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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/25/2026 was entered. Upon the entry of the instant amendment, claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 have been amended, claim 9 has been canceled, and new claims 17-21 have been added. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ amendment does not overcome the rejection of claim 1 because the unchanged b>B branch remains an independent alternative under the claim's express 'and/or' language. The prior rejections of claims 1, 2, and 10-16 are maintained. Claims 17-21 are rejected as set forth below. Claims 3-8 retain the prior indication of allowable subject matter, subject to proper rewriting; claim 9 is canceled.
Applicant states that independent claim 1 was amended to incorporate former claim 9, which had been indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and contends that the pending claims are therefore allowable. The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
During examination, the claims receive their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Amended claim 1 continues to connect two complete abnormality-determination branches with 'and/or.' Thus, claim 1 reads on performance of the first branch, the second branch, or both branches.
The amendment places the 'warped edges and/or thick edges' characterization only within the first branch, which is triggered by a>A. The second branch - calculating b, comparing b with B, and determining abnormality based on b>B - remains available by itself and was not narrowed by the amendment. The prior rejection mapped that second branch to Yamanaka's whole-region range D = Jmax - Jmin and comparison with threshold J0 in paragraphs [0024]-[0026]. Accordingly, the amendment does not remove the claim from the prior rejection.
New claims 17-21 do not become allowable merely because they depend ultimately from claim 1. Their additional limitations are considered separately below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 – 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (JP 2009115660 A) in view of Taki et al. (JP 2016224005 A), Zhang et al. (CN 109458961 A) and Yi et al. (CN 110108239 A).
With regards to claim 1, Yamanaka teaches a coating scanning a coating image across its width to obtain quantitative coating distribution data; setting an effective pattern width region Y; calculating a whole region range D = Jmax-Jin within the region and comparing D to threshold J0 [0024] – [0026]; dividing the effective region into two side regions Y1/Y2 and comparing |S1-S2| to threshold S0a [0029]-[0032]; and dividing the effective region into side/center/side regions Y1/Yc/Y2 [0032] and comparing inter-region differences to threshold S0b [0032] (Figures 4 – 7).
Yamanaka fails to expressly disclosing obtaining millimeter wave data, setting a primary zone of the coating region based on determining weight averages for two side edge zero lines, a center zone and further calculating a first and second profiles (i.e., a first extreme difference “a” and a second extreme difference “A”) and determining based on a > A, that coating on surface of the membrane is abnormal.
Taki relates to a coating film width measuring method and a coating film width measuring apparatus [0001] [0002]. Taki further teaches a coating film width measurement method, which involves detecting the positions of the edges on both sides of the coating film in the width direction of a coated member formed by laminating a coating film on a strip-shaped substrate, and measuring the width of the coating film by the distance in the width direction between the detected edges on both sides. Figures 8 and 9 include averaging the parameter of interest, using the average value method, [0007] [0014], [0019],[0025] – [0028], [0083], [0084].
Taki supplies both sides edge, width and center detection from profile thresholds. As such, Taki teaches a robust two side edge extraction from measured profile data at multiple measurements positions. See FIG. 11 which shows a diagram for explaining a method of determining the edge of the coating film according to the first embodiment. Here, the “outside” means the end portion side in the width direction of the coating member 50, and is the left side in the measurement profile 80 </ b> L illustrated in FIG. 11. Further, “inner side” means the center side in the width direction of the coating member 50, and is the right side in the measurement profile 80L shown in the figure.
Zhang belongs to the field of microwave and millimeter-wave testing technology, and relates to non-destructive measurement of absorbing coatings, especially an apparatus and method for coating measurement based [0002] [0004] (Abstract).
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the portable microwave absorbing coating measuring device of the present invention [0023]; Among them, 1 is the test sensor, 2 is the sweep frequency meter, 3 is the numerical control module, 4 is the signal line, 5 and 6 are microwave cables, 7 is the absorbing coating (or the coating to be tested), 8 is the substrate, 11 is the spring pin, 12 is the support sleeve, 13 is the inner conductor, 14 is the outer conductor, 15 is the filling medium, 16 is the coupling device, and 141 is the small bump [0025].
Thus, Zhang supplies the excitation that interacts with material, wherein many material characteristics, quality factors and areas are monitored (i.e., see the steps, step 1 to step 5).
Li relates coating instrument/device and including a process of managing the coating on said instrument/device (Abstract). Xiong further measures a plurality of parameters include coating surface density and extract pole-piece partition data including creating regions, edge regions/material and the like [0002] [0004] (summary of the invention) (Abstract). FIG. 7 is a coating weight distribution diagram provided by the measurement instrument.
Li teaches that the target pole piece for partitioning, see the partition diagram as in FIG. 5 below, the pole piece, wherein, M is the peripheral width is cut small pole piece width, a1 a2 is leftover width, b1 and b2, in the present embodiment, the area to be cut of the target pole piece 10 divided into 6 pole piece partition, from A side to B.
In this way, after the scan data to obtain the pole piece, namely according to the time scale to obtain scanning data corresponding to each pole piece partition, wherein the scan partition by weight to data as shown in FIG. 7, in FIG. 7, two thick line is coating weight limits, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 according to the cutting width division of scan partition, partition number 1 corresponding to the A side, the number 2 corresponding to the partition B side. weight measuring device for transverse scanning once, leaving a row of same gray point, scanning each partition with data of 5 points at a time, one longitudinal row of different gray point represents different scanning times [0076] – [0090] (Claim 5). Notice step S402: calculating the quality evaluation parameter of the corresponding pole piece partition according to the quality data of the pole piece partition, the quality evaluation parameter comprises mean Mean, variation coefficient Cov, the process capability index Cp and Cpk of process integration capability coefficients at least one.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the utility, to objectively detect membrane coating nonuniformity in a production averment, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamanaka to include all of the teachings such as that taught by Taki, Zhang and Li.
With regards to claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1 and notice that claim 1 includes a coordinating conjunction “and/or” and as such, claim 10 narrows one part of the alternative while the other part has been covered.
With regards to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1. The “difference D” was written down.
With regards to claim 12, Yamanaka discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose that after the determining that coating on a surface of the membrane is abnormal, the method further comprises the following step issuing an alarm prompt, and/or marking a region on the surface of the membrane as abnormal coating.
Li teaches that the measurement instrument for coating monitor and if the instrument (i.e., coating) departs from the standards, the instruments will send an alarm [0012].
In view of the utility, to give warning when the instrument departs from the standards coded, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamanaka to include all of the teachings such as that taught by Li.
With regards to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 1 as the coating quality detection apparatus mirrors the method.
With regards to claim 14, Yamanaka discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose that the detection module comprises an X-ray surface density measuring instrument.
Li discloses the claimed X-ray surface density measuring instrument [0002].
In view of the utility, to give warning when the instrument departs from the standards coded, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamanaka to include all of the teachings such as that taught by Li.
With regards to claim 15, Yamanaka discloses data fetching step T2, the coating image 4 is read using, for example, a scanner, and fetched as digital image data into an image storage / processing device such as a personal computer [0017], but fails to expressly disclose quality detection system, characterized in that the detection system comprises a processor and a memory storing computer program instructions; wherein when the computer program instructions are executed by the processor, the coating quality detection method according to claim 1 is implemented.
Taki discloses t measuring apparatus 1 including an arithmetic device 100 including a computer and includes a processing device such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a storage device such as a RAM (Random Access Memory) and a ROM (Read Only Memory). [0024], [0107] These components of the arithmetic device 100 can be realized by a processing device executing a program stored in a storage device (the same applies to other embodiments) [0024].
In view of the utility, to have realized the method electronically, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamanaka to include all of the teachings such as that taught by Taki.
With regards to claim 16, Yamanaka discloses data fetching step T2, the coating image 4 is read using, for example, a scanner, and fetched as digital image data into an image storage / processing device such as a personal computer [0017],but fails to expressly disclose a storage medium, characterized in that the storage medium stores computer program instructions, and when the computer program instructions are executed by a processor, the coating quality detection method according to claim 1 is implemented.
Taki discloses a measuring apparatus 1 including an arithmetic device 100 including a computer and includes a processing device such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a storage device such as a RAM (Random Access Memory) and a ROM (Read Only Memory). [0024], [0107] These components of the arithmetic device 100 can be realized by a processing device executing a program stored in a storage device (the same applies to other embodiments) [0024].
In view of the utility, to have realized the method electronically, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamanaka to include all of the teachings such as that taught by Taki.
With regards to claim 19, Yamanaka expressly divides the measured region into side/center/side regions and performs region-specific calculations. See Yamanaka, paragraphs [0029]-[0032].
Yi assigns scanning data to respective widthwise pole-piece partitions and calculates partition-specific statistics. See Yi, paragraphs [0076]-[0090].
Substituting Zhang's millimeter-wave coating measurements for the coating measurements processed by Yamanaka and Yi yields respective millimeter-wave data associated with the primary, center, and edge zones. This is also the data organization naturally required to calculate the claimed zone-specific averages.
45. In view of the utility, providing data as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamanaka to include all of the teachings such as that taught by Yi and Zhang.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (JP 2009115660 A), Taki et al. (JP 2016224005 A), Zhang et al. (CN 109458961 A) and Yi et al. (CN 110108239 A) in view of Zhang et al. (101992174 A), hereinbelow Zhang 174’.
With regards to claim 2, Yamanaka modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose obtaining edge zero lines on two sides of the coating region comprises: setting any point as an edge zero point of the coating region based on transition of a weight value of the point on the coating region to a specified weight value; and determining an edge zero line based on a plurality of edge zero points on the same side of the coating region, wherein the plurality of edge zero points on the same side are jointly set on the edge zero line on the same side.
Taki supplies two-side edge detection from threshold profile data and quantitative coating data/region (Abstract). Taki discloses, see the diagram in FIG. 11, wherein the diagram explains a method of determining the edge of the coating film according to the first embodiment. Here, the “outside” means the end portion side in the width direction of the coating member 50, and is the left side in the measurement profile 80 </ b> L illustrated in FIG. 11. Further, “inner side” means the center side in the width direction of the coating member 50, and is the right side in the measurement profile 80L shown in figure. Notice in the process of S208, as indicated by an arrow A in FIG. 11, the edge determination unit 116 searches for a point P1 that exceeds the upper limit threshold Th1 from the outside toward the inside.
Zhang 174’ relates to a device including a pole piece coating quantity monitoring method, especially a real-time substrate surface monitoring pole piece and surface density change of the device pole piece coating quantity [0001].
Zhang 174’ teaches calibrating the instrument so that scanning the substrate shows 0 (i.e., as in zero point), thus comprising a zero-baseline ton the two-sides [0029] – [0033].
In view of the utility, providing threshold-based edge positions at multiple measurement positions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamanaka to include all of the teachings such as that taught by Taki and Zhang.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Taki, Zhang, Yi, and Zhang '174, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bartlett (US4106437A).
With regards to claim 17, Yamanaka modified does not expressly require that the coating region comprise multiple coating lines spaced across the membrane width, each extending along the perpendicular length direction, with the edge zero lines determined along that length direction.
Bartlett teaches multiple-stripe coating of a continuously advanced web. A series of channels forms a plurality of parallel stripes on the web; adjacent stripes may be separated by any desired distance, and different stripe widths or spacing may be provided across the widthwise extent of the web. See Bartlett, Abstract; Figure 4; the description of the prior art's separated stripes; and the description corresponding to the coating operation and stripe spacing (including the disclosure reproduced at columns 3-4). Bartlett also identifies metal foil and plastic film as suitable webs.
Because the web advances past the coating hopper while the stripes are deposited in parallel, the stripes extend in the web-travel or length direction and are spaced across the transverse width direction. The two directions are perpendicular in the ordinary strip/web geometry shown in Figure 4. Each stripe consequently has longitudinal side boundaries along which the edge positions and edge zero lines of Taki and Zhang '174 may be determined.
It would have been obvious to apply the claim-2 coating-quality detection method to Bartlett's known multi-stripe web geometry so that several simultaneously produced coating lanes can be inspected with the same edge and regional analysis. The modification merely repeats the established edge-detection operation for each parallel stripe, improves production throughput and lane-specific quality control, and has a reasonable expectation of success because each stripe presents the same pair of coating-to-substrate boundaries already detected in the claim-2 combination.
With regards to claim 18, Yamanaka modified discloses the same-side edge zero points being jointly arranged on the same edge zero line is already required by claim 2 and is inherited through claim 17; that wording does not add a further distinction. Bartlett's stripes are parallel to the coating/web-travel direction, and Taki's repeated threshold-crossing edge positions define the corresponding coating boundary. It therefore would have been obvious to arrange the same-side edge points on an edge zero line parallel to the coating direction, as recited.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Taki, Zhang, and Yi, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN204078207U).
With regard to claim 20, Yamanaka modified discloses the claim according to claim 12, as in issuing an alarm when coating surface density is out of specification but does not expressly limit the alarm to sound, light, or vibration.
Liu teaches a coating-machine controller connected to a missing-film alarm lamp and a buzzer and teaches sending alarm commands to the lamp and buzzer to prompt the operator. See Liu, Abstract; Figure 1; claim 1; and the detailed description of alarm lamp 5 and buzzer 6.
It would have been obvious to implement Yi's alarm prompt using the known lamp and/or buzzer outputs of Liu. Sound and light are conventional, directly perceptible alarm forms used in coating machinery to notify an operator promptly, and each performs its established warning function with a predictable result. Because claim 20 recites sound, light, or vibration in the alternative, the disclosed sound and light forms satisfy the claim without a separate showing of vibration.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Taki, Zhang, and Yi, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Uesugi et al. (US20020154308A1).
With regards to claim 21, Yamanaka modified teaches the alarm branch used to reject claim 12 does not by itself disclose marking the abnormal membrane region with a marking device.
Uesugi teaches, in a continuous sheet-processing line, a surface defect tester and a marker device that marks the detected defect position. See Uesugi, paragraphs [0015]-[0017]. Figure 1 and paragraph [0134] identify a surface defect tester and defect marking device 8, and paragraphs [0136]-[0140] teach detecting a surface flaw, determining its position in the width direction, tracking the defect, and generating a marking command. Uesugi further explains that marking the harmful-defect portion allows the defect to be readily found and removed. See paragraphs [0173]-[0187].
It would have been obvious to add Uesugi's marker device to the combined coating-quality system so that the region identified as abnormal is physically marked when it reaches the marker. Both systems inspect a continuously processed sheet or membrane, determine an abnormal location, and require downstream identification of that location. The added marker performs its established function, facilitates later inspection or removal, reduces the risk of overlooking a detected defect, and produces a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 3, notice that claim 3 depends on claim 2 which further depends on claim 1. The prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious a coating quality detection method, used for detection quality of a coated membrane, wherein, in that the specified weight value as defined in claim 2 is set to 250 mg, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Notice that the prior art of record does not recognize this specified weight value as affecting the relevant property or being a sort of a result effective variable. This fixed setpoint reduces operator drift, reduces boundary jitter when the coating transition gradually, reduces boundary jitter as coating transitions gradually while giving the downstream edge line fitting and zone construction. The prior art of record teaches other thresholds parameters, averaging certain parameter, ranges and statistical metrics but none of the prior art of record shows a fixed 250 mg value which creates a reproducible production type rule for locating the membrane coating boundary, as such, the claimed value is absent from the prior art of record and as such considered an improvement over the prior art of record.
Claims 4 – 7 are indicated as being allowable based on there dependences to claim 3.
With regards to claim 8, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious the first specified extreme difference A is set to 5.5 mg, and/or the second specified extreme difference B is set to 8 mg, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights