DETAILED ACTION
Claim Analysis
The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and fourteen active dependent claims (claims 2 - 15).
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and, by dependency, claims 2 – 15) recites the phrase “each receiving the respective sagger”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this phrase as reciting “… each receiving a respective sagger …”.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IDS reference KR 10-1987940 B1) [document D1 in the Chinese First Office Action provided] in view of IDS reference JP 08-136147 A [document D2 in the Chinese First Office Action provided].
The Examiner notes that the following rejection is a substantial duplicate of the rejection set forth in the Chinese First Office Action provided in the IDS filed October 7, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, KR ‘940 B1 discloses a vertical burner for a secondary battery negative electrode material having a separation space (Title; Abstract) wherein the anode material inside the vertical sintering furnace is loaded in a shaped body in the form of particles into a vertically stacked refractory saggar and transferred, the supply gas and the exhaust gas are transferred through slits perforated in the bottom surface of the refractory saggar; the secondary battery positive material can be transferred (moved) inside the vertical sintering furnace 1 by pushing the secondary battery positive material by means of a driving device arranged outside the input and preheating zone of the vertical sintering furnace 1 (Paragraphs [0029] to [0046], Figure 4); and as shown in Figure 4, each refractory saggar 2 is open at the top.
KR ‘940 B1 fails to disclose a plurality of unit calciners, each open on top, stacked in a plurality in a vertical direction, each housing a respective refractory saggar, and moving in the opposite direction of the gas flow.
However, JP ‘147 A discloses a continuous crystallization furnace wherein, in substantially the center of the furnace 1 having a furnace 1 formed of refractory material, a through-hole 1a formed with a cross-sectional rectangle extending vertically and passing from an upper surface to a lower surface as a conveying path, charging a plurality of soaker boxes 4 in the through-holes 1a, the soaker boxes moving along the through-hole 1a (Paragraphs [0013] to [0031], Figures 2 to 10, especially as shown in Figures 2 - 3), wherein each soaker is open at the top, stacking a plurality in a vertical direction (ibid, especially as shown in Figure 10), each soaker 4 is provided with an electric heater 23 and a temperature detection unit constituted by a thermocouple 24, the electric heater 23 consists of a coil heater embedded within the side wall of the soaker 4, by further providing an electric heater as well as a thermocouple within the soaking box 4, a well-efficient heating and a more accurate temperature control can be achieved (the soaking box provided with an electric heater corresponds to a unit calciner, i.e. A plurality of unit calciners are disclosed, each open on top, stacked in a plurality in a vertical direction, and moved in a vertical direction).
Namely, JP ‘147 A discloses a calciner employing a plurality of mobile units, which can increase the heating effect, whereas KR ‘940 B1 discloses a plurality of refractory saggars moving along a vertical direction, in order to further increase the heating effect of each refractory saggar, the person skilled in the art is motivated to incorporate the mobile vapor chamber structure provided with electric heaters of JP ‘147 A into KR ‘940 B1, at this point it is obvious for the person skilled in the art to readily envisage that each unit calciner houses each refractory saggar separately. It is noted that KR ‘940 B1 discloses that the saggar moves downwards in a vertical direction (see Figure 4), the gas flow moves through a slit in the bottom of the saggar, thereby causing the gas to flow downwards upwards, and the multi-unit calciner moves downwards, i.e. In the opposite direction of the gas flow, as is readily conceivable to the skilled person.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of KR ‘940 B1 to include the multiple saggars meeting the claimed limitations along with the plurality of firing furnaces, each receiving a respective saggar, meeting the claimed limitations as taught by KR ‘940 B1 in view of JP ‘147 A for the reasons set forth above and in the Chinese First Office Action submitted on the October 7, 2025 IDS submission.
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘147 A discloses: the bottom wall 4b of the soaker 4 being formed of a thermally insulating material with poor thermal conductivity, and the side wall 4a is formed of a refractory material with good heat conduction (Figure 10), each soaker 4 is provided with an electric heater 23 and a temperature detection unit constituted by a thermocouple 24, the electric heater 23 consists of a coil heater embedded within the side wall of the soaker 4, by further providing an electric heater as well as a thermocouple within the soaker 4, a well-efficient heating and a more accurate temperature control can be achieved (i.e. The unit calciner is disclosed to comprise a body made of refractory material and a heater provided inside the body). In connection with the unit calciner structure in KR ‘940 B1 in JP ‘147 A, since the bottom surface of the refractory saggar in JP ‘147 A is provided with slits for gas flow, it is then easy for a person skilled in the art to have the bottom surface provide an opening for gas flow and have an accommodation space for accommodating each refractory saggar; as far as the heater is placed on one side of the body, for heating the refractory saggar, is a conventional heating arrangement made by those skilled in the art. I.e. the combined teachings of KR ‘940 B1 and JP ‘147 A render obvious the claimed unit firing furnaces, since the gas must be able to flow through the lower surface to contact the saggar, which is taught to be in the receiving space as noted above. It would have been obvious to locate the heater to heat the saggar as that is the intended use of the heater (as taught above) and the exact location would have been a matter of routine optimization to ensure good gas flow and saggar placement, etc.
Regarding claims 3-5, JP ‘147 A discloses that an electric heater is provided within the side wall of the soaker box. With respect to the claimed limitations directed to an outer side of the body providing an insulating material for maintaining the temperature of the heat generated by the heater, the outer side of the insulating material providing a housing for covering the outer side of the insulating material, and the outer side of the housing providing a support structure for supporting the body and the insulating material, the Examiner takes Official Notice that these are conventional insulating and support structure arrangements employed by those skilled in the art to ensure that the heater provides heat to the desired location and not other locations and that the heating is uniform and insulated from excessive heat loss (wastage of power). For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see the Chinese First Office Action recited above.
Regarding claim 7, JP ‘147 A discloses that, as shown in Figure 10, each soaker box 4 is provided with an electric heater 23 and a temperature detection unit constituted by a thermocouple 24 (i.e. discloses that a temperature sensor is provided on the body for detecting the internal temperature of the body). As far as a transmission device for transmitting out the detected values detected by the temperature sensor is concerned, the Examiner takes Official Notice that this is a conventional structural arrangement adopted by the person skilled in the art for transmitting temperature information (i.e. a temperature sensor is no good if the temperature reported can be read by an operator!). For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see the Chinese First Office Action discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, JP ‘147 A discloses that, as shown in Figure 2, at the lower end opening of the furnace 1 through-hole 1a, a pair of stoppers 7 are provided in mutual opposition, the stoppers 7 being restored by the action of the spring to the protruding position shown in Figure 2 when the soaker box 4 passes the stoppers 7. As a result, even if the loading stage 5a is moved downwards to be extracted from the through hole la, the lower surface of the soaking box 4 is also in abutment with the bearing of the stopper 7 by which the soaking box 4 is supported within the passage hole la (i.e. It is disclosed that a lower stopper structure is provided on the outside of the unit calciner for supporting the unit calciner at the upper end of the lowermost one of the plurality of unit calciners). Therefore, the Examiner notes that JP ‘147 A discloses the claimed limitations of claim 8 such that a skilled artisan would readily envision the scope of claim 8 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of KR ‘940 B1 and JP ‘147 A for the reasons noted above.
Regarding claim 9, JP ‘147 A discloses that the lowermost soaker box is supported by a loading table 5a as shown in Figure 2 (i.e. discloses that below the lowermost of the multiple unit calciners is provided with a lower supporting structure for supporting the entire bottom of the multiple unit calciner). Therefore, the Examiner notes that JP ‘147 A discloses the claimed limitations of claim 9 such that a skilled artisan would readily envision the scope of claim 9 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of KR ‘940 B1 and JP ‘147 A for the reasons noted above.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, with respect to the provision of an exhaust structure above the uppermost one of the plurality of unit calciners for trapping exhaust gas out, and the provision of a gas supply structure below the lowermost one of the plurality of unit calciners for supplying gas, the Examiner takes Official Notice that this is a conventional provision of gas supply and exhaust structure employed by those skilled in the art as the gas is explicitly taught as being provided in the lower portion and rising through the vertical apparatus, where it must necessarily exit via an exhaust means or pressure would build up and the apparatus would explode. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, the Examiner points to the provided Chinese First Office Action discussed above. Therefore, the Examiner deems that the claimed limitations of claims 10 and 11 are such that a skilled artisan would readily envision their claimed scope as obvious in view of the combined teachings of KR ‘940 B1 and JP ‘147 A and the general knowledge in the art for the reasons noted above.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, as far as the bottom surface of the body has a catching projection/groove capable of accommodating the placement of a refractory saggar, conventional support structure arrangements adopted by those skilled in the art; with respect to the upper end of the body being provided with a catching groove and the outer end of the refractory saggar being provided with a catching projection for catching in the catching groove, is a conventional snap support arrangement adopted by those skilled in the art. Therefore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the claimed limitations of claims 14 and 15 are a conventional provision of support arrangements (catching groove or catching protrusion) employed by those skilled in the art as the saggar must necessarily have some supporting means. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, the Examiner points to the provided Chinese First Office Action discussed above. Therefore, the Examiner deems that the claimed limitations of claims 14 and 15 are such that a skilled artisan would readily envision their claimed scope as obvious in view of the combined teachings of KR ‘940 B1 and JP ‘147 A and the general knowledge in the art for the reasons noted above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR ‘940 B1 in view of JP ‘147 A as applied above, and further in view of JP 2007-032918 A (Document 3 in the supplied Chinese First Office Action discussed above).
KR ‘940 B1 and JP ‘147 A are relied upon as described above.
Neither of the above explicitly disclose a sealant meeting the claimed limitations.
However, JP ‘918A discloses a furnace A, provided erectly on the abutment 10 with pillars 1 in the four corners of a rectangular shape, and furnace bodies 2 are provided in a state of laminating multiple layers between these pillars 1, each furnace body 2 being on top of a rectangular-shaped perimeter frame 20 composed of stainless steel via a band-shaped seal 7 composed of a sheet of fluororesin-based material (Paragraphs [0035] to [0036], Figures 1 to 5). Namely, JP ‘918 A discloses that a seal is provided above and below the periphery of the furnace body, which is capable of preventing gas leakage between upper and lower adjacent furnace bodies.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of KR ‘940 B1 in view of JP ‘147 A to incorporate the sealing structure of JP ‘918 A as taught by JP ‘918 A to meet the claimed limitations and to prevent gas leakage.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR ‘940 B1 in view of JP ‘147 A as applied above, and further in view of CN 10-7966017 A (Document 4 in the supplied Chinese First Office Action discussed above).
KR ‘940 B1 and JP ‘147 A are relied upon as described above.
Neither of the above explicitly disclose charging and discharging aspects meeting the claimed limitations.
However, CN ‘017 A discloses a continuous vertical array combined ceramic firing furnace pack and heating method wherein the heated standpipe 1 is internally provided with a plurality of carrier saggar 5 arranged on top of each other, the carrier saggar 5 is connected to a centralized feeding unit and a lower discharging unit, respectively, the carrier saggar inside each heating standpipe is in first-out last-in mode with bottom-out top-feed, a burned carrier saggar within each heated standpipe passes through a slow cooling section to a bottom outlet of the heated standpipe, through a heated standpipe bottom discharge device and then a push discharge device, moving the finished fired carrier bowl to an aggregate area, at the same time as the discharge and discharge actions are completed, the heating furnace group top centralized feeding device brings the holding bowl of the stock zone from the top of the heating standpipe, the centralized feeding function being realized by a top charging platform, a sliding rail provided on the top charging platform and a centralized charging device provided on the sliding rail (Paragraphs [0052] to [0079], Figures 1 to 4).
Namely, CN ‘017 A discloses placing a blank to be sintered into an uppermost refractory saggar, discharging from the lowermost refractory saggar, a withdrawal and loading device, for removing the finished product contained in the lowermost refractory saggar, and charging a new blank to be sintered, and CN ‘017 A employs substantially the same charging and discharging technical means as the present application, which enables continuous production of the apparatus.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is easy for the person skilled in the art to meet the limitations of claims 12 and 13 by placing the positive electrode material to be calcined into a refractory saggar housed in the uppermost of the plurality of unit calciners, discharging the calcined positive electrode material from a refractory saggar housed in a lowermost one of the plurality of unit calciners, and removing, by the positive electrode material removing and charging device, the calcined positive electrode material contained in the refractory saggar inside the lowermost one of the plurality of unit calciners and charging new positive electrode material to be calcined based on the combined teachings in KR ‘940 B1 and CN ‘017 A as noted above. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see the Chinese First Office Action discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of KR ‘940 B1 in view of JP ‘147 A to meet the limitations of claims 12 and 13 as taught by CN ‘017 A as this enables continuous operation of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
March 1, 2026