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 Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “based on each of the measured values of temperature sensor” which should be “based on each of the measured values of the temperature sensor” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “an inside of the drying furnace is heated to 200 to 350°C by operating the heater” which should be “an inside of the drying furnace is heated to 200°C to 350°C by operating the heater.”
Claims 2, 3, and 5-14 are objected to for being dependent from an objected to claim.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “a heating unit including the plurality of plates and provided on the one side of the drying furnace to heat the drying furnace” where the term “on one of the sides” lacks proper antecedent basis. The Examiner is unclear as to which side the Applicant is referring back to. For examination purposes, the phrase “on one of the sides” will be treated as “on a first side”.
Claim 2 recites “the plate is made of any one of aluminum, iron, copper, an alloy thereof, and ceramics.” The introduction of “the plate” as a singular plate lacks proper antecedent basis and the Examiner is unclear if this new plate is part of the plurality of plates introduced in claim 1 or if this plate is a different plate. A review of the specification has shown that the plate of claim 2 is the same/part of the plurality of plates in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “the plate is made of any one of aluminum, iron, copper, an alloy thereof, and ceramics” will be treated as “the plurality of plates [[is]] are made of any one of aluminum, iron, copper, an alloy thereof, and ceramics.”
Claim 3 recites “when the plate is cast, the heater and the temperature sensor are integrally cast.” The introduction of “the plate” as a singular plate lacks proper antecedent basis and the Examiner is unclear if this new plate is part of the plurality of plates introduced in claim 1 or if this plate is a different plate. A review of the specification has shown that the plate of claim 3 is the same/part of the plurality of plates in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “when the plate is cast, the heater and the temperature sensor are integrally cast” will be treated as “when the plurality of plates are [[is]] cast, the heater and the temperature sensor are integrally cast.”
Claim 7 recites “the plate of the first heating unit is 3 to 6 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace.” The introduction of “the plate” as a singular plate lacks proper antecedent basis and the Examiner is unclear if this new plate is part of the plurality of plates introduced in claim 1 or if this plate is a different plate. A review of the specification has shown that the plate of claim 7 is the same/part of the plurality of plates in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “the plate of the first heating unit is 3 to 6 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace” will be treated as “the plurality of plates of the first heating unit is 3 to 6 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace.”
Claim 8 recites “the plate of the second heating unit is 4 to 12 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace.” The introduction of “the plate” as a singular plate lacks proper antecedent basis and the Examiner is unclear if this new plate is part of the plurality of plates introduced in claim 1 or if this plate is a different plate. A review of the specification has shown that the plate of claim 8 is the same/part of the plurality of plates in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “the plate of the second heating unit is 4 to 12 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace” will be treated as “the plurality of plates of the second heating unit is 4 to 12 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace.”
Claim 9 recites “the plate of the third heating unit has a curved rectangular shape and is equally divided along a circumferential direction of the drying furnace.” The introduction of “the plate” as a singular plate lacks proper antecedent basis and the Examiner is unclear if this new plate is part of the plurality of plates introduced in claim 1 or if this plate is a different plate. A review of the specification has shown that the plate of claim 9 is the same/part of the plurality of plates in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “the plate of the third heating unit has a curved rectangular shape and is equally divided along a circumferential direction of the drying furnace” will be treated as “the plurality of plates of the third heating unit has a curved rectangular shape and is equally divided along a circumferential direction of the drying furnace.”
Claim 11 recites “the plate is further provided with a bolt hole for fixing the plate to the drying furnace.” The introduction of “the plate” as a singular plate lacks proper antecedent basis and the Examiner is unclear if this new plate is part of the plurality of plates introduced in claim 1 or if this plate is a different plate. A review of the specification has shown that the plate of claim 11 is the same/part of the plurality of plates in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “the plate is further provided with a bolt hole for fixing the plate to the drying furnace” will be treated as “[[the plate]] each plate of the plurality of plates is further provided with a bolt hole for fixing [[the]] each plate to the drying furnace.”
Claim 12 “wherein an insulating material or floor insulating material is further provided on an outer side of the plate.” The introduction of “the plate” as a singular plate lacks proper antecedent basis and the Examiner is unclear if this new plate is part of the plurality of plates introduced in claim 1 or if this plate is a different plate. A review of the specification has shown that the plate of claim 12 is the same/part of the plurality of plates in claim 1. For examination purposes, the phrase “wherein an insulating material or floor insulating material is further provided on an outer side of the plate” will be treated as “wherein an insulating material or floor insulating material is further provided on an outer side of the plurality of plates.”
Claims 4-6, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 2, 4-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2236406 (Lee hereinafter) in view of US 2006/0096972 (Nakamura hereinafter) and further in view of KR 10-2069468 (Son hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a metal powder drying apparatus that discloses a drying furnace having raw metal powder used in the manufacturing of the secondary battery (“The powder dryer is, for example, a KETTLE dryer for drying the cathode material among the cathode materials and anode materials, which are components of a secondary battery, a KETTLE dryer for drying the precursor used in the production of the cathode material, chemical, bio, pharmaceutical, etc.”) input (Inherent input for the metal powder to be dried) and having an upper portion in a hemispherical dome structure (Figure 1 with upper portion being the domed body); a heating unit provided on the one side of the drying furnace to heat the drying furnace (Heating unit made of 200 as seen in Figures 1-4); a stirring unit installed in the drying furnace and stirring the raw metal powder input into the drying furnace (Stirring unit made of mote 120/shaft 130/impeller 140); a driving unit installed on an upper portion of the metal powder drying apparatus and providing a speed to the stirring unit (Motor 120); wherein the plate includes: a heater provided inside the plate to receive power and generating heat (Heaters 200 as seen in Figure 1 and “the electric heater 200 may be provided on at least one of the top surface, the side surface, and the bottom surface of the powder container 110, for example, as shown in FIG. 1 As shown, it may be provided on all of the top surface, the side surface, and the bottom surface”); and the heating unit includes: a first heating unit at a center of a bottom surface of the drying furnace (Portions of 200 directly below the shaft 130 in Figure 1); a second heating unit along an outer side of the first heating unit at the bottom surface of the drying furnace (Portion of 200 closest to the outer bottom perimeter of the container 110); and a third heating unit including the plurality of plates on an outer side surface of the drying furnace in a circumferential direction (Heaters mounted to the side and upper dome of the container 110).
Lee is silent with respect to the heating unit including the plurality of plates; the first heating unit including the plurality of plates at a center of a bottom surface of the drying furnace; and a second heating unit including the plurality of plates along an outer side of the first heating unit at the bottom surface of the drying furnace.
However, Nakamura teaches a ceramic heater that discloses a heating unit including the plurality of plates (Figure 10B with plates 304a-304g); the first heating unit including the plurality of plates at a center of a bottom surface of the drying furnace (Plates 304a-304c as applied to the furnace of Lee); and a second heating unit including the plurality of plates along an outer side of the first heating unit at the bottom surface of the drying furnace (Plates 304d-304g as applied to the furnace of Lee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heating unit of Lee with the ceramic heater of Nakamura to increase the heating consistency and allow for independent control per ¶ 268-22 of Nakamura.
Lee is silent with respect to an inlet on the side of the drying furnace; a raw material input unit connected to the upper portion of the drying furnace and inputting the raw metal powder into the drying furnace; and a control unit controlling the heating unit, the stirring unit, and the driving unit; a temperature sensor provided inside the plate to measure a temperature of the plate and transmitting a measured value to the control unit, and the control unit controls a heat generation amount of each of the plurality of plates based on each of the measured values of temperature sensor.
However, Son teaches a powder drying apparatus that discloses an inlet on the side of the drying furnace (Figure 1 with input at 100); a raw material input unit connected to the upper portion of the drying furnace and inputting the raw metal powder into the drying furnace (Ra material input form 100/105); and a control unit (Controller 10) controlling the heating unit, the stirring unit, and the driving unit (Figure 5 of Son shows the controller 10 connected to the heater 200, stirring unit 140, and the motor 150); a temperature sensor provided inside the plate to measure a temperature of the plate and transmitting a measured value to the control unit (Sensor 500 “The sensor 500 may be one sensor that measures all of moisture, temperature, and weight, or may be provided as a moisture sensor, a temperature sensor, or a weight sensor”), and the control unit controls a heat generation amount of each of the plurality of plates based on each of the measured values of temperature sensor (Inherent operation of the controller affecting the heating plates of Son as modifying Lee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the KETTLE heater of Lee with the teachings of Son to improve the heating control and general controllable operation of the drying process.
Regarding claim 2, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee and Nakamura would further disclose that the plate is made of any one of aluminum, iron, copper, an alloy thereof, and ceramics (Nakamura discloses that the heating plate 2 is a ceramic plate per ¶ 124).
Regarding claim 4, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee and Son would further disclose that an inside of the drying furnace is heated to 200 to 350°C by operating the heater (Son teaches that the temperature within the drying chamber can be between 250°C and 350°C and this temperature range would be applied to the drying chamber of Lee depending on the material and required dryness).
Regarding claim 5, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the temperatures of the first heating unit and the second heating unit are controlled to be higher than that of the third heating unit.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the temperature of the two lower heating units to be higher than that of the side wall heating units, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 6, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee and Son would further disclose that the driving unit includes a deceleration motor that provides a first speed and a second speed to the stirring unit, and the first speed is 0.5 to 1 rpm (Son states “Here, the first speed is 0.5 to 1 rpm, and is used when drying the moisture contained in the precursor 105 while stirring the precursor 105.”), and the second speed is 2 to 10 rpm (Son states “Here, the second speed is 2 to 10 rpm greater than the first speed, it is used to push the precursor 105 to the outer periphery of the lower portion 113 of the drying furnace to be discharged to the outside”).
Lee is silent with respect to the first speed being between 2 to 5 rpm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the first speed to be between 2-5 rpm, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 8, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee and Nakamura would further disclose that the plate of the second heating unit is 4 to 12 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace (Figure 10B of Nakamura with plates 304d-304g).
Regarding claim 9, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee and Nakamura would further disclose that the plate of the third heating unit has a curved rectangular shape and is equally divided along a circumferential direction of the drying furnace (Lee in Figure 1 shows the heating unit already being curved to adapt to the furnace’s shape and the plates of Nakamura would have to also be curved to adapt to Lee’s furnace).
Regarding claim 10, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 where the combination of Lee and Nakamura would further disclose that the third heating unit includes: a first side heating unit arranged in a circle around the second heating unit and perpendicular to the second heating unit (Combination of Lee and Nakamura where Lee’s third heating unit along the outer walls of the furnace would be perpendicular and encircling the second heating unit of Lee as seen in Figure 1); and a second side heating unit having the same configuration as the first side heating unit and stacked on the first side heating unit (Broadest reasonable interpretation of the heating plates of Figure 10B of Nakamura where they are stacked in a radiating direction towards the third heating unit).
Regarding claim 11, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 where the combination of Lee and Nakamura would further disclose that the plate is further provided with a bolt hole for fixing the plate to the drying furnace (Figure 1 of Nakamura shows the bolts 16 and inherent holes securing the ceramic heating plate 2).
Regarding claim 12, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 where the combination of Lee and Nakamura would further disclose an insulating material or floor insulating material is further provided on an outer side of the plate (¶ 214 with casing 19 of Nakamura).
Regarding claim 13, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 where the combination of Lee and Nakamura would further disclose that the metal powder drying apparatus is a kettle dryer (Lee states “The powder dryer is, for example, a KETTLE dryer for drying the cathode material among the cathode materials and anode materials, which are components of a secondary battery”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2236406 (Lee) in view of KR 10-2069468 (Son) in view of US 2006/0096972 (Nakamura) and further in view of US 2004/0222210 (Lin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect that the plate is cast, the heater and the temperature sensor are integrally cast.
However, Lin teaches a ceramic heater plate that discloses when a plate is cast, a heater and a temperature sensor are integrally cast (¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plates of Lee/Nakamura with the integrated temperature sensor of Lin to allow for each plate to be monitored.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2236406 (Lee) in view of KR 10-2069468 (Son) in view of US 2006/0096972 (Nakamura) and further in view of US 10923369 (Koizumi hereinafter)
Regarding claim 7, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the plate of the first heating unit is 3 to 6 plates equally divided radially from the center of the bottom surface of the drying furnace. Nakamura does show in Figure 10B two central sections 304b and 304c.
Koizumi teaches a heating plate that discloses a heating plate that discloses the use of 3-6 central divided regions (Figure 2 shows splitting the equivalent plates of Nakamura into 3 plates). The resultant combination would utilize three heating plates instead of the 2 taught by Nakamura.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heating plates of Lee/Nakamura with the number of heating plates taught in Koizumi to further expand on the independent control taught by Nakamura for each heating plate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2236406 (Lee) in view of KR 10-2069468 (Son) in view of US 2006/0096972 (Nakamura) and further in view of KR 2021-0109195 (Yoon hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the heating unit further includes at least one of: a shaft heater installed on a stirring shaft of the stirring unit; and a stirring blade heater installed on a stirring blade of the stirring unit.
However, Yoon teaches a powder drying apparatus that discloses a heating unit that further includes at least one of: a shaft heater installed on a stirring shaft of the stirring unit; and a stirring blade heater installed on a stirring blade of the stirring unit (Heating unit 150 on the stirring mechanism in Figures 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying furnace of Lee with the heated stirring mechanism of Yoon to allow for more internal surfaces to supply a drying heat to the powder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights