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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Specification is replete with typographical error “insulting coating” and should more reasonably be “insulating coating” (see e.g. “Technical solution”). Applicant is advised to correct all instances. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 requires “insulting coating” and should more reasonably be “insulating coating”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 requires “the outlet of the upper die”; however, such a requirement lacks antecedent basis as while the claims previously recite “a outlet” in relation to the shim; however such is not quantified as an outlet “of the upper die.” (i.e. upper die is not required to have an outlet as claimed). For the purposes of applying prior art such will be interpreted as being generic “adjacent to the outlet.”
Claim 10-15 requires “the slit”; however, claim 1 previously recite “a first slit” and thus this generic slit lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 207667933, hereinafter CN 933
Claim 1: CN 933 discloses a slot die coater comprising:
an upper die and a lower die; (see e.g. Figure 3, abstract “ an upper die head, a lower die head”)
a shim interposed between the upper die and the lower die to define a slot and an outlet (Figure 3 and 6 and accompanying text, see 3, 321, 3211)
and a hole for coating liquid extending through the upper die adjacent to the outlet of the upper die (Figure 1, 5B, “ceramic paste as the second coating from the second port 11 into the second chamber 12 flows to the second guide groove 32”),
wherein the shim comprises:
a first manifold for insulating coating indented into the surface of the shim at a position corresponding to the hole to form a space configured to contain a coating liquid supplied through the hole (Figure 6 and accompanying text, “ceramic paste as the second coating from the second port 11 into the second chamber 12 flows to the second guide groove 32”); and
CN 933 discloses indentation of the first manifold is greater than the indentation of the slit (see Figure 6,
CN 933 discloses a first slit disposed in the surface of the shim in communication with one end of the first manifold, the first slit configured to discharge the coating liquid (see Figure 6, “ the second opening is connected with concave part 321 is formed in a forward opening 3211”, “ presence of connection recesses 321, thickness of ceramic slurry such that the flow to the second opening G2 of the second coating 3211 is less than the flow to the first opening 311 of the first coating G1 of thickness, reducing the thickness of the second coating layer C2 coated on the strip S, so as to reduces the cost, reduce subsequent abrasion of the roller.”
Claim 2: CN 933 discloses a second slit, wherein the first and the second slits are disposed on opposite sides of the first manifold (Figure 6 and accompanying texts).
Claim 3: CN 933 discloses the first manifold is larger than the hole (Figure 3, where hole 11 can be seen to be smaller than 12 or 32).
Claim 4-5: CN 933 discloses the guide groove is provided completely through the shim (see Figure 6 and accompanying text). See also 12 of Figure 5B and accompanying text.
Claim 6: CN 933 discloses the second chamber 12 is set into the upper die and thus meets this claim as drafted (see e.g. Figure 5B, also “ the second port 11 and the second cavity 12 may not directly set on the upper die head 1, but through the die head 1 of guide bolt (not shown).” which illustrates that the chamber 12 and port 11 are either set directly on the upper die or are through the guide bolt. Here, the “second manifold” can be part of the supply port 11 and thus the presence of supply port 11 through upper die can read on this requirement.
Claim 7: CN 933 discloses the manifold as claimed and the configured to language is intended use of the apparatus and thus CN 933 meets this claim requirement “configured to receive the coating liquid such that a pressure loss in the first manifold is smaller than a pressure loss in the first slit” It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 933
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, at the very least, CN 933 discloses modifying the thickness of the insulating coating (see Figure 7 and 8) and indicates that the concave part 321 results in control/reduction of the thickness (“because of the concave connection part. cathode active substance slurry thickness of ceramic slurry such that the flow to the second coating the seam of the second opening is less than the flow at the first coating the seam of the first opening of the thickness, reducing the thickness of the second coating layer coated on the strip, so as to reduces the cost, reduce subsequent abrasion of the roller.”). Therefore, at the very least, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 933 to determine the indentation depth of the groove and slit to provide the desired thickness and thus reap the benefits of reducing the cost of the insulation coating.
Claim(s) 2, 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 933 taken collective with KR 102035826, hereinafter KR 826.
Claim 2: CN 933 discloses all that is taught above and discloses a shim with a recesses for insulation coating application and while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above; however, the examiner cites here KR 826, which also discloses a shim with recesses for insulation coating and discloses a manifold that includes a first and second slit on opposite sides of each other, see Figure 3, Figure 5. Therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified CN 933 to include a first and second slit as claimed as an alternative to the individual manifolds with dedicated slits (see Figure 5).
Claim 8: CN 933 fails to disclose the manifold has the shape as claimed. However, KR 826, as noted above, also in the art of slot die coating discloses a shim with recesses for insulation coating with supply through the upper die and discloses a reservoir that meets the claimed requirements, specifically, the MH and MW, see e.g. Figure 5. KR 826 discloses the width MW of the first manifold is equal to or greater than a diameter C of the hole (see Figure 3). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 933 to use the guide groove/reservoir, with the claimed dimensions as such is taught by KR 826 as a known design for the supply of the insulation coating material to the slits for coating. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 9: With respect to the relative dimensions, the dimensions would directly affect the volume/flow of the insulation coating and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum dimensions, through routine experimentation to provide flow of insulation coating. At the very least, a change of size/shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966.
Claim 10: CN 933 and KR 826 each disclose the slit has a constant width and the width of the manifold is greater than the width of the slit (see Figure 6 of CN 933 and Figure 5 of KR 826). With respect to the relative dimensions, the dimensions would directly affect the volume/flow of the insulation coating and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum dimensions, through routine experimentation to provide flow of insulation coating. At the very least, a change of size/shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966.
Claim 11: This claims is rejected forth above, specifically, the dimensions are discussed above and the balance of the claims are based on intended use of the structure, i.e. the viscosity of the material utilized, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 12: CN 933 discloses the relative depth of the indentation of the manifold and the slit as claimed and discloses the slit depth is relative to the coating thickness (see discussion above). While the reference fails to disclose the manifold depth is greater than 3 times the depth of the slit, the determination of the slit depth relative to the manifold depth to provide the thickness adjustment would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, with respect to the relative dimensions, the dimensions would directly affect the volume/flow of the insulation coating and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum dimensions, through routine experimentation to provide flow of insulation coating. At the very least, a change of size/shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966.
Claim 13: CN 933 discloses the relative depth of the indentation of the manifold and the slit as claimed and discloses the slit depth is relative to the coating thickness (see discussion above). KR 826 discloses the manifold is greater than the diameter of the supply hole (see Figure 3.) While the reference fails to disclose the manifold depth is greater than 4 times the depth of the slit or the manifold is wider by a factor of 2.5-4.5 than the diameter, the determination of the slit depth relative to the manifold depth to provide the thickness adjustment would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, with respect to the relative dimensions, the dimensions would directly affect the volume/flow of the insulation coating and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum dimensions, through routine experimentation to provide flow of insulation coating. At the very least, a change of size/shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966.
Claim 14: CN 933 discloses the relative depth of the indentation of the manifold and the slit as claimed and discloses the slit depth is relative to the coating thickness (see discussion above). KR 826 discloses the manifold is greater than the diameter of the supply hole (see Figure 3.) While the reference fails to disclose the manifold depth is greater than 5 times the depth of the slit or the manifold is wider by a factor of 3.5-4.5 than the diameter, the determination of the slit depth relative to the manifold depth to provide the thickness adjustment would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, with respect to the relative dimensions, the dimensions would directly affect the volume/flow of the insulation coating and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum dimensions, through routine experimentation to provide flow of insulation coating. At the very least, a change of size/shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966.
Claim 15: CN 933 discloses the slit has a constant width and comprises a main portion that extends in the direction of discharging (see Figure 6). KR 826 discloses such at Figure 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights