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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 4 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 6-10 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Yun, Smith in addition to previously relied on references below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites “surfaces of the first discharge electrode and the second discharge electrode are coated with a metal layer including C, Mg, Al, Si, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Ag, Sn, and an alloy of those metals.” Para. [0085] of the specification does not support this limitation.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation " surfaces of the first discharge electrode and the second discharge electrode are coated with a metal layer including C, Mg, Al, Si, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Ag, Sn, and an alloy of those metals" in the claim. The instant specification does not disclose that all the metals and an alloy of those metals are coated on the electrodes (para. [0084]). Examiner interprets “surfaces of the first discharge electrode and the second discharge electrode are coated with a metal layer including any one of C, Mg, Al, Si, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Ag, Sn, and an alloy of those metals.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210002758 to Sakamoto in view of US 20180057939 to Yun and further in view of US 20100300357 to Yamamoto.
Claim 1: Sakamoto discloses a vacuum treatment apparatus, comprising: a deposition unit (20 [lithium source], Fig. 5) that includes an evaporation source (20) including a lithium metal and forms a lithium metal film on a base material (60 [film], para. [0107]); and a plasma treatment unit (51B/57/58, Fig. 7) that includes a plasma treatment chamber (51B/57/58) that exposes a surface of the lithium metal film formed on the base material to a discharge gas obtained by discharging a gas containing carbon and oxygen, and forms a lithium carbonate layer on the surface (para. [0128]); wherein the plasma treatment unit (51B/57/58, Fig. 7) includes a first discharge electrode (not shown but disclosed as plasma generation means, para. [0128]).
However Sakamoto does not disclose a first discharge electrode that is disposed in the plasma treatment chamber and extends in a width direction of the base material and faces a first main surface of the base material; a second discharge electrode that is disposed in the plasma treatment chamber and extends in the width direction and faces a second main surface of the base material opposite to the first main surface.
Yun discloses a first discharge electrode (220a [discharge electrode plate], Fig. 1) that is disposed in the plasma treatment chamber (200/210 [plasma processing module]/[second chamber]) and extends in a width direction of the base material (10 [flexible substrate]) and faces a first main surface (10a [first surface]) of the base material (10, Fig. 1); a second discharge electrode (220b [discharge electrode plate]) that is disposed in the plasma treatment chamber (200/210) and extends in the width direction and faces a second main surface (10b [second surface]) of the base material (10) opposite to the first main surface (Fig. 1) for the purpose of preventing partial deformation of the flexible substrate (para. [0034]).
Sakamoto in view of Yun does not disclose a gas supply pipe that connects a gas supply source and supplies the gas containing carbon and oxygen to the plasma treatment chamber; and a power supply source that supplies discharge power to the first discharge electrode and the second discharge electrode for forming the discharge gas.
Yamamoto discloses a gas supply pipe that connects a gas supply source and supplies the gas containing carbon and oxygen to the plasma treatment chamber; and a power supply source (31B [high frequency power source], Fig. 1) that supplies discharge power to the first discharge electrode (one 27B [second discharge electrode]) and the second discharge electrode (another 27B) for forming the discharge gas (para. [0039]) for the purpose of generating a plasma in the chamber (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power supplies coupled to discharge electrodes as taught by Yamamoto with motivation to generate a plasma in the chamber.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Sakamoto in view of Yun, Yamamoto discloses wherein the base material (60, Fig. 5, Sakamoto), the vacuum treatment apparatus further comprises: a wind-off roller (31 [payout roller]) that winds off the base material (60); a wind roller (32 [take-up roller]) that winds the base material (60); and a main roller (12 [second roller]) provided between the wind-off roller (31) and the wind roller (32) in a conveyance direction in which the base material (60) is conveyed, and winds and conveys the base material, and the plasma treatment unit (51B/57/58, Fig. 7) is disposed between the main roller (12) and the wind roller (32) in the conveyance direction (para. [0061-0063]).
Regarding the limitation that the base material is foil-like (para. [0064]), the recitations tie the structure of the apparatus to a substrate that may be worked upon by the apparatus, but is notably not part of the apparatus; and therefore cannot be used to define over the prior art apparatus. The courts have held that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Yun, Yamamoto as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of US 20230191732 to Suzuki.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Sakamoto in view of Yun, Yamamoto discloses wherein the lithium carbonate layer is formed on the surface while the base material (60, Fig. 5, Sakamoto) is being conveyed from the deposition unit (20) toward the plasma treatment unit (51B/57/58).
Regarding the limitations above, it is noted that they are drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, as such, the courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
However Sakamoto does not explicitly disclose a conveyance speed at which the base material is conveyed is 1 m/min or more.
Suzuki teaches a device (10, Fig. 4) is produced a conveyance speed at which the base material (11 [substrate]) is conveyed is 1 m/min or more (para. [0128] where multiple speeds are disclosed which overlap the claimed range) for the purpose of suitably setting a line speed during production (para. [0128]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conveyance speed taught by Suzuki with motivation to suitably set a line speed during production.
Claim 4: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Yun, Yamamoto as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of US 20110175691 to Smith.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Sakamoto in view of Yun, Yamamoto does not disclose wherein surfaces of the first discharge electrode and the second discharge electrode are coated with a metal layer including any one of C, Mg, Al, Si, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Ag, Sn, and an alloy of those metals (para. [0127-0128]).
Smith discloses wherein surfaces of a discharge electrode (506 [discharge electrode], Fig. 5) are coated with a metal layer including any one of C, Mg, Al, Si, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Ag, Sn, and an alloy of those metals (para. [0060]) for the purpose of being formed with a material that can withstand the temperature conditions near the plasma without deformation, oxidation, or loss (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirements above as taught by Smith with motivation to be formed with a material that can withstand the temperature conditions near the plasma without deformation, oxidation, or loss.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220162741 discloses similar deposition apparatus (100, Fig. 1) with a deposition unit (120 [film formation unit]), plasma generator (SO [gas supplier] of 20, para. [0084]), and discharge electrode (172) and power supply (124).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights