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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN207667933U; hereafter ‘933).
Claim 1: ‘933 is directed towards a die coater (title & abstract) comprising:
a first block (1, Fig. 3) having a liquid inlet (11, Fig. 3) and a second block on the first block (2, Fig. 3);
a shim assembly interposed between the first block and the second block and configured to form a first slit and a second slit separated from each other (see 3, Fig. 3 & Fig. 7);
wherein the first block comprises:
a fixing portion having a fixing glow path therein that is configured to transfer a liquid flowed in through the liquid inlet (see 11 and 3211, Fig. 3) and
a lip block configured to be coupled and detachable from the fixing portion and being a front end of the first block (see 4, Fig. 3),
wherein the shim assembly has liquid flow path that is connected to the fixing flow path and is configured to transfer a liquid flowed in through the fixing flow path (see 11 & 3211, Fig. 3).
‘933 teaches the claimed flow path in the shim and not in the lip block.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the section of the shim with the secondary flow path as a separate part from the shim and attach it to the lip block because it is prima facie obvious to make parts separable and integral unless there is an showing of unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04(V)(B)&(C).
‘933 does not explicitly teach that the flow paths, 3211, are used for insulating liquid; however, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
a fixing portion having a fixing flow path therein that is configured to transfer a liquid flowed through the liquid inlet (see 83DP which comprises a flow path through the first block; Fig. 11; ¶s 150-170); and
the shim comprises a portion which is coupled to and detachable from the fixing portion and being a front end of the first block (the shim, 83I, comprises a portion outside of the slit which comprises 83S2, 83IKD, 83IT2, & 83IK; see Fig. 11; ¶s 150-170),
wherein the shim portion has a liquid flow path that is connected to the fixing flow path and is configured to transfer a liquid flowed through the fixing flow path (see 83IT2, Fig. 11; ¶s 150-170).
Claim 2:The liquid flow path comprises:
a first liquid flow path part, one end of which is connected to the fixing flow path and extending in a direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the fixing flow path (see 3211, Fig. 3); and
a second flow path part connected to the other end of the first flow path part and extending in a direction parallel to the fixing flow path (see 3211, Fig. 3).
Claim 3: The fixing flow path extends in a direction from an upper portion of the die coater to a lower portion of the die coater (see 3211, Fig. 3).
Claim 4: The second block comprises a manifold configured to accommodate a coating liquid (22, Fig. 3).
It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
Claim 5: ‘933 does not teach separating the shim into a body shim and a sub shim as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rearrange, duplicate, and make adjustable this shim into multiple shims as claimed because court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment, shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975), and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04(V)(D) & (VI)(B)&(C).
Claim 6: The thickness of the shims control the thickness of the coating applied and it is prima facie optimize the shim thickness to obtain the desired coating thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rearrange, duplicate, and make adjustable this shim into multiple shims as claimed because court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment, shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975), and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04(V)(D) & (VI)(B)&(C).
Claim 7: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rearrange, duplicate, and make adjustable this shim into multiple shims as claimed because court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment, shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975), and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04(V)(D) & (VI)(B)&(C).
Claim 8: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the shape of the flow path so that it is concave because changes in shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 9: See Fig. 3.
Claim 10: Changes in shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 11 & 19: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rearrange, duplicate, and make the lip blocks adjustable because court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment, shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975), and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04(V)(D) & (VI)(B)&(C).
Claim 12: Changes in shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 13: The body shim comprises a base extending along a width direction and a first and second guides protruding from opposite ends of the base (Fig. 3).
Claim 14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a plurality of sub shims because it is prima facie obvious to duplicate parts and multiple sub shims would provide adjustability of the coating thickness. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 15: The entire die coater is coupled in use.
Claim 16: The entire die coater is coupled in use and thus it is apparent that each part is coupled.
Claim 17: The entire die coater is coupled during use and thus it is apparent that the shims (and the separate parts) are coupled to the first and second block.
Claim 18: The second block comprises a manifold (22, Fig. 3).
Claim 20: Changes in shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
