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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikaido (JP 8-24692) (see translation in IDS dated 4/13/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Nikaido discloses a method of separating an inorganic material from crushing balls to which the inorganic material is attached (page 4, paragraph 7 and page 5, paragraph 1; grinding silicon carbide, alumina, or boron carbide), the method comprising: a step of causing the crushing balls (page 5, paragraph 4; chrome steel balls) to collide against a mesh member (page 5, paragraph 4; mesh screen).
Regarding claim 2, Nikaido discloses 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 (page 5, paragraph 5; the mesh and pulverizing container is mounted on a planetary mill that rotates).
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 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 of this title, 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 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikaido in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 3, Nikaido does not explicitly disclose at least one hole formed in the mesh member has a polygonal shape or an elongated shape. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate material from crushing balls because Applicant has not disclosed that aperture shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nikaido, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either mesh aperture shape because both aperture shapes would perform the same function of separating material from crushing balls for the purpose of adjusting the separation effect of the mesh apertures.
Regarding claim 6, Nikaido discloses the step of causing the crushing balls to collide against the mesh member page 5, paragraph 5; where the planetary mill rotates at 540 rpm), but Nikaido does not explicitly disclose causing the crushing balls to collide against the mesh member includes a step of blasting the crushing ball to the mesh member. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate material from crushing balls because Applicant has not disclosed that agitating mechanism provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nikaido, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either stirring or blasting because both agitating mechanisms would perform the same function of separating material from crushing balls for the purpose of efficiently clearing the crushing balls of material for reuse.
Regarding claim 7, Nikaido does not explicitly disclose at least a 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. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate material from crushing balls because Applicant has not disclosed that hardness of the mesh member and the crushing balls provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nikaido, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either mesh and balls because both mesh and balls would perform the same function of separating material from crushing balls for the purpose of reducing wear on the mesh member.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikaido in view of Imanishi (JP 2013-215721) (see translation in IDS dated 4/13/2023).
Regarding claim 4, Nikaido does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Imanishi teaches the mesh member has at least one protrusion shape (see Fig. 4; element 13) that protrudes toward the region surrounded by the mesh member for the purpose of aiding the distribution and classification of the materials within pulverizing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nikaido, as taught by Imanishi, for the purpose of aiding the distribution and classification of the materials within pulverizing apparatus.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikaido in view of Mizoguchi (JP 2006-035074).
Regarding claim 5, Nikaido does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Mizoguchi teaches 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 (paragraph 0037) for the purpose of increasing crushing efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nikaido, as taught by Mizoguchi, for the purpose of increasing crushing efficiency.
Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikaido in view of Yamamura (JP 2018-041671) (see translation in IDS dated 4/13/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Nikaido does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Mizoguchi teaches the inorganic material is an inorganic solid electrolyte material (paragraph 0064; where sulfide solid electrolytes are prepared in a planetary ball mill), a positive electrode active material, or a negative electrode active material for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing (paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nikaido, as taught by Yamamura, for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing.
Regarding claim 9, Nikaido does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Mizoguchi teaches the inorganic material includes a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material (paragraph 0064; where sulfide solid electrolytes are prepared in a planetary ball mill), a positive electrode active material, or a negative electrode active material for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing (paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nikaido, as taught by Yamamura, for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing.
Regarding claim 10, Nikaido does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Mizoguchi teaches the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material has lithium ionic conductivity and includes Li, P, and S as constituent elements (paragraph 0064; where sulfide solid electrolytes comprises Li, P, and S), a positive electrode active material, or a negative electrode active material for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing (paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nikaido, as taught by Yamamura, for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing.
Regarding claim 11, Nikaido does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Mizoguchi teaches 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 (paragraph 0064; where sulfide solid electrolytes comprises 75Li2S-25P2S5-10Li3N where the molar ratio of Li to P equals 3.6 and the molar ratio of S to P equals 4), a positive electrode active material, or a negative electrode active material for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing (paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nikaido, as taught by Yamamura, for the purpose of milling materials in preparation lithium cell processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights