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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 30, 2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be an undue burden is not placed on the Examiner if both groups are placed in the same application. This is not found persuasive because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required due to the independent and distinct nature of the two groups.
Each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort. Further, different considerations are used in considering the independent and distinct inventions. There is also a burden because it is necessary to search for one of the independent and distinct inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to all of the elements of the other independent and distinct invention.
The independent and distinct inventions include elements which require search outside of the same classification (H01M50/50 and C23C2/026). There is also a burden because it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to all of the elements of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “a heating rate of the substrate and the first coating is adjustable based on a distance between the one or more heaters and the substrate and an angle of the one or more heaters with respect to the substrate” in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
One information disclosure statement (IDS) has been received in this application with two foreign patent documents. Applicant is reminded of the requirements under 37 CFR 1.56(a) for each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application having a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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: “pre-coating section”, “pre-heating section” in claim 1; “masking section” in claim 2; “quality assessment section” in claim 3; “finishing section” in claim 5; .
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a hot-dip coating system, comprising: a substrate pathway comprising one (16) or more rollers configured to move a substrate along the substrate pathway between a first end and a second end; a pre-coating section (20) arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to apply a first coating to the substrate; a pre-heating section (30) arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to heat the substrate and the first coating; and
a hot-dip coating section (34) arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to apply a second coating to the substrate. (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7, 9, 33-34, and 39-45, and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches the substrate includes copper (current collector in paragraph 7), the first coating includes a zinc-oxide material (zinc precursor and zinc oxide, paragraphs 5-6 and 34), and the second coating includes a lithium- based material. (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7, 33-34, and 39-44.)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha).
Regarding claim 2, Xu does not teach a masking section preceding the pre-coating section with respect to the substrate pathway, the masking section is configured to apply a mask to a portion of the substrate.
Kejha is directed to treatment of foil for use in lithium based electrochemical devices.
Kejha teaches a masking section preceding the pre-coating section with respect to the substrate pathway, the masking section is configured to apply a mask (24) to a portion of the substrate (23). (See Kejha, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and paragraphs 7, 18-19, and 43.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a masking section preceding the pre-coating section with respect to the substrate pathway, the masking section is configured to apply a mask to a portion of the substrate, because Kejha teaches this would allow the substrate to be protected from coating in the weld attachment area to facilitate easier processing. (See Kejha, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 7, 18-19, and 43.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) as applied to claim 2 in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230323495 A1 to Hensen et al (hereinafter Hensen).
Regarding claim 3, Xu does not teach comprising one or more quality assessment sections arranged with respect to the substrate pathway
Hensen is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
Hensen teaches one or more quality assessment sections arranged with respect to the substrate pathway. (See Hensen, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and paragraphs 18, 103-108, and 116-127.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more quality assessment sections arranged with respect to the substrate pathway, because Kejha teaches this would allow the substrate to be inspected and the defects to be monitored in order to improve quality. (See Hensen, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and paragraphs 18, 103-108, and 116-127.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230323495 A1 to Hensen et al (hereinafter Hensen) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200081423 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 4, Xu does not teach the one or more quality assessment sections include a first quality section that directly precedes the masking section and a second quality section that is arranged directly after the pre-coating section
Clark is directed to a system in a manufacturing platform to address various measured non-conformities. (See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 108, 211, 230, 318, and Figs. 1-34.)
Hensen teaches it is known to use visual inspection supported through a camera to assess the amount and severity of defects on strip. ( See Hensen, paragraphs 18, 66, 103.)
Clark teaches the one or more quality assessment sections at multiple locations that can probe several magnitudes related to a process performed by a processing module or tool. (See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 108, 211, 230, 318, and Figs. 1-34.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the one or more quality assessment sections include a first quality section that directly precedes the masking section and a second quality section that is arranged directly after the pre-coating section, because Clark teaches this would allow the existence of a non-conformity to be captured, predicted, and/or prevented. (See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 108, 211, 230, 318, and Figs. 1-34.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230323495 A1 to Hensen et al (hereinafter Hensen) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,134,773 to Joseph B. Kejha assigned to Lithium Technology Corporation (hereinafter LTC).
Regarding claim 5, Xu does not teach a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to remove the mask.
LTC is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
LTC teaches a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to remove the mask (52). (See LTC, Abstract, Figs. 4-5, and col. 4, lines 50-55; col. 5, lines 39-50.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to remove the mask, because LTC teaches this would allow the mask to be removed after it is no longer necessary. (See LTC, Abstract, Figs. 4-5, and col. 4, lines 50-55; col. 5, lines 39-50.)
Regarding claim 5, Xu does not teach a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to trim off untreated portions of the substrate.
Kejha teaches a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to trim off untreated portions of the substrate. (See Kejha, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraph 42-46.) (Examiner is considering blasting, buffing, and vacuuming to be equivalent to trimming.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to trim off untreated portions of the substrate, because Kejha teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired length and surface composition. (See Kejha, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraph 45.)
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) as applied to claim 1 in view of US Pat. Num. 6,180,933 B1 to Demidovitch et al (hereinafter Demidovitch).
Regarding claim 7, Xu does not teach the pre-heating section includes one or more heaters arranged with respect to a first surface of the substrate and with respect to a second surface of the substrate.
Demidovitch is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
Demidovitch teaches the pre-heating section includes one or more heaters arranged with respect to a first surface of the substrate and with respect to a second surface of the substrate. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the pre-heating section includes one or more heaters arranged with respect to a first surface of the substrate and with respect to a second surface of the substrate, because Demidovitch teaches this would allow the substrate to reach the desired temperature. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches the one or more heaters are configured to emit heat at a temperature between 180 C and 250 C. (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7, 33-34, and 39-44.)
Regarding claim 10, Xu does not teach the one or more heaters include induction heaters.
Demidovitch teaches the pre-heating section includes one or more induction heaters. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the one or more heaters include induction heaters, because Demidovitch teaches this would allow the substrate to reach the desired temperature. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,180,933 B1 to Demidovitch et al (hereinafter Demidovitch) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20170002438 A1 to Emmanuel Patard (hereinafter Patard)
Regarding claim 9, Xu does not teach a heating rate of the substrate and the first coating is adjustable based on a distance between the one or more heaters and the substrate and an angle of the one or more heaters with respect to the substrate.
Patard is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
Patard teaches a heating rate of the substrate and the first coating is adjustable based on a distance between the one or more heaters and the substrate and an angle of the one or more heaters with respect to the substrate . (See Patard, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 1, 7, 10-18, 21-22, 26-31, and 33-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a heating rate of the substrate and the first coating is adjustable based on a distance between the one or more heaters and the substrate and an angle of the one or more heaters with respect to the substrate, because Patard teaches this would allow the substrate to obtain a homogeneous strip temperature. (See Patard, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 1, 7, 10-18, 21-22, 26-31, and 33-36.)
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090023012 A1 to Carey, II et al (hereinafter Carey) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) .
Regarding claim 1, Kejha teaches a dip coating system, comprising: a substrate pathway comprising one (4) or more rollers configured to move a substrate (5) along the substrate pathway between a first end and a second end; and
a dip coating section (9) arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to apply a coating to the substrate. (See Kejha, Abstract, paragraphs 6-14, 28-29, 38-39, 42-43,and 45, and Figs. 1-7.)
Kejha does not explicitly teach a hot-dip coating system comprising: a pre-coating section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to apply a first coating to the substrate;
a pre-heating section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to heat the substrate and the first coating.
Carey teaches various coating methods can be used to form desired deposition on the substrate. (See Carey, paragraph 52.)
Xu teaches a hot-dip coating system comprising: a pre-coating section (20) arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to apply a first coating to the substrate;
a pre-heating section (30) arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to heat the substrate and the first coating. (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7, 9, 33-36, 41, 55, and 59, and Figs. 1-4.)
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 pre-coating section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to apply a first coating to the substrate;
a pre-heating section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to heat the substrate and the first coating, because Xu teaches this structure would enable the precursor to be decomposed to provide the desire metal oxide layer allowing lithium to be deposited on the device. (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7, 9, 33-36, 41, 55, and 59, and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 2, Kejha teaches a masking section preceding the pre-coating section with respect to the substrate pathway, the masking section is configured to apply a mask (24) to a portion of the substrate (23). (See Kejha, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and paragraphs 7, 18-19, and 43.)
Regarding claim 6, Kejha teaches the substrate includes copper (See Kejha, paragraphs 6, 39, 41) and a coating includes a lithium- based material. (See Kejha, paragraphs 6, 10-13, 26, 37-39, and 46.)
Kejha does not explicity teach the first coating includes a zinc-oxide material.
Xu teaches the first coating includes a zinc-oxide material (zinc precursor and zinc oxide, See Xu paragraphs 6, 10-13, 26, 37-39, and 46),
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 first coating includes a zinc-oxide material, because Xu teaches this structure would enable the precursor to be decomposed to provide the desire metal oxide layer allowing lithium to be deposited on the device. (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7, 9, 33-36, 41, 55, and 59, and Figs. 1-4.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090023012 A1 to Carey, II et al (hereinafter Carey) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) as applied to claim 2 in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230323495 A1 to Hensen et al (hereinafter Hensen).
Regarding claim 3, Kejha does not teach comprising one or more quality assessment sections arranged with respect to the substrate pathway
Hensen is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
Hensen teaches one or more quality assessment sections arranged with respect to the substrate pathway. (See Hensen, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and paragraphs 18, 103-108, and 116-127.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more quality assessment sections arranged with respect to the substrate pathway, because Kejha teaches this would allow the substrate to be inspected and the defects to be monitored in order to improve quality. (See Hensen, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, and paragraphs 18, 103-108, and 116-127.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090023012 A1 to Carey, II et al (hereinafter Carey) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230323495 A1 to Hensen et al (hereinafter Hensen) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200081423 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 4, Kejha does not teach the one or more quality assessment sections include a first quality section that directly precedes the masking section and a second quality section that is arranged directly after the pre-coating section
Clark is directed to a system in a manufacturing platform to address various measured non-conformities. (See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 108, 211, 230, 318, and Figs. 1-34.)
Hensen teaches it is known to use visual inspection supported through a camera to assess the amount and severity of defects on strip. ( See Hensen, paragraphs 18, 66, 103.)
Clark teaches the one or more quality assessment sections at multiple locations that can probe several magnitudes related to a process performed by a processing module or tool. (See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 108, 211, 230, 318, and Figs. 1-34.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the one or more quality assessment sections include a first quality section that directly precedes the masking section and a second quality section that is arranged directly after the pre-coating section, because Clark teaches this would allow the existence of a non-conformity to be captured, predicted, and/or prevented. (See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 108, 211, 230, 318, and Figs. 1-34.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090023012 A1 to Carey, II et al (hereinafter Carey) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230323495 A1 to Hensen et al (hereinafter Hensen) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,134,773 to Joseph B. Kejha assigned to Lithium Technology Corporation (hereinafter LTC).
Regarding claim 5, Kejha does not teach a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to remove the mask.
LTC is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
LTC teaches a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to remove the mask (52). (See LTC, Abstract, Figs. 4-5, and col. 4, lines 50-55; col. 5, lines 39-50.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to remove the mask, because LTC teaches this would allow the mask to be removed after it is no longer necessary. (See LTC, Abstract, Figs. 4-5, and col. 4, lines 50-55; col. 5, lines 39-50.)
Regarding claim 5, Kejha does not teach a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to trim off untreated portions of the substrate.
Kejha teaches a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to trim off untreated portions of the substrate. (See Kejha, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraph 42-46.) (Examiner is considering blasting, buffing, and vacuuming to be equivalent to trimming.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a finishing section arranged with respect to the substrate pathway and configured to trim off untreated portions of the substrate, because Kejha teaches this would allow the substrate to have the desired length and surface composition. (See Kejha, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraph 45.)
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090023012 A1 to Carey, II et al (hereinafter Carey) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) as applied to claim 1 in view of US Pat. Num. 6,180,933 B1 to Demidovitch et al (hereinafter Demidovitch).
Regarding claim 7, Kejha does not teach the pre-heating section includes one or more heaters arranged with respect to a first surface of the substrate and with respect to a second surface of the substrate.
Demidovitch is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
Demidovitch teaches the pre-heating section includes one or more heaters arranged with respect to a first surface of the substrate and with respect to a second surface of the substrate. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the pre-heating section includes one or more heaters arranged with respect to a first surface of the substrate and with respect to a second surface of the substrate, because Demidovitch teaches this would allow the substrate to reach the desired temperature. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
Regarding claim 8, Kejha teaches the one or more heaters are configured to emit heat at a temperature between 180 C and 250 C. (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7, 33-34, and 39-44.)
Regarding claim 10, Kejha does not teach the one or more heaters include induction heaters.
Demidovitch teaches the pre-heating section includes one or more induction heaters. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the one or more heaters include induction heaters, because Demidovitch teaches this would allow the substrate to reach the desired temperature. (See Demidovitch, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 55-67, col. 6, lines 50-65, col. 7,lines 22-27, col. 8, lines 46- col. 9, line 9; col. 10, line 66-col.12, line 54.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20030027051 A1 to Kejha et al (hereinafter Kejha) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090023012 A1 to Carey, II et al (hereinafter Carey) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220271264 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,180,933 B1 to Demidovitch et al (hereinafter Van Demidovitch) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20170002438 A1 to Emmanuel Patard (hereinafter Patard)
Regarding claim 9, Kejha does not teach a heating rate of the substrate and the first coating is adjustable based on a distance between the one or more heaters and the substrate and an angle of the one or more heaters with respect to the substrate.
Patard is directed to hot dipping a steel strip.
Patard teaches a heating rate of the substrate and the first coating is adjustable based on a distance between the one or more heaters and the substrate and an angle of the one or more heaters with respect to the substrate . (See Patard, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 1, 7, 10-18, 21-22, 26-31, and 33-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a heating rate of the substrate and the first coating is adjustable based on a distance between the one or more heaters and the substrate and an angle of the one or more heaters with respect to the substrate, because Patard teaches this would allow the substrate to obtain a homogeneous strip temperature. (See Patard, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 1, 7, 10-18, 21-22, 26-31, and 33-36.)
Conclusion
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 at (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