DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on June 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method have been canceled, in the reply filed on June 16, 2026.
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:
temperature controller in claim 1;
temperature control device in claim 4.
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
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wyatt (US 2004/0241327) in view of Kim (US 2021/0354166).
In regards to claim 1, Wyatt teaches a coating die (21) comprising:
a die section-50a (first die block) which is adjacent to a feed gap-52a (fig. 2b; para. 48, 101);
a die section-50b (second die block) which is adjacent to a feed gap-52b (fig. 2b; para. 48, 101);
a die section-50c (third block) which is adjacent to the feed gap-52a and the feed gap-52b (fig. 2b; para. 48, 101).
Wyatt does not explicitly teach in this embodiment a first manifold and a temperature controller adjacent to the first manifold capable of controlling a temperature.
However, in a different embodiment, Wyatt teaches a bottom die section comprises a fluid manifold (216/242) that is adjacent to a heater (214b/238b) which provides uniform heating of the die section (fig. 8-9; para. 58-60).
Wyatt teaches a heating and control system (460) includes temperature control (462) and heater control (422/464) (temperature controller ) (fig. 12-13; para. 85-87).
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 heater adjacent to manifold and heating and control system of Wyatt onto the former embodiment because Wyatt teaches it will avoid bending of the die section and minimize variable which affecting the coating (para. 13).
Wyatt does not explicitly teach a second manifold provided in either the second die block or the third die block and accommodating a second coating material.
However, Kim teaches a coating apparatus provide a coating die comprises a first block-110 with a first coating liquid storage unit-112 (first manifold) and a fourth block-140 with a second coating liquid storage unit-142 (second manifold). Kim teaches the coating liquid storage unit-112 supplies a first coating liquid to a first slit and the second coating liquid storage unit-142 supplies a second coating liquid to a second slit (fig. 1; para. 61, 63).
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 coating die with the pair of storage units of Kim onto the coating die of Wyatt because Kim teaches it will improve the coating process of the double layer formation (para. 21-23).
In regards to claim 2, Wyatt and Kim as discussed, where Wyatt teaches the fluid manifold (216/242) is adjacent to the heater (214b/238b) (fig. 8-9; para. 58-60).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt and Kim as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Strange (US 2020/0009778).
In regards to claims 3-6, Wyatt and Kim as discussed, where Wyatt teaches the heater is adjacent to the fluid manifold (fig. 8-9; para. 58-60). Wyatt teaches a heating and control system (460) (temperature control device) includes temperature control (462) and heater control (422/464) (temperature controller) (fig. 12-13; para. 85-87).
Wyatt and Kim do not explicitly teach the temperature controller comprises: a flow path for a coolant and a heating wire, the temperature controller comprises a temperature control device connected to the flow path and the heating wire, the temperature controller comprises a plurality of the flow paths and/or a plurality of the heating wires.
However, Strange teaches an apparatus comprising a die (10) with a die plate-72 and die plate-74, where the die plates comprises thermal zones (50) which provide heating and cooling regions. Strange teaches the thermal zones comprise slots (55) (flow paths for coolant and a heating wire) which have cartridge heaters (heating wire) or chillers (flow path of coolant) that may be used to provide heating or cooling to the thermal zones. Strange teaches the thermal zones and zones extend across the width of the die and between the inlet and outlet of the die (fig. 1, 5; para. 55-56, 58, 64-67, 90).
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 thermal zones with slot for heaters and coolant/cooling of Strange onto the coating die of Wyatt and Kim because Strange teaches reduce warping of the material exiting the due and it minimize stress of the finished product (para. 106).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt and Kim as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kang (US 2022/0158158).
In regards to claims 7-8, Wyatt and Kim as discussed, where Wyatt teaches a manifold (19, coating material supply line) supplies material to the coating die (fig. 1; para. 44-45).
Wyatt and Kim does not explicitly teach a pressure sensor provided in the coating material supply line and measuring a supply pressure of the first coating material inside the coating material supply line, a controller which is electrically connected to the pressure sensor and the temperature controller, respectively, and receives an electrical signal from the pressure sensor to operate the temperature controller.
However, Kang teaches a pressure sensors (26) are provided in piping (20) between a supply tank (10) and a slot die (80). Kang teaches the pressure sensor is connected to coating controller (90) to provide control of the flow rate during the coating operation (fig. 1, 3, 7; para. 74-77, 89, 104, 128, 133).
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 pressure sensors and controller of Kang onto the coating die and control system of Wyatt and Kim because Kang teaches it will provide rapid start and allow for maintaining stable coating operation (para. 104).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt and Kim as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2023/0226570).
In regards to claim 9, Wyatt and Kim as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the third lock comprises an insulating material.
However, Lee teaches a multi-slot die coater (100) comprising a lower die block (110), an intermediate die block (120), and an upper die block (130), where the die blocks comprises ceramic bodies (fig. ; para. 65-66, 73).
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 die blocks comprising ceramic bodies of Lee onto the coating die of Wyatt and Kim because Lee teaches it will provide a material that is resistant to deformation which results in improved coating uniformity (para. 73-74).
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
Prosecution Insights