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 .
Priority
This application is a DIV of 17/370,214, filed 07/08/2021, now US 12,074,306 B2.
This application also claims benefit of KR 10-2020-0154046, filed 11/17/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Primary Examiner has considered the IDSs filed 07/18/2024, 06/24/2025, and 01/28/2026.
Drawings
The drawings filed 07/18/2024 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS section should be updated to reflect that application 17/370,214 has issued as patent US 12,074,306 B2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is the Primary Examiner’s position that the claims are subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claimed monitoring, detecting, storing, and generating all fall within the metal process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a) (step 2A, prong 1). See also Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that a database is a generic computer component). Nevertheless, the claim recites “controlling the flow rate adjustment valve installed in the piping to adjust the flow rate based on reference data matching [the] slurry property changed by the process condition change event,” which is an additional element that integrates the mental process into a practical application. Id. at § 2106.04(d) (step 2A, prong 2, pathway B).
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 1-6, 12, and 14 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.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “controlling . . . based on reference data” and “generating reference data.” It is unclear whether these two instances of “reference data” refer to the same or different data. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim are impossible to determine.
Claims 2-6
Claims 2-6 are rejected because they incorporate the same indefinite subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Moreover, claim 6 recites “adjusting . . . the flow rate . . . to be appropriate for reference data matching the slurry property of volume and mass of the slurry measured by a flow meter.” It is unclear what constitutes an appropriate flow rate. For example, how closely and in what way must it relate to the reference data in order to be considered “appropriate.” The metes and bounds of the claim are impossible to determine.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites “adjusting . . . the flow rate . . . to be appropriate for reference data matching the slurry property of volume and mass of the slurry measured by a flow meter.” It is unclear what constitutes an appropriate flow rate. For example, how closely and in what way must it relate to the reference data in order to be considered “appropriate.” The metes and bounds of the claim are impossible to determine.
Claim 14
In claim 14, the phrase “the lining” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20130076719-A (reference made to attached English-language machine translation) in view of US 6,096,370 A and WO 2020/051409 A1 (reference made to US 2021/0356305 A1).
Claims 1, 7, & 18
KR 719 teaches a process for slot-die (e.g., 300A) application of a slurry coating material (e.g., 306) to produce an electrode for a secondary battery [0004]-[0005]. The slurry is supplied through piping (e.g., 311). The method comprises:
monitoring status data measured by pressure gauges and viscometers (i.e., sensors and devices) of the coating system [0044]-[0045], as well as other characteristic values of the slurry material including flow rate, solid content, and temperature [0046];
calculating, by a control unit, the amount of change in these characteristic values of the slurry from their initial values (i.e., analyzes status data) [0060]; and
controlling coating conditions in response to the status data so that coating conditions match a known, predetermined state (i.e., reference data), including altering the flow rate by adjusting the opening and closing timing of return valve (307) and application valve (308) [0061]-[0062].
By doing so, the variation in characteristics of the slurry material over time is constantly monitored, and the influence of such variation in characteristics is suppressed. The controlling step also reads on the claimed “generating reference data for normal coating bead formation of the slot-die correlated to the status data” because the flow rate of a slurry of given viscosity ultimately determines the size, shape, etc., of the coating bead that exits the die. This is so because KR 719 ultimately teaches that the process results in a constant weight of the coated electrode.
KR 719 does not explicitly teach: (i) storing the status data collected over time in a database.
With respect to (i), KR 719 teaches that the control unit can be configured by a computer [0056]. US 370 teaches a process for adjusting the flow rate of a slurry, by feedback control, to a desired flow rate in response to data from, e.g., a flow meter [3:36; 4:53-60; 7:51-60]. The desired flow rate data can be provided by a computer [7:3-12]. While a database is not specifically mentioned, it is generally well known to use a spreadsheet housed on a computer to store, analyze, etc., data, to derive any desired information therefrom. In this case, how a given system may deviate from an ideal standard.
WO 409 (US 305) teaches that, in a liquid handling system, a calibration database maintains different sets of calibration parameters for controlling operation of a solenoid valve [0058]. Each set of calibration parameters tunes the operation of the solenoid valve for accurate control of the flow rate of the fluid [0058]. When the controller determines that a property of the fluid has changed, the controller retrieves a different set of calibration parameters from the database and applies them [0059].
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 process of KR 719 so as to utilize, as the computer controller, a computer controller housing a database containing, intra alia, status data to trigger the controller to operate the valves so as to change the flow rate based on a change in the measured characteristic of the slurry.
Claims 2 & 8
KR 719 additionally teaches monitoring pressure in a main line (312B), a supply line (312A), and a circulation (i.e., return) line (312D).
KR 719 does not explicitly teach the additionally claimed in-line viscometer, flow meter installed in the main line, or the coating bead sensor. Nevertheless, KR 719 explicitly teaches measuring viscosity and flow rate (see above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place any known sensors to measure these and other coating-optimizing properties at appropriate points in the line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by KR 719’s expressed desire to minimize variation in slurry coating characteristics, including coating weight.
Claims 3-4 & 9-10
KR 719 does not explicitly teach detecting a change in the bead shape to indicate an insufficient slurry supply, excessive slurry supply, or abnormal base transfer speed.
Nevertheless, KR 719 teaches controlling variation of the slurry material to facilitate discharge from the die head, including coating weight (see above). Insofar as the slurry supply to the head or the base transfer speed affects the desired coating weight (or uniformity, etc.), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor these conditions and make changes accordingly to achieve uniform coating weight. As noted above, US 370 teaches feedback control.
Claims 5-6 & 11-12
While none of the cited prior art teaches these steps, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that they are merely conventional start-up steps that would have been obvious to perform in order to build up pressure in the lines of the coating system before beginning coating. As noted above, US 370 teaches feedback control.
Claim 13
As noted above, KR 719 desires a uniform coating weight. Moreover, KR 719 teaches determining whether the weight value is large or small, and the current collector transport speed [0062], [0067]-[0071]. Moreover, KR 719 teaches that the application conditions include current collector (i.e., coated substrate) transport speed, a distance between the discharge port of the die head (300) and the outer peripheral surface of the backup roll (301), and the opening and closing timing of the application construction valve (308) [0062]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust at least one of the pressure frequency of a pulseless pump, moving speed of the base material, or a gap between the slot-die and the base material in response to detecting the process condition change event.
Claim 14
None of the cited references teach the limitations of this claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the coating process in this fashion because it eliminates a pressure drop between a coating and a non-coating state. One of the advantages of KR 719 is preventing a decrease in the productivity of electrode production caused by the resetting of coating application conditions [0068].
Claim 15
The limitations of this claim merely recite operating the lines according to the state of the coating operation (standby when not coating, supply when coating, and shut-off). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the lines in accordance with the stage of the coating operation desired (i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would not operate the lines in shut-off mode when desiring to coat the slurry on the substrate).
Claim 16
As noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the lines according to the desired stage of coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate any and all valves in the system so as to direct the slurry through the lines in the manner necessary to achieve the desired coating result.
Claim 17
As noted above, control can be by means of a computer controller. It is common for computers to have graphical user interfaces where data, alerts, etc., can be displayed. Consequently, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a computer that can display information during the coating operation (note: the claim does not require that the information be related to the coating operation; an operator reading their email would satisfy this limitation); and issuing an alarm through a display module when an event situation occurs (note: the claim does not require that the alarm be related to the coating operation; the “event situation” could be the receipt of an email or text message).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
20 August 2026
Prosecution Insights