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 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 12 and 13 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 12 recites the apparatus comprising at least one porous plate arranged at intervals along the material moving direction. Claim 13 similarly recites the apparatus comprising at least one second porous plate arranged at intervals along the material moving direction. It is unclear how a single plate can be arranged at intervals. For purposes of examination, claim 12 is being construed as reciting the at least one first porous plate disposed in the discharging chamber and claim 13 is being construed as reciting the at least one second porous plate disposed in the intermediate chamber (i.e., neither claim is being construed as requiring a plurality of first and/or second plates arranged at intervals in the material moving direction).
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is therefore also indefinite for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 203826480 U, cited in IDS submitted July 19, 2024, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses an extrusion coating apparatus (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Tan, extrusion die head), comprising: a housing having an inner chamber (FIG. 1 of Tan, cavity #5 formed by lower die #1 and upper die #2), a housing wall of the housing having a feed port and a coating outlet both communicated with the inner chamber (FIG. 1 of Tan, feeding pipe #4 passing through lower die #1 into cavity #5 and gap opening #8 forming an outlet), the coating outlet being in a slit shape (FIG. 1, [0013] of Tan, gap opening #8 forming an outlet has a slit shape); and a porous structure disposed in the inner chamber and located on a material flow path between the feed port and the coating outlet, so that at least a portion of a material passes through the porous structure (FIG. 1 of Tan, mesh gasket #6 which has through holes and is therefore porous positioned between feed pipe #4 and gap opening #8).
Regarding claim 2, Tan discloses that the porous structure has at least three through holes, the at least three through holes comprise at least two groups of through holes, and the at least two groups of through holes are differed in at least one of through hole cross-sectional size and porosity (FIG. 2 of Tan, mesh gasket #6 has a central low porosity section and outer higher porosity sections).
Regarding claim 3, Tan discloses that the at least two groups of through holes are arranged along a length direction of the coating outlet (FIGS. 1 and 2, [0013] of Tan, holes in mesh gasket #6 arranged along length of gap opening).
Regarding claim 4, Tan discloses that the at least two groups of through holes include a first group of through holes and a plurality of second groups of through holes, wherein a region of the porous structure corresponding to the first group of through holes intersects a first plane, the plurality of second groups of through holes are located on one or both sides of the first group of through holes, the first group of through holes and the second groups of through holes are differed in at least one of the through hole cross-sectional size and the porosity, and the first plane is a reference plane passing through a midpoint of the feed port and perpendicular to the length direction of the coating outlet (FIGS. 1-2 of Tan, mesh gasket #6 has a central low porosity section corresponding to the midpoint of the feeding pipe #4 and outer higher porosity sections).
Regarding claim 5, Tan discloses that the porosity of the first group of through holes is less than that of the second groups of through holes (FIGS. 1-2 of Tan, mesh gasket #6 has a central low porosity section corresponding to the midpoint of the feeding pipe #4 and outer higher porosity sections).
Regarding claim 6, Tan discloses that the porosity of the second groups of through holes located on one side of the first group of through holes gradually increases in a direction away from the first plane (FIG. 2 of Tan, porosity of mesh gasket #6 increases moving away from midpoint).
Regarding claim 9, Tan discloses that the number of the plurality of second groups of through holes is an even number, and the plurality of second groups of through holes are symmetrical with respect to the first plane (FIG. 2 of Tan, mesh gasket has two medium density and two high density outer groups of through holes).
Regarding claim 10, Tan discloses that the inner chamber comprises: a feeding chamber (FIG. 1 of Tan, cavity #5 formed between mesh gasket #6 and lower die #1), a discharging chamber (FIG. 1 of Tan, gap formed between lower die and upper die #2 adjacent gap opening #8), and an intermediate chamber (FIG. 1 of Tan, gap formed between mesh gasket #6 and upper die #2), wherein the feeding chamber is communicated with the feed port (FIG. 1 of Tan, feeding pipe #4 feeds cavity #5), the discharging chamber is communicated with the coating outlet (FIG. 1 of Tan, gap formed between lower die and upper die #2 adjacent and communicating with gap opening #8), the intermediate chamber is located between the feeding chamber and the discharging chamber, and connects the feeding chamber and the discharging chamber (FIG. 1 of Tan, gap formed between mesh gasket #6 and upper die #2 between cavity #5 and gap between upper and lower die adjacent gap opening); and the porous structure is located in at least one of the feeding chamber, the discharging chamber, and the intermediate chamber (FIG. 1 of Tan, mesh gasket between feeding and intermediate chambers and could therefore be considered to be in either of these chambers).
Regarding claim 11, Tan discloses that cross-sectional area of the feeding chamber gradually increases in a material flowing direction; and/or cross-sectional area of the discharging chamber gradually decreases in the material flowing direction (FIG. 1 of Tan, cavity #5 rounded and has a cross-sectional area increasing in the flow direction; claim only requires one of the recited options).
Regarding claim 12, Tan discloses that the porous structure comprises at least one first porous plate, and the at least one first porous plate is disposed in the discharging chamber and arranged at intervals along the material moving direction (FIG. 1 of Tan, die head includes a single mesh gasket #6; see rejection of claim 12 above regarding indefiniteness).
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.
Claims 7, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Sakamoto et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2000-70817 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 7, Tan does not disclose that the through hole cross-sectional size of the first group of through holes is less than that of the second groups of through holes. Sakamoto, however, discloses an extrusion coating apparatus comprising a flow rate adjusting plate comprising a plurality of groups of holes of different diameters (FIGS. 1 and 2 of Sakamoto). According to Sakamoto, by arranging the holes in this manner, the coating extruded through the slit can be made uniform in the slit lateral direction (Abstract of Sakamoto). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mesh gasket of Tan with first and second groups of holes of different diameter. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to make the coating extruded through the slit uniform in the slit lateral direction as taught by Sakamoto (Abstract of Sakamoto).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto discloses that the through hole cross-sectional sizes of the second groups of through holes located on one side of the first group of through holes gradually increase in a direction away from the first plane (FIG. 2 of Sakamoto).
Regarding claim 20, Sakamoto does not specifically disclose that the ratio d2/d1 of diameter d2 of through holes in the plurality of second groups of through holes to diameter d1 of through holes in the first group of through holes is 1.1-10. Sakamoto, however, discloses that the diameter of the holes is from 1 to 10 mm ([0024] of Sakamoto). Sakamoto therefore clearly teaches a diameter ratio range (i.e., up to 10:1) that overlaps with that recited in claim 20 (i.e., 1.1-10:1) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Xia et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 211026898 U, cited in IDS submitted August 15, 2025, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 18, Tan does not specifically disclose that the diameter d1 of through holes in the first group of through holes is 1-15 mm as recited in claim 18 or that the diameter d1 is 2-10 mm as recited in claim 19. Xia, however, discloses a die head for extrusion coating comprising a partition plate provided with a plurality of through holes (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Xia) wherein the diameter of the through holes is greater than 1 mm ([0031] of Xia). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mesh gasket of Tan with through holes having a diameter of greater than 1 mm since Xia establishes that it was known to provide extrusion coating heads with mesh gaskets having such through hole diameters ([0031] of Xia). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Xia therefore clearly teaches a through hole diameter range (i.e., >1 mm) that overlaps with that recited in claims 18 and 19 (i.e., 1-1.5 mm and 2-10 mm) which would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 20, the closest prior art is to Tan. Tan discloses an extrusion apparatus as recited in claim 4. Neither Tan, however, nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest: an apparatus as recited in claim 13 wherein the porous structure further comprises at least one second porous plate, and the at least one second porous plate is disposed in the intermediate chamber and arranged at intervals along the material moving direction; or an apparatus as recited in claim 14 further comprising: a covering member whose position relative to the porous structure is adjustable; and an adjustment mechanism connected to the covering member and configured to adjust a covering range of the covering member for the at least three through holes.
Claims 15-17 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 14 and are therefore also directed to allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights