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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 7, 2026.
Specification
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.
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 preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “coating device” in claims 1-15.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Pat. Pub. No. 20230175776 A1 to Son et al (hereinafter Son) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160288680 A1 to Triglia et al (hereinafter Triglia) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180202041 A1 to Kamepalli et al (hereinafter Kamepalli).
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches a secondary battery manufacturing apparatus comprising: a coating device configured to form a coating layer by applying a slurry to a substrate being transported in a transport direction; an air blower configured to blow air toward the coating layer; and a controller (130) configured to control the coating device and the air blower, wherein the air blower (114) includes a first air blower disposed above the coating layer and configured to blow air toward a top surface of the coating layer and a second air blower disposed adjacent to opposite sides of the coating layer and configured to blow air toward opposite side surfaces of the coating layer, and wherein the controller is configured to adjust a temperature of the air from the first air blower (paragraphs 21 and 69) and a temperature of the air from the second air blower based on at least one of a width of the coating layer or a thickness of the coating layer. (Examiner is considering “controller is configured to adjust a temperature based on at least one of a width of the coating layer or a thickness of the coating layer” is equivalent to “information on dried amount receiving from the measuring unit” and “loading amount” in paragraphs 22, 61, 22, 73 and 61, “solid content”, and “dried level” in paragraph 39 as these parameters would be related to both width and thickness of the coating layer. (See Son, Abstract, paragraphs 2, 9-12, 14-21, 30-33, 39, 41-43, 53, 60-61, 64-66, 68-84, 86, 88, 97, 107, 115, 123, 125, and 136 and Figs. 1-6.)
Son does not explicitly teach a second air blower disposed adjacent to opposite sides of the coating layer and configured to blow air toward opposite side surfaces of the coating layer.
Triglia is directed to drying a conveyed substrate.
Triglia teaches a second air blower (18) disposed adjacent to opposite sides of the coating layer and configured to blow air toward opposite side surfaces of the coating layer. (See Triglia, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 111, and Figs. 1-10. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second air blower disposed adjacent to opposite sides of the coating layer and configured to blow air toward opposite side surfaces of the coating layer, because Triglia teaches this structure would be helpful for sweeping moisture away from the surface delivery. (See Triglia, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 111, and Figs. 3. )
Son does not explicitly teach the air blower includes a second air blower disposed adjacent to opposite sides of the coating layer and configured to blow air toward opposite side surfaces of the coating layer.
Triglia is directed to drying a conveyed substrate.
Triglia teaches a second air blower (18) disposed adjacent to opposite sides of the coating layer and configured to blow air toward opposite side surfaces of the coating layer. (See Triglia, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 111, and Figs. 1-10. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the air blower including a second air blower disposed adjacent to opposite sides of the coating layer and configured to blow air toward opposite side surfaces of the coating layer, because Triglia teaches this structure may also be helpful for sweeping moisture away from the surface delivery. (See Triglia, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 111, and Figs. 3. )
Son does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to adjust a temperature of the air from the second air blower based on at least one of a width of the coating layer or a thickness of the coating layer
Kamepalli is directed to manufacturing a conveyed substrate with a coating.
Kamepalli teaches the controller is configured to adjust a temperature of the air from the second air blower based on at least one of a width of the coating layer or a thickness of the coating layer. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured to adjust a temperature of the air from the second air blower based on at least one of a width of the coating layer or a thickness of the coating layer, because Kamepalli teaches this structure may also be helpful to ensure the desired thickness is reached. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
Regarding claim 3, Son teaches the controller is configured to adjust a blowing speed of the air of the first air blower, based on at least one of the width of the coating layer or the thickness of the coating layer. (See Son, paragraphs 21, 57, 69-71, and 101.)
Son does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to adjust a blowing speed of the air of the second air blower, based on at least one of the width of the coating layer or the thickness of the coating layer.
Kamepalli teaches is configured to adjust a blowing speed of the air of the second air blower, based on at least one of the width of the coating layer or the thickness of the coating layer. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have is configured to adjust a blowing speed of the air of the second air blower, based on at least one of the width of the coating layer or the thickness of the coating layer, because Kamepalli teaches this structure may also be helpful to ensure the desired thickness is reached. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
Regarding claim 5, Son teaches the controller is configured to adjust a temperature of the air of the first air blower, based on properties of the slurry. (See Son, paragraphs 21, 57, 69-71, and 101.)
Son does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to adjust a temperature of the air of the second air blower, based on properties of the slurry.
Kamepalli teaches is configured to adjust a blowing speed of the air of the second air blower, based on at least one of the width of the coating layer or the thickness of the coating layer. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have is configured to adjust a blowing speed of the air of the second air blower, based on properties of the slurry, because Kamepalli teaches this structure may also be helpful to ensure the desired thickness is reached. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
Regarding claim 5, Son teaches the controller is configured to adjust the blowing speed of the air from the first air blower based on properties of the slurry. (See Son, paragraphs 21, 57, 69-71, and 101.)
Son does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to adjust the blowing speed of the air from the second air blower based on properties of the slurry.
Kamepalli teaches is the controller is configured to adjust the blowing speed of the air from the second air blower based on properties of the slurry. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured to adjust the blowing speed of the air from the second air blower based on properties of the slurry, because Kamepalli teaches this structure may also be helpful to ensure the desired thickness is reached. (See Kamepalli, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
Regarding claims 6-7, Son does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to adjust the blowing speed of the air from the first air blower and the blowing speed of the air from the second air blower, based on a transport rate of the substrate.
Son teaches speed of the transfer roller is a known variable to optimize. (See paragraph 71.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the controller is configured to adjust the blowing speed of the air from the first air blower and the blowing speed of the air from the second air blower, based on a transport rate of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper blowing speed, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal heating intensity. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969))
Regarding claims 8-15, Son does not explicitly teach the first air blower includes nozzles in a Z pattern with specific configuration of lines within the pattern.
Triglia teaches the angle of the nozzles may be changed within a range. (See paragraphs 52-56.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the controller is configured to adjust the pattern of the angles of the blower,with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper blowing angle, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal removal of moisture. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969))
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Pat. Pub. No. 20230175776 A1 to Son et al (hereinafter Son) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160288680 A1 to Triglia et al (hereinafter Triglia) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180202041 A1 to Kamepalli et al (hereinafter Kamepalli) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of KR-10286003 (hereinafter KR’003).
Regarding claim 2, Son does not explicitly teach the temperature of the air from the first air blower or the temperature of the air from the second air blower ranges from 80°C to 150°C.
KR’003 is directed to drying an electrode paste.
KR’003teaches the temperature of the air from the first air blower or the temperature of the air from the second air blower ranges from 80°C to 150°C. (See KR’003, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the temperature of the air from the first air blower or the temperature of the air from the second air blower ranges from 80°C to 150°C., because KR’003 teaches this structure may also be helpful to ensure the desired property of the paste is reached. (See KR’003, Abstract, paragraphs 39-49, and Figs. 1-4. )
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights