein. The amendment above fixes this.
Claims 3 and 13 recite second parts without connects said parts at all to the protruding parts of Claims 1 and 10. This suggests they are distinct from the protruding parts are distinct from the second parts. However, the instant specification makes clear the second parts are the protruding parts (See instant PgPub 2025/0196176, page 4, paragraph [0076]) and there is zero disclosure or teaching on how the protruding parts and second part could be distinct. Applicant should connect the protruding parts to the second parts for clarity or else explain on the record how they may be distinct because any possible distinction is not clear to the Examiner. For example, “comprising a first part serving as a base and the plurality of protruding parts comprising at least four second parts…” This connects the structure back to the previously recited structure, thus clarify the relationship between the protruding parts and second parts, which otherwise is indefinite as to whether the second parts must be distinct from the protruding parts. This is how the claims have been interpreted.
Claims 9 and 17 compared length, a directional one-dimensional characteristic to size, a multidimensional characteristic. This is incoherent. It’s akin to saying, my height is greater than your weight. Examiner assume a dimensional characteristic of the blocking part greater than a dimensional characteristic of the vent satisfies the claim.
Claims 19 and 20 are incoherent and completely unconnected to Claim 10. “The orthogonal part” and “the orthogonal projection” have no antecedent basis. Further, “does not deviate” is unclear. Examiner assumes Claim 19 specifies the blocking part is entirely within the cross-sectional area of the manifold. In Claim 20, “the front end” for each of the blocking part and manifold has no antecedent basis. Examiner assumes this mean the block part portion closest to the exit slot is further back the manifold portion closest to the exit slot.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR2022-0059744, wherein US2023/0149968 is used an English translation and all citations are directed thereto).
Examiner notes “intermittingly cutting one area” is a product by process limitation that only recites the spaced structure of the shim. Whether a given structure of protrusions are formed by cutting or other methods, the shim structure having such protrusions will be the same.
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 10, Lee et al. teaches a slot die coater (See Abstract), comprising a lower die block [33] and an upper die block [32]; a shim plate [200],[300] provided between the lower die block [33] and the upper die block [32] to form a slot (See page 1, paragraph [0006] and page 5, paragraphs [0073]-[0074], clearly indicating dies [33] and [32] with shim plate [200],[300] therebetween form a slot); and a manifold [34] provided in at least one of the upper die block and the lower die block and receiving a coating liquid, which discharges and applies the coating liquid on a substrate through an outlet communicating with the slot (See Fig. 5 and page 5, paragraphs [0075]-[0076], wherein inner space [34] in lower die block [33] is a manifold as claimed that receives slurry, i.e. coating liquid, that is conveyed through an outlet communicating with the exit slot between the dies [32],[33]; note the exit from the manifold to the slot portion is an outlet communicating with the slot),
wherein the shim plate [200],[300] comprises a plurality of protruding parts [250] so as to have a plurality of openings by intermittently cutting one area to determine the coating width of the coating layer applied on the substrate, and a blocking part partially blocking a space between the protruding parts (See Figs. 4-6 and page 5, paragraphs [0068]-[0072] and page 6, paragraph [0085], wherein the shim [200],[300] is clearly illustrated with protrusions [250] with openings/spaces therebetween, plausibly form via intermittent cuts, wherein both second guides [220] and the expanded region housing an opening in the central protrusion [250], shown clearly in Figs. 4-6, are blocking parts as claimed, that form expanded areas that partially block the region between protrusions [250]; and note the protrusions [250], or sub-guides, control the shape of the coated slurry, i.e. determine the width, and by their presence, clearly reduce the slurry/coating liquid).
Regarding Claims 3-5, Lee et al. illustrates a base portion that is a first part (See Fig. 6, wherein bottom base portion is a first part) and five second parts [250] with two outer parts, i.e. side second parts, and three inner second parts between them with the blocking part, i.e. part housing opening in central second inner part [250]. Thus, the blocking part expand into the area between all second inner parts, i.e. this is only two areas on either side of the central part [250] housing the opening (See Figs. 4-6). Note this expansion out from the central second inner part [250] expands into the area between the inner second part on either side of the central second inner part, thus being between every neighboring inner part but not the side second parts and inner second parts.
Regarding Claims 6-9, the opening is a vent that creates a space between the central portion of the blocking part and the first part, but not the side portions of the blocking part, which connect directly to the first part (See Fig. 6). The portion of guide [250] on the side of the opening distal from the base/first part is spaced from the first part via the opening, but the side portions connect to the first portion, thus satisfying both Claims 6 and 7. Note the blocking part clearly has a round shape as in Claim 8. Note since Examiner defines the blocking part as starting at the distal portion of the vent opening adjacent the base/first part and extending to the distal side of the opening, thus defining the distal border of the opening, the blocking part has a greater length than the opening as in Claim 9.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Lee et al. recites the steps [240] are in the discharge line (See page 5, paragraph [0070], these extending the full length of the opening, thus implying the blocking part orthogonal projection, i.e. width, is in the manifold orthogonal projection, i.e. cross-section. Further, in Figure 5, it is very clear the blocking part, i.e. the expanded portion holding the opening, is further from the slot exit, i.e. further behind, than the manifold [34] (See Fig. 5). Note the closet portion to the slot exit is the front end.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tashiro et al. (US 2022/0288623).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 10, Tashiro et al. teaches a slot die coater (See Abstract and page 1, paragraph [0003], teaching a slot die), comprising a lower die block [5] and an upper die block [6]; a shim plate [7] provided between the lower die block [5] and the upper die block [6] to form a slot (See page 1, paragraph [0012] and Fig. 2, clearly indicating dies [5] and [6] with shim plate [7] therebetween form a slot); and a manifold [13] provided in at least one of the upper die block and the lower die block and receiving a coating liquid [52], which discharges and applies the coating liquid on a substrate through an outlet communicating with the slot (See Fig. 1 and page 3-4, paragraphs [0036]-[0037], wherein manifold [13] in lower die block [5] receives coating liquid, that is conveyed through an outlet communicating with the exit slot between the dies; note the exit from the manifold to the slot portion is an outlet communicating with the slot),
wherein the shim plate [7] comprises a plurality of protruding parts [22] so as to have a plurality of openings by intermittently cutting one area to determine the coating width of the coating layer applied on the substrate, and a blocking part [23] partially blocking a space between the protruding parts (See Figs. 1-2 and page 2, paragraphs [0022]-[0025], wherein the shim [7] is clearly illustrated with protrusions [22] with openings/spaces therebetween, plausibly form via intermittent cuts, wherein relay plate parts [23] of the shim plate [7] are blocking parts blocking a space between the protruding parts [22], wherein the coating [52] is clearly restricted in width by the parts [22] as shown in Fig. 1, and wherein the gap between relay parts and die block [6] clearly reduces coating liquid to some extent by being in the flow path).
Regarding Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 11-15, Tashiro et al. illustrates a base portion [21] that is a first part (See Fig. 2, wherein bottom base portion [21] is a first part) and four second parts [22] with two outer parts [22A],[22B], i.e. side second parts, and two inner second parts [22] between them with the blocking part [23] between all second inner parts (See Fig. 2). Tashiro et al. illustrates the inner protrusions [22] have a fat upper portion and thin lower portion near the slot (See Fig. 2). This fat portion is a blocking portion not spaced from first part [21] as in claim 6. Further, blocking parts [23] are spaced from first part [21] and form an opening vent [25] as in claim 7, wherein the coating clearly flows into manifold [13], then through openings [25] so as to flow into manifold [15], wherein manifold [15] may be in the upper die block [6] (See page 6, paragraph [0056], indicating either of manifold [13] or [15] may be in upper die block [6] while the other in in lower die block, thus meaning the lower manifold [13] faces up and the upper manifold [15] faces down, i.e. face each other with shim plate [7] in between, and wherein coating inlet [16] clearly feeds into lower manifold [13] as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Examiner submits the blocking parts may be considered the fat portion between the thin distal portion of protrusion [22] and the relay portion [23], thus being longer than the opening [25] by the difference between the fat and thin portions (See Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, the language “formed in a shape capable of covering” does not require the shape to cover the inlet hole while installed in the device, but only have a shape cable of doing so. Examiner submits the fat portion portions of the protrusion certainly could have covered the inlet hold if positioned over it, thus giving them a shape capable of covering. Further, Tashiro et al. indicates the number of slits, and thus protrusions is not limited (See page 6, paragraph [0058]). Since Figs. 1-2 show three 3 coating streams, they have 4 protrusions [22], and thus no central protrusion over the inlet. If an even number of streams, e.g. two or four, were desired, it would require an odd number of protrusions [22], thus mandating a central protrusion with a fat portion covering the centrally positioned inlet [16].
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Tashiro et al. recites the at least the fat portions of the protrusions [22] are in the discharge line, the outward extension being an orthogonal projection, i.e. width, in the manifold orthogonal projection, i.e. cross-section. Further, the blocking parts [23] are further downstream, i.e. further behind, in the flow direction than the manifold [13], the further portion downstream being a front end.
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) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. as applied to Claims 7 and 14, and further in fire of Cloeren (US 2008/0274223).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Tashiro et al. teaches the devices of Claims 7 and 14 as described above. Tashiro et al. fails to teach the opening vents [25] are rounded. However, it is known in the prior art that similar coating liquid separating shim corners may be rounded (See, for example, Cloeren, page 7, paragraph [0078] and Fig. 11, illustrating openings [42] with visibly rounded corners). Further, changes in shape are a matter of choice and are considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). Thus, making the corners in shim rounded as opposed to sharp would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Such rounded corners are well-known in shims defining flow openings and would have predictably been a suitable design to define the separate streams via opening [25] in Tashiro et al. Such rounded corners define a “round” shape as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2021181968 (English machine translation included) is also 102 reference and teaches a shim [415]/[315] between upper [13] and lower [14] die blocks each having opposed manifold (See Fig. 7) where the shim has protrusions and an upper fatter portion the serves as a blocking portion (See Fig. 6a and b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights