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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “driving part” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1–3, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seno (JPH08219646 A).
Claim 1: Seno discloses a reaction apparatus (powder heat treatment furnace; FIGS. 1–2) comprising a kiln part (rotary furnace core tube 2) comprising a supply port configured to receive a raw material supplied to one end side thereof (supply port 17 provided at one end of the rotary furnace core tube 2, to which the powder to be heat treated 1 is supplied from a hopper 18 by a feeder 19; [0024], [0027]–[0028]), a discharge port configured to discharge a reaction product to another end side thereof (discharge port 20 provided at the other end of the rotary furnace core tube 2, from which the heat-treated powder is discharged by a feeder 21; [0024], [0029]), and a cylindrical part extending along and rotatable around a central axis thereof (the cylindrical rotary furnace core tube 2, which is rotated at a predetermined rotational speed; [0016], [0018]). Seno further discloses a driving part configured to rotate the kiln part around the central axis; the driving part is interpreted as a motor and transmission part – and the equivalents of. In this case, Seno teaches rotation rollers and a motor, which are substantially equivalent (a rotation drive means 12, comprising support rotation rollers 10a, 10b and a motor 11, that rotates the rotary furnace core tube 2 at a variable speed of, for example, 0.5 to 10 rpm; [0018]) and a heating part configured to heat an outer peripheral part of the kiln part (a heating means 6, comprising a heater 22 disposed around the rotary furnace core tube 2 and a heat insulating material 23 disposed outside thereof, which heats the interior of the tube to a predetermined temperature; [0025]). Seno further discloses that the kiln part is configured so that a received raw material is conveyed to the discharge port along the central axis while being in contact with a baffle plate that passes through a central area of the cylindrical part including the central axis thereof (a partition plate 4, formed with a large number of pores 7, partitions the interior of the rotary furnace core tube 2 into a plurality of regions 3 along the axial direction, and the powder to be heat treated 1 is conveyed toward the discharge port while rotating and flowing and passing through the pores 7 of, and thereby contacting, the partition plate 4; the partition plate 4 spans the full internal cross-section of the tube and thus passes through the central area of the cylindrical part including the central axis; [0016]–[0017], [0028], FIGS. 1–2).
Claim 2: Seno discloses that the partition plate 4 spans the entire internal cross-section of the cylindrical rotary furnace core tube 2 and is joined to the inner wall of the tube about its full circumference ([0016]–[0017], [0019], [0022], FIGS. 1–2). The partition plate 4 therefore forms a baffle plate that extends across the central axis and connects two opposing parts on the inner wall to each other.
Claim 3: Seno discloses that the partition plate 4 occupies the entire internal cross-section of the rotary furnace core tube 2 apart from the pores 7 ([0016]–[0017], [0022], FIGS. 1–2). Accordingly, when the cylindrical part is projected onto a plane perpendicular to the central axis, the partition plate 4 closes an area of one-third or larger of the area inside the cylinder.
Claim 6: Seno discloses that the partition plate 4 is formed with a large number of pores 7 having a size that allows the powder to be heat treated 1 to pass through while not allowing the grinding media 5 to pass through ([0017], [0028], FIG. 2). The partition plate 4 is therefore formed with a plurality of holes each having such a size that the raw material is able to pass therethrough.
Claim 11: Seno discloses that the partition plate 4 is formed of the same material as the furnace core single tube 2a, and that such material is a ceramic that does not react with the powder to be heat treated 1, for example zirconia, magnesia, or alumina ([0020], [0022]). The contact surface of the partition plate 4 that comes into contact with the raw material therefore contains ceramic.
Claim 12: Seno discloses that the constituent material of the furnace core single tube 2a, of which the partition plate 4 is likewise formed ([0022]), is a metal material ([0020]). A partition plate 4 so formed of a metal material includes a member mainly composed of a metal in an inner layer of a contact surface that comes into contact with the raw material.
Claim 14: Seno discloses that the rotary furnace core tube 2 is installed so that its angle of inclination θ from the horizontal is adjustable within a predetermined range by an angle adjustment screw 13, such that the direction in which the cylindrical part extends is inclined from a horizontal direction ([0018], [0030], FIG. 1). Such inclination falls within the claimed range of −90° to +90°.
Claim 20: Seno discloses a reaction product manufacturing method comprising preparing a kiln part including a supply port (supply port 17), a discharge port (discharge port 20), and a cylindrical part rotatable around a central axis (rotary furnace core tube 2) ([0016], [0024]); heating an interior of the kiln part to a predetermined temperature (the interior of the tube 2 is heated by the heating means 6; [0025]); supplying the raw material from the supply port (the mixed powder 1 is supplied from the hopper 18 through the feeder 19 into the rotating tube 2; [0027]–[0028]); rotating the kiln part around the central axis and thereby conveying the raw material along the central axis to the discharge port while keeping the raw material in contact with a baffle plate that passes through a central area of the cylindrical part including the central axis (the powder 1 is uniformly heat treated while rotating and flowing through the tube 2 and passing through the pores 7 of the partition plate 4, which partitions the tube into the regions 3 and spans the full internal cross-section of the tube; [0017], [0028]); and discharging the reaction product from the discharge port (the heat-treated powder is discharged from the discharge port 20 and taken out by the feeder 21; [0029]).
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 1–3, 11-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahashi ’996 (US 9,327,996 B2) in view of Kataoka (US 2013/0174436 A1).
Claim 1: Kawahashi ’996 discloses a reaction apparatus (rotary kiln 10; FIG. 1) comprising a kiln part (furnace core tube 17) comprising a supply port configured to receive a raw material supplied to one end side thereof (powder feeder 11, which is connected to an anterior part of the rotary kiln 10 and from which the precursor is fed to the anterior part; col. 5, lines 4–16), a discharge port configured to discharge a reaction product to another end side thereof (preliminary fired body exhauster 14, set at a posterior part of the rotary kiln 10, from which the fired body is exhausted; col. 5, lines 8–16), and a cylindrical part extending along and rotatable around a central axis thereof (furnace core tube 17, which is rotated during firing; col. 5, lines 40–65). Kawahashi ’996 further discloses a driving part configured to rotate the kiln part around the central axis (the rotary kiln 10 is rotated at a rotating speed; col. 5, lines 22–39) and a heating part configured to heat an outer peripheral part of the kiln part (heater 16, which is set outside of the external cylinder 15 that surrounds the furnace core tube 17, and heats the furnace core tube 17; col. 4, lines 39-64). Kawahashi ’996 further discloses that the kiln part is configured so that a received raw material is conveyed to the discharge port along the central axis while being in contact with a baffle (the rotary kiln 10 inclines so as to come down from an anterior part to a posterior part, whereby the charged precursor moves toward the posterior part during firing while being stirred by stirring blades that erect from the inside wall of the furnace core tube 17; col. 4, lines 65-67 and col. 5, lines 1-16).
Kawahashi ’996 discloses that the stirring blades erect from the inside wall of the furnace core tube 17 (col. 4, ll. 39–64), but does not expressly disclose that the baffle plate passes through a central area of the cylindrical part including the central axis thereof.
Kataoka, in the analogous art of rotary thermal-processing apparatus for particulate material, discloses a rotating shell (10) rotatable about a shaft center (C) that is fed material at one end side and discharges the material at the other end side ([0018–0020] & [0053–0055]), the rotating shell being provided with a plurality of partition walls (16) that extend along the shaft center and connect an inner circumferential wall of the rotating shell to the vicinity of the shaft center, intersecting one another at the shaft center ([0058] & [0063]; FIGS. 3 and 5). Kataoka teaches that arranging the partition walls to extend through and connect at the shaft center distributes the material across the cross-section of the shell, including the central region, thereby increasing the contact area between the material and the heated structure and improving heating uniformity ([0023], [0058], & [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inner-wall baffle of the Kawahashi ’996 rotary kiln to extend from the inner wall of the cylindrical part through the central area including the central axis, in the manner of the partition walls of Kataoka, in order to distribute and agitate the material across the full cross-section of the tube and thereby more uniformly heat the material bed including its central region.
Claim 2: Kataoka discloses that the partition walls (16) connect the inner circumferential face of the rotating shell to the vicinity of the shaft center and intersect one another at the shaft center, such that the partition walls form beams that span the interior of the shell and connect opposing parts of the inner wall to one another ([0058] & [0063]; FIGS. 3 and 5). The combination of Kawahashi ‘996 and Kataoka therefore includes a baffle plate formed as a beam extending across the central axis and connecting two opposing parts on the inner wall to each other.
Claim 3: Kataoka discloses partition walls (16) that intersect at the shaft center and extend across the interior of the rotating shell, spanning the cross-section of the shell ([0058] & [0063]; FIGS. 3 and 5). The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka therefore includes a baffle plate that spans the cross-section of the cylindrical part and, when the cylinder is projected onto a plane perpendicular to the central axis, closes an area of one-third or larger of the area inside the cylinder.
Claim 11: Kawahashi ’996 discloses that the members constituting the kiln that come into the contact with raw material (e.g., the furnace core tube 17), are formed of a material that excellently conducts heat and does not generate a contaminating substance, for example Ni, Ti, stainless, or ceramic (col. 4, lines 39–64). The baffle plate of the combination, being a member of the kiln that comes into contact with the raw material, is likewise formed such that its contact surface that comes into contact with the raw material contains ceramic, as taught by Kawahashi ’996. The selection of a known ceramic material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use of conducting heat to the material without contamination is prima facie obvious, absent a showing of criticality (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 12: Kawahashi ’996 discloses that the material-contacting members of the kiln may be formed of a metal, for example Ni, Ti, or stainless (col. 4, lines 39–64). The baffle plate of the combination, being a member of the kiln that comes into contact with the raw material, accordingly includes a member mainly composed of a metal in an inner layer of a contact surface that comes into contact with the raw material, as taught by Kawahashi ’996.
Claim 13: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka discloses a heating part configured to heat an outer peripheral part of the kiln part (heater 16; col. 4, lines 39–64), and thus discloses every structural limitation of the apparatus. Claim 13 further recites that the heating part is capable of raising the internal temperature of the kiln part from a room temperature to 1,500°C. This recitation concerns the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be operated and does not impose any structural limitation distinguishing the claimed apparatus from the apparatus of the applied combination. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); see MPEP 2114(II). As the applied combination teaches the heating part and all remaining structural limitations of the apparatus, the recited temperature capability does not patentably distinguish the claim.
Claim 14: Kawahashi ’996 discloses that the rotary kiln 10 inclines so as to come down from an anterior part to a posterior part, with an angle of inclination of, for example, 8° to 15° (col. 5, lines 22-39), which is within the claimed range. The direction in which the cylindrical part extends is therefore inclined from a horizontal direction in a range from −90o to +90o.
Claim 15: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka discloses a reaction apparatus. The combination does not expressly disclose a second reaction apparatus connected in series with the first. Providing a second reaction apparatus of the same construction connected in series with the first is a mere duplication of the reaction apparatus (MPEP 2144.04 VI.B). It would have been obvious to connect a first reaction apparatus and a second reaction apparatus in series, in order to subject the material to a plurality of successive reactions or reaction stages, the duplication of the reaction apparatus yielding no more than the predictable result of additional reaction capacity.
Claim 20: Kawahashi ’996 discloses a reaction product manufacturing method comprising preparing a kiln part including a supply port (powder feeder 11), a discharge port (preliminary fired body exhauster 14), and a cylindrical part rotatable around a central axis (furnace core tube 17) (col. 4, lines 39-64); heating an interior of the kiln part to a predetermined temperature (heater 16 heats the furnace core tube 17 to 400° C. to 1200° C.; col. 5, lines 40–44); supplying the raw material from the supply port (the precursor is fed from the powder feeder 11; col. 5, lines 4–16); rotating the kiln part around the central axis and thereby conveying the raw material along the central axis to the discharge port while keeping the raw material in contact with a baffle (the inclined kiln is rotated so that the precursor is conveyed toward the posterior part while being stirred by the blades; col. 4, lines 39-64); and discharging the reaction product from the discharge port (the fired body is exhausted from the exhauster 14; col. 5, lines 8–16). Kawahashi ’996 does not expressly disclose preparing the baffle plate so as to pass through a central area of the cylindrical part including the central axis; however, Kataoka teaches partition walls that extend from the inner wall through and connecting at the shaft center ([0058] & [0063]; FIGS. 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the baffle plate of the Kawahashi ’996 method so as to extend from the inner wall through the central area including the central axis, in the manner of Kataoka, in order to distribute and more uniformly heat the material across the full cross-section of the tube.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahashi ’996 in view of Kataoka, and further in view of Kawahashi ’693 (US 9,221,693 B2).
Claim 4: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka is applied as set forth above. Kawahashi ’693, in the same field of a rotary kiln for firing particulate battery material, discloses a stirring member whose blades (23) have a plurality of convex parts (24) and concave parts (25) alternately formed at an apex thereof, so that material stuck on the inner wall is more thoroughly scraped and stirred (col. 4, lines 31-63; FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of projections on the contact surface of the baffle plate of the combination, corresponding to the convex parts taught by Kawahashi ’693, in order to more thoroughly contact, scrape, and agitate the raw material.
Claim 5: Kawahashi ’693 discloses concave parts (25) formed on the apex of the blade (col. 4, lines 31-63; FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to provide a plurality of recesses on the contact surface of the baffle plate of the combination, corresponding to the concave parts taught by Kawahashi ’693, and to size those recesses larger than a particle diameter of the raw material so that the raw material is caught and retained within the recesses to be contacted and scraped, in order to more thoroughly stir and disperse the raw material.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahashi ’996 in view of Kataoka, and further in view of Duske (US 5,746,006).
Claim 6: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka is applied as set forth above. Duske, in the analogous art of a rotary drum for heat-treating particulate material with inwardly-extending flights, discloses a wall (52) that is perforated with a plurality of holes (54, 56) sized to allow particles of the material to pass through them freely, whereby particles are delayed and dispersed to increase dwell time and contact (col. 3, ll. 26–34; FIGS. 3, 5(a)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the baffle plate of the combination with a plurality of holes each having such a size that the raw material is able to pass therethrough, in order to increase the surface area of the baffle plate and to disperse and increase the dwell time of the raw material.
Claim 7: Duske discloses that the perforated structure retains and disperses material to increase dwell time in a selected region of the drum (col. 3, lines 26–34). It would have been obvious to form the baffle plate of the combination with a greater number of holes in a third area near the discharge port than in a fourth area farther from the discharge port, in order to retain and further react the material in the region near the discharge port where the reaction is more advanced.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahashi ’996 in view of Kataoka, and further in view of Goossen (US 3,443,909).
Claim 8: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka is applied as set forth above. Goossens, in the analogous art of a rotary drum reactor that conveys material through a heated rotating drum, discloses a spiral (3) rigidly connected to the inside of the drum and extending the full length thereof, which forcedly transports the material through the drum ([claim 1]; FIGS. 1 and 2). Goossens further discloses that the spiral, at the level of the inlet and outlet, has a varied pitch within 360°, the pitch of the spiral increasing at the drum inlet and decreasing at the outlet ([claim 4]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the baffle plate of the combination as a plurality of baffle plates arranged in a helical manner on the inner wall of the kiln part, in the manner of the spiral of Goossens, in order to convey the raw material through the kiln part while agitating it.
Claim 9: Goossens discloses that the pitch of the helix is larger near the inlet and smaller near the outlet (col. 3, ll. 12–27; [claim 1]). It would have been obvious to configure the helically-arranged baffle plates of the combination so that a first lead angle in a first area near the supply port is larger than a second lead angle in a second area farther from the supply port, in the manner of the varied pitch taught by Goossens, in order to control the conveyance speed and level of the raw material along the kiln part.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahashi ’996 in view of Kataoka, and further in view of Wilson (US 2,746,170).
Claim 10: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka is applied as set forth above. Wilson, in the analogous art of a rotary drum for heat-treating particulate material with inwardly-extending flights, discloses flights (12) each having an inner trough portion (14) and an outer trough portion (13) through which a heated drying medium circulates, the heated drying medium circulating through the trough portions of the flights and heating the flights, which in turn transfer heat to the material by conduction (col. 3, lines 29–49; col. 4, lines 48-70 & col. 5, lines 1-8). Wilson further discloses that the temperature of the drying medium is controlled by a plurality of heating units (33) arranged in zones along the drum (col. 5, lines 22–46). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the baffle plate of the combination with a circulation path inside thereof through which a fluid whose temperature is controlled by the heating part is circulated, in the manner of the trough portions of the flights of Wilson, in order to transfer heat to the raw material by conduction through the baffle plate in addition to heating from the outer peripheral part of the kiln.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahashi ’996 in view of Kataoka, and further in view of Yamashita (JP 2020-102371 A) and Ube (WO 2017/047755 A1).
Claim 16: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka discloses the reaction apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein Kawahashi ’996 establishes that the reaction apparatus is used to manufacture a battery electrode active material by firing a precursor (col. 4, lines 9–49 – col. 5, lines 1–14). Yamashita, in the analogous art of manufacturing a fired ceramic (solid electrolyte) powder, discloses granulating a raw-material mixture into granules before the firing step in order to obtain fired particles of a desired shape and size ([0068]). Ube, in the analogous art of manufacturing a fired ceramic electrode powder, discloses that granulated powder is fired in a rotary kiln type firing furnace ([0070]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, upstream of the reaction apparatus of the combination, a granulating apparatus that applies pressure to a raw material to form granules, in order to supply the reaction apparatus with granules of a desired shape and size for firing, as taught by Yamashita and Ube.
Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahashi ’996 in view of Kataoka, and further in view of Yamashita (JP 2020-102371 A).
Claims 17–19: The combination of Kawahashi ’996 and Kataoka discloses the reaction apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, which Kawahashi ’996 establishes is used to manufacture a battery electrode active material by firing a precursor (col. 4, lines 9–49 – col. 5, lines 1–14). Yamashita discloses that the fired ceramic material is a solid electrolyte and that the solid electrolyte is formed into a solid electrolyte sheet that is assembled with electrodes to produce a battery ([0048], [0079]). Each of claims 17–19 recites the reaction apparatus of claim 1 in combination with an additional material-processing unit — a kneaded material manufacturing apparatus that mixes, kneads, and continuously extrudes the reaction product with a binder resin, together with a sheet manufacturing apparatus that molds the kneaded material into a sheet (claims 17 and 19); and a laminator that laminates an electrode sheet over the manufactured sheet (claim 18). It would have been obvious to arrange, downstream of the reaction apparatus of the combination, an apparatus that forms the fired reaction product into a sheet and laminates it with an electrode sheet, in order to form the fired solid-electrolyte reaction product into a solid-electrolyte sheet and assemble it with electrodes to produce a battery, as taught by Yamashita.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATEF A SHAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0364. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/ATEF A SHAT/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights