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 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 In Claim 2:
“temperature control element” (generic placeholder: “element”; functional language: temperature control”), associated in the specification with a thermoelectric cooler [0084] or a resistor or thermocouple [0125]. NOTE: specification also associates the generic placeholder + function term, “temperature control element,” with another generic placeholder + function term, “temperature control unit” [0009], which is not clearly associated with any structure in the specification. See (Figs. 2 and 5-9; [0009,0017,0076-0078,0090,0119-0122]).
In Claims 3 and 11:
“temperature control unit” (generic placeholder: “unit”; functional term: “temperature control” [0009]), which is not clearly associated with any structure in the specification. See (Figs. 2 and 5-9; [0009,0017,0076-0078,0090,0119-0122]).
In Claim 6:
“coating measurement unit configured to measure coating information” (generic placeholder: “unit”; functional language: “coating measurement . . . configured to measure coating information”), associated in the specification with a thickness gauge, a weight gauge, an area density gauge [0095]
“control unit configured to receive, from the coating measurement unit . . .” (generic placeholder: “unit”; functional language: “control . . . configured to receive, from the coating measurement unit . . .”), associated with a programmable controller and/ or a harness [0091,0096])
In Claim 10:
“temperature control element” (generic placeholder: “element”; functional language: temperature control”), associated in the specification with a thermoelectric cooler [0084] or a resistor or thermocouple [0125]. NOTE: specification also associates the generic placeholder + function term, “temperature control element,” with another generic placeholder + function term, “temperature control unit” [0009], which is not clearly associated with any structure in the specification. See (Figs. 2 and 5-9; [0009,0017,0076-0078,0090,0119-0122]).
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.
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 § 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 1-5 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 recites the limitation “enclosing to form a slot.” The limitation is indefinite, because the participial “enclosing” lacks a direct object, making it unclear what the first and second die. Examiner considers the limitation to include any reasonable enclosed structure or object and to include the interpretation “enclosed” as recited in Claims 6 and 8.
Claims 3 and 11 recite the limitation “temperature control unit” (generic placeholder: “unit”; functional term: “temperature control” [0009]), which is not clearly associated with any structure in the specification. The claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See Figs. 2 and 5-9; [0009,0017,0076-0078,0090,0119-0122]. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation that “temperature control unit” is substantially the same as “temperature control element.” See paragraph [0009], which reads that the “temperature control element includes a plurality of temperature control units.”
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 1.
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, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoi et al. (JP2021130066A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi et al. (JP’066) teaches a coating die, comprising: a first die 3a and a second die 3b (Fig. 2; [0023,0025]), the first die and the second die being connected and enclosing to form a slot (slit 33, St) to output (i.e. capable of outputting) slurry; wherein the first die comprises a die body, a lip portion 34a,34b (Fig. 2; [0023-0026]), and a lip adjustment assembly [0053]; wherein the lip portion is connected to the die body and is located at a discharge end of the slot (Fig. 2); and the lip adjustment assembly is configured to adjust a temperature of the lip portion to control a deformation of the lip portion [0053-0054,0060].
Regarding Claim 8, JP’066 teaches a coating method, comprising: producing a coated area on a substrate by a coating die comprising a first die having a die body (Fig. 2; [0023,0025]), a lip portion (Fig. 2; [0023-0026]) and a lip adjustment assembly [0053], and a second die in connection with the first die, the first die and the second die enclosed to form a slot to output slurry onto the substrate, wherein the lip portion is connected to the die body and is located at a discharge end of the slot (Fig. 2); acquiring coating information of the coated area of the substrate being coated; and controlling the lip adjustment assembly to adjust a temperature of the lip portion according to the coating information [0053].
Regarding Claim 14, the coating information comprises at least one of a coating thickness, a coating width and a coating weight of the coated area [0039].
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al. (JP2021130066A) in view of Iwase et al. (JP2007237127A) and Mules (US 3,920,365).
Regarding Claims 2-3, 5, and 6, JP’066 teaches heating means 61 [0030,0035], a cooling means 7 (e.g. chiller, water pipes) [0038,0043,0046], coating measurement unit (thickness/weight/area density gauge) [0039], and a control unit (programmable) capable of controlling the lip adjustment assembly to adjust a temperature of the lip portion to control a deformation of the lip portion according to the coating information [0015,0040]. JP’066 fails to teach the temperature control element as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) above. Iwase et al. (JP’127) teach an analogous apparatus, including a slot die with deformable lips and a lip adjustment assembly, including temperature control with thermocouples to measure a temperature at the lips (e.g. points C,D) and heating wires 36 provided on the outside of lip portions 28 (Figs. 2,6; [0005,0013,0042,0037,0047,0057]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of JP’066 with a “temperature control element” outside of lip portions and/ or a thermocouple capable of measuring temperature at the lips to control deformation of a lip adjustment assembly of the coating die of JP’066, because JP’127 suggests an analogous slot die with deformable lips, a thermocouple to measure temperature at the lips, and heating wires at the lips to control deformation. The combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 fails to expressly teach that a thermocouple is a component of the lip adjustment assembly itself or that the temperature control element is, for example, a resistor (See 35 USC 112(f) above). Mules (US’365), published 1975, is analogous prior art in the field of invention and teaches a slot die with die lips 13 (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 55-64); a coating measurement unit (thickness gauge) (col. 8, lines 37-43); a temperature control unit, including a plurality of temperature control elements (or a temperature control element comprising a plurality of temperature control units), including a temperature sensor (thermocouple 15) and a resistive heating element 14, arranged in a first direction and configured to adjust temperatures (i.e. capable of adjusting temperatures) of a plurality of areas of the lip portion, and capable of being used in an intended use (not given patentable weight for the claimed method) wherein the first direction is a width direction of a substrate (not a structural feature of the claimed apparatus) being coated; and a control unit (e.g. programmable computer) for controlling lip temperature (Figs 1-2; col. 4, lines 6-19 and 55-67; col. 5, lines 40-3; col. 7, lines 7-15; col. 8, lines 43-60). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 with the recited temperature control element (including comprising a plurality of temperature control units arranged in a first direction in the recited configuration), because US’365 provides evidence that an analogous slot die with a temperature control element (including comprising a plurality of temperature control units arranged in a first direction in the recited configuration) on a surface of a lip, a coating measurement unit, and a programmable control unit is old art, and would have provided obviously similar sensors and controls for thickness and heating elements as taught in JP’066 and JP’127 to control deformation of a deformable lip assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, JP’066 teaches a backing roller (backup roll 21) capable of supporting a substrate (not a structural feature of the claimed apparatus) and a control unit, a cooling means 7, and heating means capable of cooling and contracting the lip portion and causing the lip portion to move away from the slit die 3 along a width direction TD [0054] and increasing the coating gap, at least in some portions of a gap between backing roll and lip, under a condition that the coating information (not a patentable feature of the claimed apparatus, but a feature of an intended use not given patentable weight) is less than first preset information (not a patentable feature of the claimed apparatus, but a feature of an intended use not given patentable weight) and capable of heating the lip portion under a condition that the coating information is greater than a first preset information (not a patentable feature of the claimed apparatus, but a feature of an intended use not given patentable weight) so that the lip portion expands to reduce a gap between the lip portion and the back roller(Figs. 5a and 5b) [0052-0054, 0040,0058-0060].
Regarding Claims 10 and 13, US’066 teaches that controlling the lip adjustment assembly to adjust a temperature of the lip portion according to the coating information comprises: controlling a heating means and/ or a cooling means of the lip adjustment assembly to adjust the temperature of the lip portion according to the coating information [0058,0060-0061].
US’066 fails to teach temperature control element as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). See Claim Interpretation above. Iwase et al. (JP’127) teach an analogous method and apparatus, including a slot die with deformable lips and a lip adjustment assembly, including temperature control with thermocouples to measure a temperature at the lips (e.g. points C,D) and heating wires 36 provided on the outside of lip portions 28 (Figs. 2,6; [0005,0013,0042,0037,0047,0057]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of JP’066 by controlling a temperature control element at the outside of lip portions to adjust the temperature of the lip portion according to the coating information (including acquiring a temperature of the thermocouple before controlling the lip adjustment assembly to adjust a temperature of the lip portion), because JP’127 suggests an analogous slot die with deformable lips, a thermocouple to measure temperature at the lips (before controlling the lip adjustment assembly to adjust a temperature of the lip portion), and heating wires at the lips to control deformation.
The combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 fails to teach a temperature control element (e.g. thermocouple or resistor) specifically of the lip adjustment assembly. Mules (US’365), published 1975, is analogous prior art in the field of invention and teaches a slot die with die lips 13 (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 55-64); a coating measurement unit (thickness gauge) (col. 8, lines 37-43); a temperature control unit, including a plurality of temperature control elements (or a temperature control element comprising a plurality of temperature control units), including a temperature sensor (thermocouple 15) and a resistive heating element 14, arranged in a first direction and configured to adjust temperatures (i.e. capable of adjusting temperatures) of a plurality of areas of the lip portion, and capable of being used in an intended use (not given patentable weight for the claimed method) wherein the first direction is a width direction of a substrate (not a structural feature of the claimed apparatus) being coated; and a control unit (e.g. programmable computer) for controlling lip temperature (Figs 1-2; col. 4, lines 6-19 and 55-67; col. 5, lines 40-3; col. 7, lines 7-15; col. 8, lines 43-60). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 with the recited temperature control element (including comprising a plurality of temperature control units arranged in a first direction in the recited configuration) of the lip adjustment assembly, because US’365 provides evidence that an analogous slot die with a temperature control element (including comprising a plurality of temperature control units arranged in a first direction in the recited configuration) on a surface of a lip, a coating measurement unit, and a programmable control unit is old art, and would have provided obviously similar sensors and controls for thickness and heating elements as taught in JP’066 and JP’127 to adjust the temperature of the lip portion according to coating information (including a temperature acquired from a temperature control element) to deform a deformable lip assembly.
Regarding Claim 11, JP’066 teaches a plurality of heating means 61 arranged in a first direction of coating width to control temperature at a plurality of locations along a lip [0066]. JP’127 teaches a thermocouple and heating wires. See rejection of Claims 1-3 above. The combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 fails to teach a first temperature control unit of a plurality of temperature control units of a temperature control element as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). See Claim Interpretation section above. US’365, published 1975, is analogous prior art in the field of invention and teaches a slot die with die lips 13 (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 55-64); a coating measurement unit (thickness gauge) (col. 8, lines 37-43); a temperature control unit, including a plurality of temperature control elements (or a temperature control element comprising a plurality of temperature control units), including a temperature sensor (thermocouple 15) and a resistive heating element 14, arranged in a first direction and configured to adjust temperatures (i.e. capable of adjusting temperatures) of a plurality of areas of the lip portion, and capable of being used in an intended use (not given patentable weight for the claimed method) wherein the first direction is a width direction of a substrate (not a structural feature of the claimed apparatus) being coated; and a control unit (e.g. programmable computer) for controlling lip temperature (Figs 1-2; col. 4, lines 6-19 and 55-67; col. 5, lines 40-3; col. 7, lines 7-15; col. 8, lines 43-60). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 with the recited temperature control element (including comprising a plurality of temperature control units arranged in a first direction in the recited configuration), because US’365 provides evidence that an analogous slot die with a temperature control element (including comprising a plurality of temperature control units arranged in a first direction in the recited configuration) on a surface of a lip, a coating measurement unit, and a programmable control unit is old art, and would have provided obviously similar sensors and controls for thickness and heating elements as taught in JP’066 and JP’127 to control deformation of a deformable lip assembly.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al. (JP2021130066A).
Regarding Claim 9, JP’066 teaches controlling the lip adjustment assembly to adjust a temperature of the lip portion according to the coating information comprises: controlling, under a condition that the coating information is compared to first preset information, the lip adjustment assembly to cool the lip portion, so that the lip portion contracts to increase a gap between the lip portion and a back roller supporting the substrate; and controlling, under a condition that the coating information is compared to the first preset information, the lip adjustment assembly to heat the lip portion, so that the lip portion expands to reduce the gap between the lip portion and the back roller [0058].
JP’066 fails to teach whether the variables are set so that the compared conditions are such that lip adjustment cools when coating information is less than first preset information or heats under a condition that the coating information is greater than the first preset information; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use conventional mathematical operators and conditional inequality, conventional in programming languages to perform such comparisons (e.g. negative values of variables can reverse the conditionals with opposite signs of inequality for evaluation of conditionals or use absolute values to make negative values positive while reversing conditional inequality operators). It would have been obvious to perform the recited comparisons with conventional mathematical operations and conditionals to achieve the recited control over the recited steps.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al. (JP2021130066A) in view of Iwase et al. (JP2007237127A) and Mules (US 3,920,365) as applied to Claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Stempfer (EP 1136227).
Regarding Claim 4, JP’066 teaches heating and cooling means; JP’127 teaches a thermocouple and heating wires; US’365 teaches thermocouples and resistance heaters. See rejection of Claim 2 above. The combination of US’066 in view of JP’127 and US’365 fails to teach semiconductor control element. EP’227 is analogous prior art in the field of invention, including apparatus and method for controlling the temperature of slot die lips using a semiconductor control element [0002,0009]. The semiconductor includes a Peltier element (i.e. thermoelectric heating and cooling) [0009,0022,0044,0083]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 and US’365 with a semiconductor control element (Peltier element), because EP’227 is analogous art, which suggests a semiconductor control element to control the temperature of a slot die lip.
Regarding Claim 12, JP’066 teaches heating and cooling means and a computer or programmable logic controller [0040]; JP’127 teaches a thermocouple and heating wires; US’365 teaches thermocouples, resistance heaters, and a computer controller to adjust temperature based on measured lip temperature and measured film thickness (Fig. 1; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 39). The combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 and US’365 fails to teach a semiconductor temperature control element or a PID controller. EP’227 is analogous art in the field of slot die coaters, including controls for controlling lip temperature [0051,0077-0078,0083]. EP’227 suggests both a semiconductor element (Peltier element or thermoelectric system) and a PID (proportional integral derivative) controller for controlling the temperature of the lip portion according to the coating information comprises, wherein adjusting a current of the semiconductor temperature control element based on a proportion-integral-derivative algorithm according to the coating information adjusts the temperature of the lip portion [0044-0045]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’066 in view of JP’127 and US’365 wherein the temperature control element is a semiconductor temperature control element; and the controlling the lip adjustment assembly to adjust a temperature of the lip portion according to the coating information comprises: adjusting a current of the semiconductor temperature control element based on a proportion-integral-derivative algorithm according to the coating information, so as to adjust the temperature of the lip portion, because EP’227 suggests such control systems and processes to adjust the temperature of a lip of a slot die.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wyatt (US 2004/0241327) (optimization of temperature sensor placement relative to slot die lips [0021])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights