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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, 12, 19-21, 25 and 33 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 28-31 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 12, 19-21, 25 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes “sheetlike” and “sheet-like” which appear to be interchangeable in the claim and the claim should maintain uniformity of terms.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 1-10, 12, 19-21, 25 and 33 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.
The term “sheetlike” and “sheet-like” in claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ““sheetlike” and “sheet-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what substrate shapes are sufficiently sheet-like or sheetlike to be embodied by the term and what shapes are not sufficient to meet this claim scope and therefore the scope of the term is undefined such that it is unclear what this term includes and what it does not include and therefore this terminology renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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.
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.
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) 1-10, 12, 19-21, 25 and 33Lithium a is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 20210050593 by Brewer et al. taken collectively with WO 2011080659 A1, hereinafter WO 659.
Brewer discloses a method for PECVD coating two opposite sides of a sheetlike substrate using a plurality of plasma sources including providing a reaction chamber comprising a gaseous atmosphere and at least two plasma source positioned within the chamber (see Figure 3 and 9B and accompanying text) and introducing a sheet-like electrically conductive substrate comprising two elongate sides into the reaction chamber, and moving the substrate between the at least two plasma sources at a first velocity (see Figure 9B and accompanying text).
Brewer discloses supplying power to the linear plasma sources to generate plasmas in the vicinity of each side of the substrate (Figure 9B and accompanying text, 0064-0067); introducing at least one reactant mixture, at a first gas flow rate, into the reaction chamber on each of the respective opposite sides of the substrate, the composition of the mixture being such that, upon contact with the plasma, the reactant mixture decomposes and generates a chemical reactant species capable of being deposited as a film onto the corresponding side of the substrate (0068-0070);
Brewer discloses allowing the chemical reactant species to simultaneously be deposited onto the first and second opposite sides of the substrate at the same position with respect to the substrate movement direction (See Figure 9B and accompanying text); to obtain a substrate comprising a coated homogeneous film of desired thickness on the opposite sides of the substrate (Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0071).
Brewer generally discloses PECVD and discloses using known plasmas including microwave plasma; however, fails to disclose the claimed linear plasma sources and the radiatively cooling as claimed. However, WO 659, also in the art of plasma deposition onto a continuous moving substrate (figure 7 and accompanying text). WO 659 discloses using linear plasma to allow for linear scalability for different width substrates (“As a result, systems for various substrate widths in the transport direction of the substrates can be formed in an analogous manner and analogous coating processes can be used”) and discloses using a cooling plate (see Figure 7 and accompanying text, also stating “ the coating system has at least one heating and / or cooling device, wherein the substrates and / or substrate carriers can be heated and / or cooled differently depending on their position in the inline coating system. The substrate temperature is a coating parameter that influences the coating properties. By using heating or cooling devices, it is possible to influence the substrate temperature within the in-line coating system.”).
Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Brewer to use the plasma sources and cooling plate as suggested by WO 659 as Brewer discloses a continuous plasma process on a moving substrate sheet and using any known plasma mechanism to achieve such and WO 659 discloses a continuous plasma process on a moving substrate sheet includes using linear plasma sources on each side of the substate to achieve the linear scalability of the and cooling to achieve deposition control.
Claim 2: Brewer discloses the substrate comprises metal, metal alloy and/or electrically conductive polymers (0035, stating “electrically conductive layer may be in the form of a foil or sheet of conductive material, or alternatively a layer deposited onto an insulating substrate (e.g., a polymer sheet coated with conductive material such as nickel or copper, optionally on both sides)”
Claim 3: Brewer discloses same composition, thickness, etc. (0031). WO 659 discloses “the substrates pass through the process chamber and pass through the individual plasma sources, which are each designed and adjusted in such a way that identical, homogeneous layers of consistent quality and properties are deposited on the substrates” and providing the gases to the first and second side and it would have been obvious to have provide a composition of the at least one reactant mixture introduced into the reaction chamber on each side of the substrate is essentially identical so as to provide an identical layer on both sides.
Claim 4: Brewer discloses such at 0031, 0068. WO 659 discloses least one reactant mixture introduced into the reaction chamber on each side of the substrate is at least a first mixture and a second mixture, respectively, whereby the least a first and at least second reactant mixture differ (” different gas supplies are used for each type of plasma source”, whereby each is converted into a reactant species capable of being deposited as a film onto the respective sides of the substrate (“different plasma sources are arranged on one side and / or on both sides of the substrates in the process chamber. By a two-sided arrangement of plasma sources, a two-sided coating of substrates in the same process chamber is possible. By using different plasma sources for the front and back coating, it is also possible to coat both sides of a substrate differently in the same process chamber”).
Claim 5: WP 659 discloses the linear plasma sources are linear microwave plasma sources (WO 659 stating “The plasma source 7 is in the example shown a microwave plasma source and operates at frequencies between 100 MHz and several GHz, with particularly preferred frequencies being 915 MHz or 2.45 GHz”).
Claim 6: WO 659 discloses a microwave frequency that overlaps the range as claimed (“microwave plasma source and operates at frequencies between 100 MHz and several GHz, with particularly preferred frequencies being 915 MHz or 2.45 GHz”)
Claim 7: Brewer discloses a pressure that overlaps and makes obvious the claimed pressure (0040). WO 659 discloses the chamber pressure is a vacuum pressure (“chambers of the inline coating system according to the invention are vacuum chambers, which are usually operated at vacuum or negative pressure”) and discloses chamber pressure is a result effective variable directly affecting the deposition (“important process parameters for the deposition can be set only for the entire chamber as a whole, for example the pressure”) and therefore determination of the optimum pressure, through routine experimentation, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 8: Brewer fails to explicitly discloses the dynamic deposition rate; however, discloses the deposition rate is a result effective variable, directly affecting the manufacturing throughput (0063) and therefore determination of the optimum deposition rate would have been obvious through routine experimentation to provide the desired throughput.
Claim 9: WO 659 discloses the substrate is width is scalable and selectable, stating “Due to the linear scalability, systems of different widths can be built, whereby the width is based on the customer-preferred substrate width” and therefore determination of the width of the substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention through preference and routine experimentation.
Claim 10: Brewer discloses a film with a length; however, fails to explicitly disclose the length. However, the length of the substrate would be recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the amount of substrate coated and the throughput and thus determination of the optimum length of the film would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.
Claim 12: Brewer discloses simultaneous deposition of a lithium storage material onto two opposite sides of a substrate using a plurality of plasma sources (0048-0070).
Claim 19: Brewer discloses simultaneous deposition of electronically conductive material onto two opposite sides of a substrate using a plurality of plasma sources (0035-0042, see specifically ITO), as evidenced by applicant’s specification which discloses a metal oxide meets this requirement (Brwer discloses oxide of titanium or zinc, see 0036 of applicant’s specification stating “conductive metal oxide film, most preferably wherein the metal oxide is selected from the group consisting of zinc oxide, tin, titanium oxide, tin oxide, zirconium oxide, and cerium oxide”).
Claim 20: Brewer discloses such at 0067-0068, see gas mixture at 0068.
Claim 21: Brewer discloses helium, argon, reactant gas for the deposition of the layer (0068) and discloses that the layers can be the same or different compositions (0031, stating “Metal oxide layers 305a and 305b may be the same or different with respect to composition, thickness, porosity or some other property. Similarly, continuous porous lithium storage layers 307a and 307b may be the same or different with respect to composition, thickness, porosity or some other property” and thus selecting the gas mixture to deposit the desire coating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
Claim 25: Brewer discloses such as noted above with respect to claims 20-21. WO 659 discloses the second gas composition comprises a precursor gas (stating “ separate gas supplies a greater variation of layer properties is possible than with a common gas supply” and thus would read on “precursor” giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation, i.e. to form a layer a precursor gas exists) .
Claim 33: WO 659 discloses using an apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises: a reaction chamber; one or more transport means and/or support means for introducing a substrate into the chamber (see e.g. Figure 7 and accompanying text, see also “For the substrate transport through the in-line coating system, a transport system is used, which is state of the art and for the sake of simplicity is not shown. Suitable transport systems are, for example, roller transport systems or transport systems with linear motors”);
a plurality of linear plasma sources, wherein at least two linear plasma sources are arranged to allow simultaneous deposition onto two opposite sides of a substrate (Figure 7 and accompanying text);
power supply means for supplying power to the linear plasma sources (“The electrical operating parameters include the plasma frequency used, the effective electrical power converted in the plasma and, in the case of a pulsed electrical supply to the plasma sources, the pulse parameters, such as the pulse peak power, the pulse on time and the pulse off time, the synchronization of the plasma sources, the phase match or the phase offset”);
a gas supply manifold for introducing the at least one mixture of reactive species to the reaction chamber (figure 7 and accompanying text, “plasma sources have separate gas feeds”);
radiative cooling plates (“the coating system has at least one heating and / or cooling device, wherein the substrates and / or substrate carriers can be heated and / or cooled differently depending on their position in the inline coating system. The substrate temperature is a coating parameter that influences the coating properties. By using heating or cooling devices, it is possible to influence the substrate temperature within the in-line coating system”, see cooling device 97/98 as plate) and
wherein the transport means, support means and plurality of linear plasma sources are arranged to allow the substrate to be moved at an essentially constant velocity past the plurality of linear plasma sources (stating “substrates are transported at a uniform speed in the transport direction through the in-line coating system.”)
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