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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2020173894, filed on 15 October 2020.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 2007190480 A) in view of Liao (US 20240075480 A1).
Kimura teaches a pulverizing method comprising:
a step (A) of preparing a first inorganic material as a raw material (the first paragraph after “Description” starting with “The present invention relates to a pulverizer…” describes any pulverized material that can be further crushed into powder as possible to use, an example can be the same material derived from lithium-ion batteries that the applicant uses, the 7th paragraph after “Description” starting with “(4) The medium agitation mill has an agitation shaft…” describes this material being loaded into the vessel, or cylindrical container, 11 meaning it was prepared prior to loading through lid 11b);
a step (B) of obtaining a second inorganic material by crushing the first inorganic material using a ball mill to obtain fine particles of the first inorganic material, the ball mill including a cylindrical container and crushing balls (described in 1st paragraph after “Crusher operation” starting with “By using the pulverizer 1 of the present invention…” wherein the second inorganic material is the fine powder the first inorganic material is crushed to become) ; and
wherein the step (B) includes a step (B1) of putting the first inorganic material and the crushing balls into the cylindrical container and subsequently rotating the cylindrical container about a cylindrical shaft and a step (B2) of moving the cylindrical container such that the first inorganic material moves in a cylindrical shaft direction (described in 1st paragraph after “Crusher operation” and shown in Figure 8, wherein rotation is performed with rotary drive shaft 8a and moving the cylindrical container is shifting it to the desired incline position, which causes material to move in the direction of the cylindrical container 11).
Kimura does not teach:
a step (C) of separating the second inorganic material from the crushing balls to which the second inorganic material is attached,
Liao teaches a wet ball-milling method comprising:
a step of separating the second inorganic material from the crushing balls to which the second inorganic material is attached (performed using grading mesh plate 12 and grading wheel 13 as described in paragraph 0061).
Regarding Claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the separating step via the grading mesh plate and wheel taught by Liao to the interior of the vessel taught in the pulverizing method of Kimura. The result would improve the method of Kimura by enabling a user to isolate and collect the fine particles produced in the method of Kimura by creating a step of separating the second inorganic material from the crushing balls to which the second inorganic material is attached. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the separating step of Liao to the method of Kimura without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the separating step of Liao to the method of Kimura would produce the predictable results of breaking down inorganic material into fine particulate and collecting it.
Regarding Claim 2, the application of the separating step taught by Liao to the method of Kimura would also result wherein the step (C) includes a step of causing the crushing balls to collide against a mesh member. This would be caused both by rotation and shifting the vessel to a desired incline for the purpose of shaking free any particulate matter that can be attached to the crushing balls.
Regarding Claim 3, the application of the separating step taught by Liao to the method of Kimura would also result wherein the step of causing the crushing balls to collide against the mesh member includes a step of stirring the crushing balls in a region at least a part of which is surrounded by the mesh member. This would be caused by the grading wheel of Liao stirring the crushing balls and the grading mesh plate would encapsulate the area in which the grading wheel is stirring. This would be for the purpose of agitating the crushing balls and particulate matter to ensure it exits the grading mesh plate for collection.
Regarding Claim 4, Liao further teaches wherein at least one hole formed in the mesh member has a polygonal shape or an elongated shape (paragraph 0066 describes slits in the grading mesh plate, also known as elongated holes). It would have been further obvious to incorporate the elongated holes taught by Liao as part of the grading mesh plate when applying the separating step of Liao to the method of Kimura for the purpose of effectively separating particulate matter from crushing balls within the pulverizing vessel.
Regarding Claim 8, Kimura and Liao do not explicitly teach the hardness of the crushing balls and mesh grading plate. However, it would be have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art when applying the separating step of Liao to the method of Kimura to apply it such that the surface of the mesh member is formed of a material having a Vickers hardness higher than a Vickers hardness of a material forming the crushing balls. This would be to prevent unnecessary damage from the crushing balls deforming the mesh member through the frequent impacts that rotation and incline adjustment would produce.
Regarding Claim 9, Kimura further teaches wherein in the step (B), the first inorganic material is crushed in a dry state (described in Abstract and, as an example that affirms capability of using dry-state material, the first paragraph after “Configuration of Crusher”, starting with “Embodiments of the present invention…” describes crushing dry activated carbon).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 2007190480 A) in view of Liao (US 20240075480 A1) and in further view of Sundström (US 20230302460 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, Kimura in view of Liao teaches the claim limitations of Claims 1 and 3 as above. They do not teach wherein the mesh member has at least one protrusion shape that protrudes toward the region surrounded by the mesh member.
Sundström teaches a tumbling mill comprising protrusions on the interior of the mill (310, described in paragraph 0067).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the protrusions of Sundström to the region surrounded by the mesh member in the modified pulverizing method of Kimura in view of Liao. The result would improve stirring of the crushing balls by increasing agitation. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply protrusions taught by Sundström to the method of Kimura without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the protrusions taught by Sundström to the method of Kimura would produce the predictable results of agitating crushing balls to produce and segregate fine particulate matter.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 2007190480 A) in view of Liao (US 20240075480 A1) and in further view of Yoshida (US 20220085407 A1).
Kimura in view of Liao teaches the Claim 1 as above. They do not teach wherein each of the first inorganic material and the second inorganic material is an inorganic solid electrolyte material, a positive electrode active material, or a negative electrode active material.
Yoshida teaches a mechanochemical process comprising mixing/crushing material in a ball mill (described in paragraph 0154) that has a first inorganic material and second inorganic material comprise inorganic solid electrolyte material (described in paragraph 0155).
Regarding Claim 11, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the first and second inorganic material taught by Yoshida as the material processed by the method of Kimura modified by Liao. This would be to expand the potential uses of the method of Kimura by enabling different materials to be processed by it. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the materials of Yoshida to the method of Kimura without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the materials of Yoshida to the method of Kimura would produce the predictable results of manufacturing an inorganic material in which the formation of an aggregate is suppressed and an inorganic material having a small average particle size can be obtained.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshida further teaches wherein each of the first inorganic material and the second inorganic material includes a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material (described in paragraph 0155). It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select this material of Yoshida for pulverization with the method of Kimura depending on the desired outcome of materials processed through method implementation.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoshida further teaches wherein the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material has lithium ionic conductivity and includes Li, P, and S as constituent elements (described in paragraph 0120). It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select this material of Yoshida for pulverization with the method of Kimura depending on the desired outcome of materials processed through method implementation.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoshida further teaches wherein a molar ratio Li/P of a content of Li to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 1.0 or higher and 10.0 or lower, and a molar ratio S/P of a content of S to the content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 1.0 or higher and 10.0 or lower (described in paragraph 0121, wherein the Li/P ratio is described as “preferably 1.0 or higher and 5.0 or lower” and the S/P ratio is “preferably 2.0 or higher and 6.0 or lower”). It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select this material of Yoshida for pulverization with the method of Kimura depending on the desired outcome of materials processed through method implementation.
Regarding Claim 15, Yoshida further teaches wherein the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material as the first inorganic material is in a vitreous state (described in paragraph 0150). It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select this material of Yoshida for pulverization with the method of Kimura depending on the desired outcome of materials processed through method implementation.
Claims 6 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 2007190480 A) in view of Liao (US 20240075480 A1) and in further view of Aouf (US 20170326189 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kimura in view of Liao teaches the claim limitations of Claims 1 and 3 as above. They do not teach wherein the step of stirring the crushing balls include a step of stirring at least two kinds of crushing balls having different diameters in the region surrounded by the mesh member.
Aouf teaches wherein the step of stirring the crushing balls include a step of stirring at least two kinds of crushing balls having different diameters (described in paragraph 0119).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the stirring of crushing balls with different diameters taught by Aouf to the pulverizing method of Kimura. This would improve crushing capabilities of the method of Kimura by allowing smaller material that cannot be crushed by larger crushing balls to be crushed by smaller crushing balls. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the stirring crushing balls of different diameters of Aouf to the method of Kimura without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the different diameter crushing balls of Aouf to the method of Kimura would produce the predictable results of breaking down inorganic material into fine particulate and collecting it.
Regarding Claim 16, Kimura in view of Liao teaches the claim limitations of Claims 1 and 3 as above. They do not teach wherein the crushing balls in the step (B) includes two or more kinds of crushing balls having different diameters.
Aouf teaches wherein the step of stirring the crushing balls include a step of stirring at least two kinds of crushing balls having different diameters (described in paragraph 0119).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the crushing balls with different diameters taught by Aouf to the pulverizing method of Kimura. This would improve crushing capabilities of the method of Kimura by allowing smaller material that cannot be crushed by larger crushing balls to be crushed by smaller crushing balls. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the crushing balls with different diameters of Aouf to the method of Kimura without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the different diameter crushing balls of Aouf to the method of Kimura would produce the predictable results of breaking down inorganic material into fine particulate and collecting it.
Regarding Claim 17, Kimura, Liao and Aouf do not teach wherein the crushing balls include first crushing balls having a diameter in a range of 1.5 mm or more and 2.5 mm or less and second crushing balls having a diameter in a range of 0.2 mm or more and less than 1.5 mm. However, through routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply the crushing balls of Aouf to the modified method of Kimura in view of Liao such that the crushing balls include first crushing balls having a diameter in a range of 1.5 mm or more and 2.5 mm or less and second crushing balls having a diameter in a range of 0.2 mm or more and less than 1.5 mm. This would be for the purpose of obtaining the desired degree of fine particulate produced by the crushing balls. See MPEP 2144.05 for more information on routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 18, Aouf further teaches a third crushing balls having a diameter different from the other two (described in paragraph 119). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the third crushing balls of Aouf to the pulverizing method of Kimura. This would be for the purpose of improving crushing capabilities of the method of Kimura by increasing the variety of crushing balls to crush larger and/or smaller material.
Aouf does not teach the third crushing balls having a diameter of more than 2.5 mm and 10.0 mm or less. However, through routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply the crushing balls of Aouf to the modified method of Kimura in view of Liao such that the third crushing balls have a diameter of more than 2.5 mm and 10.0 mm or less. This would be for the purpose of obtaining the desired degree of fine particulate produced by the crushing balls. See MPEP 2144.05 for more information on routine optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or incorporated into an existing independent claim. The closest prior art: the pulverizing method of Kimura (JP 2007190480 A) does not teach wherein the step of causing the crushing balls to collide against the mesh member includes a step of blasting the crushing ball to the mesh member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655