CTNF 19/051,515 CTNF 87633 DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on March 19, 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 19, 2026 . Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the leveling bar position adjustment member; a nozzle that supplies said coating liquid to said leveling bar; coating bar position adjustment member; the plurality of nozzles have a needle shape cut to an angle of 75 degrees or more and 105 degrees or less; coating liquid is supplied from a slit die head; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-31 AIA The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is silent to details for the claimed leveling bar position adjustment member and coating bar position adjustment member. Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be entered. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: base material conveyance member in claim 1; coating liquid supply member in claim 1; leveling bar position adjustment member in claim 1; coating bar position adjustment member in claim 3. 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-9 are 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 limitation “leveling bar position adjustment member” 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. The detailed specification is silent to the details for the recitation and merely repeats the claim recitation. 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. 07-34-23 Claim limitation “coating bar position adjustment member” 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. The detailed specification is silent to the details for the recitation and merely repeats the claim recitation. 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. 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "said nozzle" in line 1. It is unclear if the reference is to one, some or all of the plurality of nozzles previously recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Sommer (US 4,887,547) . In regards to claim 1 , Sommer teaches a coater comprising: a coating roller (2, coating bar) (fig. 1-2; col. 4, lines 43-65); a back roller (6, base material conveyance member) conveys a material web (5, base material) (fig. 1-2; col. 4, lines 20-25, 40-50); and a coating liquid supply member comprising an inlet (4) that supplies a coating material/liquid to the coating roller (fig. 1-2; col. 4, lines 20-25), wherein said coating device further comprises a metering member (15, leveling bar ) is provided downstream of the coating roller in a coating direction (fig. 1-2; col. 4, lines 40-65, col. 5, lines 30-45), the metering member is spaced apart from the material web which provides an arrangement where coating material/liquid is capable of forming a meniscus between metering member and the material web (fig. 1-2), and a pressure hose (17, leveling bar position adjustment member) controls an gap between the metering member the material web (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 40-55). In regards to claim 2 , Sommer teaches the metering member is connected to the support member (16) which provides an arrangement so that the metering member does not rotate (fig. 1; col. 5, lines 30-45). In regards to claim 9 , Sommer teaches the metering member has a curved surface (fig. 1-2; col. 5, lines 30-45) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito (WO2021181445, corresponding US 2021/0387222 cited below) in view of Kobayashi (US 2017/0282206) and Krossa (US 6,471,776) . In regards to claim 1 , Naito teaches a coating device comprising: a coating bar (10) (fig. 1-2, 14; para. 27, 28, 92); a coating member holder (66, base material conveyance) member that conveys a base material (80) (fig. 14; para. 90-91, 94); and a coating liquid supply member comprising a head part (30) and a supply pipe (25), that supplies a coating liquid (84) to the coating bar (fig. 1-2, 14; para. 27, 29). Naito does not explicitly teach the coating device further comprises a leveling bar provided at a position downstream of the coating bar in a coating direction, the leveling bar is arranged at a position where the coating liquid forms a meniscus between the leveling bar and the base material. However, Kobayashi teaches and adhesion amount adjustment unit-4 comprising a roll-41 (leveling bar) which is positioned downstream of a roll-31 and nozzles-21a-c, where downstream refers to the direction of travel of a strip-16. Kobayashi teaches the roll-41 is arranged relative to an applied slurry-17 and the strip-16 to form a meniscus between the roll-41 and the slurry-17 (fig. 1-5; para. 39, 41, 46, 49-50, 69-70, 78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the roll-41 of Kobayashi onto the coating device, downstream of the coating bar of Naito because Kobayashi teaches it will remove potential bubbles and aid in achieving the target film thickness (para. 23-24). Naito and Kobayashi does not explicitly teach a leveling bar position adjustment member that controls an interval (gap) between the leveling bar and the base material. However, Krossa teaches a rollers (9/10) which are moved by height-adjustable bearings and mechanisms (32/33, leveling bar position adjustment member) to control positioning of the rollers. Krossa teaches the rollers are positioned downstream of a metering roller (6) (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 15-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the height-adjustable bearings and mechanisms of Krossa teaches onto the roll-41 of Naito and Kobayashi because Krossa teaches it will aid in providing uniform coating (col. 3, lines 25-30). In regards to claim 3 , Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as discussed, where Naito teaches a first holder (41, coating bar position adjustment member) comprises an actuator which provide adjustment to the position of the coating bar (fig. 2; para. 42). In regards to claim 4 , Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as discussed, where Naito teaches the head part comprises a plurality of nozzles (20) which supply the coating liquid (fig. 2, 4; para. 29). In regards to claim 6 , Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as discussed, where Naito teaches the plurality of nozzles comprises a nozzle portion (21) that is detachable from the base part (22) (fig. 12; para. 34). In regards to claim 9 , Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as discussed, where Naito teaches the coating bar is curved (fig. 1-2, 4-5, 13-14) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as applied to claim s 1, 3-4, 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Ichikawa (US 2004/0043154) . In regards to claims 2 and 7 , Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as discussed but do not explicitly teach the leveling bar is arranged so as not to rotate and a nozzle that supplies the coating liquid to the leveling bar. However, Ichikawa teaches a quantifying bar (142 is provided downstream of a coating bar (122). Ichikawa teaches an upstream side path (150, nozzle) provide a supply of liquid to the quantifying bar (fig. 1; para. 175, 180). Ichikawa teaches based on the conveyance speed of the substrate, the bar is capable of being rotated forwardly or backwardly or it may be fixed (para. 132). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the liquid supply to a stationary bar of Ichikawa onto the roll-41 of Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa because Ichikawa teaches it will provide evenly coated surface on an object to be coated with a coarse surface, even in the case where there is a high conveyance speed (para. 19) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as applied to claim s 1, 3-4, 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Okano (US 2018/0029258) . In regards to claims 2 and 7 , Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa as discussed but do not explicitly teach opening surfaces of the plurality of nozzles have a needle shape cut to an angle of 75 degrees or more and 105 degrees or less and coating liquid is supplied from a slit die head. However, Okano teaches a nozzle (34, slit die head) which comprises slit shaped opening portion (34c). Okano teaches the opening portion has land portions (34a/34b) which provide a needle shape cut (fig. 12-15; para. 102, 110-117). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the nozzle with the angle opening of Okano onto the head part of Naito, Kobayashi and Krossa because Okano teaches it provides easy filling of recess (para. 113). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT. 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. /Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 2 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 3 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 4 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 5 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 6 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 7 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 8 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 9 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 10 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 11 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/051,515 Page 13 Art Unit: 1717
Prosecution Insights