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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/868482 filed November 22, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 14, 2026.
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.
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-AIA 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:
The offset measuring module and offset adjusting module in claim 1
The support unit in claim 4
The adjusting guide unit and control unit in claim 5
The connection unit in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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. A review of the specification indicates that the corresponding structures are:
The offset measuring module corresponds to a dial gauge (par. 61)
The offset adjusting module corresponds to a support unit and moving stage (par. 80)
The support unit corresponds to a fixed block (figure 8)
The adjusting guide unit appears to correspond to a simple cylindrical nub on a plate (figure 8)
The control unit corresponds to a driver and rotatable handle (pars. 98-99, figure 8)
The connection unit corresponds to a block which connects the motion of the control unit to the movable stage (see figure 8)
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN 215235451, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1: Zhou et al. discloses a die pad adjusting device (100) which is configured to align a die pad (500) which is a spacer disposed in a slot die device formed by an upper die head (300) and lower die head (400), the adjusting device (100) including an offset measuring component (140) configured to measure and indicate the offset made by the device (100), and an adjusting rod (120) and telescopic assembly (130) which are an adjusting module coupled to the die pad (500) by way of an adjusting hole (510) in the die pad (500) which adjusts and aligns the die pad (500) relative to the slot (pages 2, 4-5 and 8, figures 1-2 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 2: Zhou et al. teaches that the device (100) is provided on the opposite side of the slot die from the die lip which discharges the coating material (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 3: Zhou et al. discloses that the measuring component (140) is supported by a base (110) which is a bracket coupled to the back plate (200) of the slot die, where the measuring component (140) includes a first scale (1411) and second scale (1421) which are indicators supported by the base (110) and configured to measure the offset by contacting the die and pad (500) via the telescopic assembly (130) (page 7, figures 1-2 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 4: Zhou et al. discloses that the adjusting device’s (100) adjusting rod (120) and telescopic assembly (130) are coupled to the back plate (200) of the slot die via that base (110) which is a support unit, the telescopic assembly (130) being a moving stage unit that moves the die pad (500) in the direction of discharged coating material through the slot die (page 5, figures 1-2 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 5: Zhou et al. discloses the adjusting rod (120) with a hook (122) which is an offset adjusting guide unit disposed on the telescopic assembly (130) and coupled to the die pad (500) via the adjusting hole (510), as well as a rotating cylinder (142) which is a control unit which controls the driving of the telescopic assembly (130) in the discharge direction of the coating material (pages 5-7, figures 1-2 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 6: Zhou et al. discloses that the pad (500) has an adjusting hole (510) which protrudes outwardly from the slot die such that the hook (122) of the adjusting rod (120) is coupled to the hole (510) of the spacer (see figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 7: Zhou et al. discloses that the telescopic assembly (130) includes a telescopic rod (132) which is a first block, a lug boss (121) which is a second block coupled to the distal portion of the telescopic rod (132), which can be considered the upper portion, and move in the discharge direction of the coating material, a connector (133) which is coupled to the rotating cylinder (142) and the lug boss (121), where the hook (122) of the adjusting rod (120) is coupled to the distal portion of the lug boss (121), which can again be considered an “upper” portion thereof (pages 5, 7, figure 2).
Regarding claim 8: Zhou et al. discloses enough features such that the connecting component (150) can alternatively be considered to be the claimed first block, which includes grooves (1511,1512,1521,1522) that accommodate the radially protruding portion of the lug boss (121) of the adjusting rod (120), such that the grooves of the connecting component are configured to guide movement of the adjusting rod (120) in the discharge direction of coating material (pages 5-7, figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 9: Zhou et al. discloses that the lug boss (121) of the adjusting rod (120) has a radial protrusion which fits into the limiting grooves (1511,1512,1521,1522) of a connecting component (150) which is fixed to the telescopic rod (132), so as to limit the movement of the adjusting rod (120), the grooves being guide holes such that the lug boss (121) of the adjusting rod (120) is limited in motion by contacting the surfaces of the limiting grooves (pages 5-7, figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 10: Zhou et al. discloses a plurality of the adjusting devices (100) where a plurality of protrusions on the back plate (200) of the slot die can be considered fixing members which fix each of the adjusting devices (100) (figure 6).
Regarding claim 11: Zhou et al. discloses a plurality of the adjusting devices (100) which are spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the slot die (figure 6).
Regarding claims 12-13: Zhou et al. shows that the adjusting devices (100) are provided symmetrically on opposite sides of the center of the slot die in the longitudinal direction of the slot die (figure 6).
Regarding claim 14: Zhou et al. discloses that the mounting positions of the adjusting devices (100) can be changed (page 9).
Regarding claim 15: Zhou et al. discloses the above adjusting device (100) working with a slot die coating device which applies a liquid, such as a slurry, to a substrate (pages 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 Yuan can be reached at 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen Kitt Examiner, Art Unit 1717
7/9/2026
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights