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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/27/2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikaido (JP 8-24692) (see translation in IDS dated 4/13/2023) in view of Mizoguchi (JP 2006-035074).
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: providing a container comprising: an inner side surface portion extending along a vertical direction (page 5, paragraph 5; interior of planetary mill); a shaft extending in the vertical direction (page 5, paragraph 5; revolving vertical shaft within the mill); and a mesh member provided on the inner side surface portion (page 5, paragraph 4; mesh screen), providing the crushing balls and the inorganic material inside the container, rotating the container around the shaft to cause 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), but Nikaido does not disclose a mesh member provided on the inner side surface portion. Mizoguchi teaches a mesh member provided on the inner side surface portion (see Fig. 2; elements 15 on the periphery of element 7) for the purpose of transporting separated material from the crushing region (paragraph 0030). 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 transporting separated material from the crushing region.
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).
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 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.
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.
Regarding claim 12, Nikaido discloses the direction extends vertically (page 5, paragraph 5; revolving vertical shaft within the mill).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikaido/Mizoguchi 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 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikaido/Mizoguchi 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” The Final Office Action therefore appears to rely on Mizoguchi's punched metal portion 16 apart from the inclined rotating drum configuration in which Mizoguchi describes that structure as operating. Applicant respectfully submits that the record does not provide an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Nikaido's vertical-axis planetary mill by applying Mizoguchi's inclined-drum punched metal portion 16 to the inner side surface portion extending in the vertical direction as now recited in amended claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.02 ("Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success."); see also MPEP § 2143.01(V),” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts Nikaido discloses the vertical direction of the amended claim, specifically, the orientation of the container and shaft are disclosed in page 5, paragraph 5. Nikaido and Mizoguchi are directed toward reduction and separating of material. The teaching of Mizoguchi is that it is an obvious modification to include a mesh member provide along the inner side surface portion that aids in the removal of material from crushing balls (paragraph 0030).
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