DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 10/03/2025 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 for further examination. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 & 06/12/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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-AlA 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: “storage unit” in claims 1 & 4-5; “supply unit” in claims 1-4 & 8; “slurry measuring unit” in claims 1-2 & 9; “drying apparatus” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections
6. 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 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.
7. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-2 & 6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (CN 116833054 A) hereinafter Han (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Han are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Han discloses an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode of a secondary battery (abs; fig 1), comprising:
a storage unit (2) to store a slurry (abs; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1);
a die coater (6) connected (see fig 1) to the storage unit (2), and configured to discharge the slurry onto a substrate (7) (abs; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1);
a supply unit (3+4) connected (see fig 1) to the storage unit (2) and the die coater (6), and configured to supply the slurry from the storage unit (2) to the die coater (6) (abs; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1);
a slurry measuring unit (5+9) configured to measure a density and a flow rate of the slurry supplied from the supply unit (3+4) (abs; [0008]-[0009]; [0026]; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1); and
a controller (10) configured to control the supply unit (3+4) based on the density and the flow rate of the slurry transmitted from the slurry measuring unit (5+9) (abs; [0008]-[0009]; [0026]; [0033]-[0046]; fig 1; clm 1).
As regards to claim 2, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the supply unit (3+4) comprises a pump (3) and a pulsation dampener (4), wherein the controller (10) is configured to calculate a target flow rate based on a solid weight ratio of the slurry and the density of the slurry transmitted from the slurry measuring unit (5+9), and wherein the controller (10) is configured to control the pump (3) based on the target flow rate (abs; [0008]-[0024]; [0026]; [0033]-[0046]; fig 1; clm 1).
As regards to claim 6, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), further comprising a drying apparatus ([0009]; [0034]) configured to dry the slurry discharged onto the substrate (7) ([0008]-[0009]; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii (JP 2012-016656 A) hereinafter Fujii (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Fujii are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 3, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), the supply unit (3+4) connected (see fig 1) to the die coater (6), and the controller (10) ([0008]-[0009]; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1), however Han does not disclose a supply control valve connected to the die coater (6), and wherein the controller (10) is configured to control an opening and a closing of the supply control valve.
Fujii discloses an apparatus for a manufacturing line (abs; fig 1), wherein the supply unit comprises a supply control valve (9) connected to the die coater (1), and wherein the controller (18) is configured to control an opening and a closing of the supply control valve (9) ([0004]-[0005]; [0014]; [0018]-[0020]; [0022]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a supply control valve connected to the die coater, and wherein the controller is configured to control an opening and a closing of the supply control valve in the apparatus of Han, because Fujii teaches the use of a supply control valve (9) connected to the die coater (1), and wherein the controller (18) is configured to control an opening and a closing of the supply control valve (9) to control and modify the flow and pressure of the slurry to the die coater during the coating process ([0004]-[0005]; [0014]; [0018]-[0020]; [0022]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 4, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), the supply unit (3+4) connected (see fig 1) to the die coater (6), the controller (10) and the storage unit (2) ([0008]-[0009]; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1), however Han does not disclose a supply control valve connected to the die coater (6), and a circulation control valve connected to the supply control valve and the storage unit (2).
Fujii discloses an apparatus for a manufacturing line (abs; fig 1), wherein the supply unit comprises a supply control valve (9) connected to the die coater (1), and a circulation control valve (13+14) connected to the supply control valve (9) and the storage unit (4) ([0004]-[0005]; [0014]; [0018]-[0020]; [0022]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a supply control valve connected to the die coater, and a circulation control valve connected to the supply control valve and the storage unit in the apparatus of Han, because Fujii teaches the use of a supply control valve (9) connected to the die coater (1), and a circulation control valve (13+14) connected to the supply control valve (9) and the storage unit (4) to control and modify the flow and pressure of the slurry to the die coater during the coating process and to return the slurry inside the die head to the supply tank to circulate the slurry, thereby removing the precipitated particles ([0004]-[0005]; [0014]; [0018]-[0020]; [0022]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 5, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), the controller (10) and the storage unit (2) ([0008]-[0009]; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1), however Han does not disclose wherein the controller (10) is configured to control the circulation control valve to adjust an amount of the slurry returning to the storage unit (2).
Fujii discloses an apparatus for a manufacturing line (abs; fig 1), wherein the controller (18) is configured to control the circulation control valve (13+14) to adjust an amount of the slurry returning to the storage unit (4) ([0004]-[0005]; [0014]; [0018]-[0020]; [0022]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the controller configured to control the circulation control valve to adjust an amount of the slurry returning to the storage unit in the apparatus of Han, because Fujii teaches the use of the controller (18) is configured to control the circulation control valve (13+14) to adjust an amount of the slurry returning to the storage unit (4) to control and modify the flow and pressure of the slurry to the die coater during the coating process and to return the slurry inside the die head to the supply tank to circulate the slurry, thereby removing the precipitated particles ([0004]-[0005]; [0014]; [0018]-[0020]; [0022]; fig 1).
13. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 218517084 U) hereinafter Li (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Li are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 7, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), however Han does not disclose a coating quality meter configured to measure a thickness and a density of the slurry discharged onto the substrate.
Li discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a battery current collector (abs; fig 1), comprising a coating quality meter (300) configured to measure a thickness and a density of the slurry discharged onto the substrate ([0040]-[0041]; [0043]; fig 3; clm 9-10). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a coating quality meter configured to measure a thickness and a density of the slurry discharged onto the substrate in the apparatus of Han, because Li teaches the use of a coating quality meter (300) configured to measure a thickness and a density of the slurry discharged onto the substrate to acquire the slurry thickness at the discharge end of the coating die or discharged onto the substrate and provide feedback to the control unit ([0040]-[0041]; [0043]; fig 3; clm 9-10).
As regards to claim 8, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the controller (10) is configured to control the supply unit (3+4) ([0008]-[0009]; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1), however Han does not disclose based on the thickness and the density of the slurry measured by the coating quality meter.
Li discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a battery current collector (abs; fig 1), wherein the controller (310) is configured to control the supply unit (200) based on the thickness and the density of the slurry measured by the coating quality meter (300)
([0005]; [0007]; [0029]; [0040]-[0041]; [0043]; fig 3; clm 9-10). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the controller is configured to control the supply unit based on the thickness and the density of the slurry measured by the coating quality meter in the apparatus of Han, because Li teaches the use of the controller (310) is configured to control the supply unit (200) based on the thickness and the density of the slurry measured by the coating quality meter (300) to acquire the slurry thickness at the discharge end of the coating die or discharged onto the substrate and provide feedback to the control unit to adjust/modify the supply of slurry ([0040]-[0041]; [0043]; fig 3; clm 9-10).
14. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 1 above.
As regards to claim 9, Han discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the slurry measuring unit (5+9) comprises a flow meter (5) and a density meter (9) (abs; [0008]-[0009]; [0026]; [0033]-[0034]; fig 1; clm 1), however Han does not disclose wherein the flow meter (5) comprises at least one of a Coriolis flowmeter, an ultrasonic flowmeter, or an electromagnetic flowmeter, and wherein the density meter (9) comprises at least one of a vibrational density meter or a capacitive density meter, however a Coriolis flowmeter, an ultrasonic flowmeter, or an electromagnetic flowmeter and a flow meter (5) are considered functionally equivalent a flow meters. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a Coriolis flowmeter, an ultrasonic flowmeter, or an electromagnetic flowmeter for the flow meter disclosed by Han since they are functionally equivalent and one of an obvious finite choice of flow meters; further a vibrational density meter or a capacitive density meter and a density meter (9) are considered functionally equivalent a density meters. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a vibrational density meter or a capacitive density meter for the density meter disclosed by Han since they are functionally equivalent and one of an obvious finite choice of density meters.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717