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 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0373573) in view of Shinpuku et al. (US 2020/0067089).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, the reference Kim et al. discloses an apparatus (see para. [0014]; [0016]; [0027]; [0083]; Fig. 1) for manufacturing a precursor for positive electrode active material, the apparatus comprising: a reactor configured to receive a reaction solution and produce a precursor for positive electrode active material through a co-precipitation reaction of the reaction solution (see paras. [0016]; [0027]; [0072]-[0075]; Fig. 1); and a filtration unit (not labeled) disposed inside the reactor and configured to discharge a filtrate excluding solids in the reaction solution to outside of the reactor when the reaction solution reaches a predetermined solution level (see paras. [0069]-[0075]; Fig. 1). The reference Kim et al., however, does not specifically disclose an extraction unit configured to extract a portion of the reaction solution and transfer the portion to a storage tank to maintain the content of the solids in the reaction solution at a predetermined level or lower, and wherein the extraction unit is not connected to the filtration unit.
The reference Shinpuku et al. teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a precursor for positive electrode active material (see paras. [0056]-[0062]), the apparatus comprising: a reactor (13) configured to receive a reaction solution and produce a precursor for positive electrode active material through a co-precipitation reaction of the reaction solution (see paras. [0058]-[060]); and an extraction unit (14) configured to extract a portion of the reaction solution containing the precursor and transfer the portion to a storage tank to maintain the content of the solids in the reaction solution at a predetermined level or lower (see paras. [0061]; [0088]). The reference Shinpuku et al. further teaches that the extraction unit (14) can be used to extract a portion of the reaction solution containing the precursor and transfer the portion to a downstream process once the coprecipitation reaction reaches a steady state (see paras. [0061]-[0062]; [0088]; [0092]; [0103]; Fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an extraction unit as taught by Shinpuku et al. to the apparatus of Kim et al. to extract a portion of the reaction solution containing the precursor material and transfer the portion to a storage tank, as claimed by applicant, once the coprecipitation reaction in the reactor of Kim et al. reaches a steady state, such as when the average particle diameter of the precursor produced in the reactor is 8 μm or smaller, as suggested by Shinpuku et al. (see paras. [0060]-[0061]; [0063]). Further, such a modification would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 2, the references Kim et al. and Shinpuku et al. disclose the apparatus, wherein the reactor comprises one or more input parts configured to continuously supply raw materials (see Kim et. al.: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the references Kim et al. and Shinpuku et al. disclose the apparatus, wherein the filtration unit comprises a filter made of a metal material (see Kim et al.: para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, the references Kim et al. and Shinpuku et al. disclose the apparatus, wherein the filtration unit comprises a pleated filter made of a metal material (see Kim et al.: para. [0078]).
Regarding claim 7, the references Kim et al. and Shinpuku et al. disclose the apparatus, wherein the extraction unit comprises a pump (see Shinpuku et al.: paras. [0061]; [0088]; Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 23 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the reference Shinpuku et al. teaches that once a precipitation reaction in a reactor (13) reaches a steady state, such as when the average particle diameter of a product slurry produced in the reactor is 8 μm or smaller, an extraction unit (14) may be employed for extracting a portion of the product slurry from the reactor at a fixed flow rate (see paras. [0061]; [0063]; [0088]). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly provide an extraction unit as taught by Shinpuku et al. to the apparatus of Kim et al. to extract a portion of the reaction solution from the reactor and transfer the portion to a storage tank, as claimed by applicant. Further, such a modification would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774