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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
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 3-4 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “close proximity” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of proximity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not sufficiently apparent what distance from “a bottom surface of the lithium hydroxide filling part” would meet the limitation of a “close proximity” as claimed. Therefore this limitation renders the claim indefinite in scope, and claim 4 is dependent upon but does not rectify the issue of indefiniteness, so is similarly rejected.
Claim 4 and claim 9 recite inter alia “wherein an inner surface of the device is anti-sulfurized.” The term “anti-sulfurized” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a limiting definition (exemplary embodiments are provided, [0027-0030]). It is unclear if the term refers to any sulfur-resistant surface of a material, or if it refers specifically to a treatment to render a surface sulfur-resistant, such as the treatments discussed [0099-0100], or if both interpretations are acceptable. To proceed with further examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation will be applied which includes either interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Senga et al. 2019, US 20170368515 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Senga teaches a lithium sulfide producing device (apparatus for producing lithium sulfide, 0001) by reacting hydrogen sulfide with lithium hydroxide (0023), the lithium sulfide producing device comprising: a reactor having a lithium hydroxide filling part inside (Fig. 1); a heating unit for heating lithium hydroxide (0018); and a hydrogen sulfide supply member (cylinder 3) connected to the reactor (Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senga as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ohashi et al. 2011, US 7939028 B2.
Regarding claim 2, Senga teaches the device as applied to claim 1. Senga does not teach an interior of the reactor including a heat-insulating member above the lithium hydroxide filling part, and an upper space and a lower space of the heat-insulating member communicating with each other in a part of the heat-insulating member or around the heat-insulating member.
However, Ohashi teaches a reactor apparatus for gas treatment of particulate matter (abstract) comprising a conical heat shielding plate 12 above the treatment chamber 4 of the gas-solid treatment (C4/L50-55, Fig. 1), wherein an upper and lower space of the heat-insulating member communicate with each other around the heat-insulating member (“the heat shielding plate is provided in nearly the center of the cross section of the treatment chamber, and has a cross-sectional area which is 20 to 90%, preferably 30 to 80%, of the cross-sectional area of the treatment chamber. The provision of the heat shielding plate of such a size does not greatly impede the flow of the treating gas or the particulate matter between the gas-solid separation chamber and the treatment chamber,” C4/L60-65).
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Senga and Ohashi; one would be motivated to do so in order to control the loss of heat from the reaction, as Ohashi teaches (C4/L55-57), since Senga teaches that the heat is maintained (via heating apparatuses, 0032); therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 3, Senga and Ohashi teach the device as applied to claim 2. Senga further teaches a heat transfer member disposed in contact with or in close proximity to a bottom surface of the lithium hydroxide filling part (heating apparatuses 21 and 22, 0032-0033).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senga and Ohashi as applied to claim 2, and in further view of Matsuyama et al. 2016, JP 2016150860 A, provided on the IDS filed 11/17/2023.
Regarding claim 4, Senga and Ohashi teach the device as applied to claim 2. Senga further teaches that the reaction is conducted at a temperature range that reduces corrosion of the reactor by hydrogen sulfide (0083). Senga and Ohashi do not explicitly teach that the inner surface of the device is anti-sulfurized. However, Matsuyama teaches an analogous reactor for producing lithium sulfide (Fig. 1) and Matsuyama teaches that the reactor is made of preferably glass or stainless steel (0016), wherein stainless steel meets the limitation of anti-sulfurized as exemplified in the instant specification [0027]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Senga, Ohashi, and Matsuyama; one would be motivated to do so in order to avoid corrosion of the reactor, as Senga teaches (0083), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention where the inner surface was anti-sulfurized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is considered to be Senga. Senga teaches the device as applied to claim 1. Senga further teaches a recovery member for the recovery of lithium sulfide (Figure 1, output port 25, 0039). However Senga does not teach that the lithium sulfide recovery member is above the lithium hydroxide filling part of the reactor, and further does not teach that the lithium sulfide recovery member has an inverted funnel shape, and Senga does not provide a teaching or motivation to modify the reactor in such a way. Matsuyama is also considered to be relevant art, and Matsuyama provides no teaching of such a member or a motivation or suggestion to modify the reactor in such a way. Claims 6-9 depend upon claim 5 and therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights