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 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 7 and 18, “fist spheroidal” should read “first spheroidal”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 6-7, 9 and 11-20 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 2 recites the limitation "the separator wheel thereof". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the separator wheel speed". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the separator wheel diameter" and "the separator wheel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the separator wheel speed". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the paddle surfaces" and "the separator chamber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the separator chamber" and "the separator wheel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the method". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 6, 11, 12 and 17 the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 9 and 20 the phrase "ideally" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 is identical to claim 6, and therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2021/0316994).
Regarding claim 1, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches a method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-7),
with the help of several spheroidal separators (Paragraph 0063 lines 1-13, Paragraph 0065 lines 1-15), which are connected in series (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-9),
characterized in that
the graphite material to be rounded is pre-comminuted (Paragraph 0067 lines 1-8),
and from this, a first spheroidal separator then produces graphite material, which is spheroidized by means of folding, of a first fineness class (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8), which is discharged from the method as end product (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-11),
and simultaneously separates graphite material, which can predominantly not be processed to graphite material of this first fineness class because it is too comminuted (Paragraph 0072 lines 1-20),
wherein the separated graphite material, which is too comminuted, is fed to a second spheroidal separator (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-7), which, from this, can produce graphite material, which is spheroidized by means of folding, of a second, finer fineness class (Paragraph 0075 line 1-Paragraph 0076 line 8), which is likewise discharged from the method as end product (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-19).
Regarding claim 2, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the intensity, with which pre-grinding or pre-comminuting takes place (Paragraph 0067 lines 1-8), is set so that more than 50% by weight of the graphite material placed onto the first spheroidal separator are separated via the separator wheel thereof and can then be placed onto the second separator, which produces graphite material of a finer fineness class (Paragraph 0088 lines 1-3, Table 3, see product yield from second separator of more than 50% by weight).
Regarding claim 3, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that two spheroidal separators are connected in series (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-9), each of which produces an end product (Fig. 1 end product in #2, end product in #4).
Regarding claim 4, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the fine material, which is separated by the first spheroidal separator, is placed onto the second spheroidal separator, without separating and/or filtering it once again outside of the first spheroidal separator (Paragraph 0064 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 5, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the product, which the second spheroidal separator downstream in the processing chain produces by means of rounding (Fig. 1 product in #4), is a graphite material (Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3), which is finer by several fineness classes than the graphite material of the product, which the first spheroidal separator produces by means of rounding (Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3 “3-12 micrometers” several fineness classes finer than “13-25 micrometers” in Paragraph 0032 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 6, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the separator wheel speed of the first spheroidal separator can be variably controlled in the processing chain during a batch processing (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8), while the separator wheel speed of the downstream second spheroidal separator is preferably kept constant throughout a batch processing.
Regarding claim 7, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the separator wheel diameter of the fist spheroidal separator is smaller than the separator wheel diameter of the second spheroidal separator downstream in the processing chain and/or that the separator wheel of the first spheroidal separator revolves faster than the separator wheel of the second spheroidal separator downstream therefrom in the processing chain (Table 1 see speed of “secondary pulverization” 2500-4000 rpm faster than speed of “ultrafine primary pulverization” 800-1600 rpm and “ultrafine secondary pulverization” 1000-2000 rpm).
Regarding claim 8, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the first spheroidal separator of the pre-comminuted raw graphite is acted on (Paragraph 0020 lines 1-4, “20-30 micrometers”), the d50 of which is set to be 10% to 30% higher than the d50 of the coarsest fineness class, which the first spheroidal separator is to produce as product (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-4, “13-25 micrometers”).
Regarding claim 9, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the first spheroidal separator is operated so that its target product can be divided into two ready-to-use graphite quantities, which consist of graphite material of different fineness degrees (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-12), ideally SPG 18 and SPG 22.
Regarding claim 11, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the separator wheel speed of the first spheroidal separator can be variably controlled in the processing chain during a batch processing (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8), while the separator wheel speed of the downstream second spheroidal separator is preferably kept constant throughout a batch processing.
Regarding claim 14, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches a device of several spheroidal separators for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-7),
with the help of several spheroidal separators (Paragraph 0063 lines 1-13, Paragraph 0065 lines 1-15), which are connected in series (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-9),
wherein
the graphite material to be rounded is pre-comminuted (Paragraph 0067 lines 1-8),
and from this, a first spheroidal separator then produces graphite material, which is spheroidized by means of folding, of a first fineness class (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8), which is discharged from the method as end product (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-11),
and simultaneously separates graphite material, which can predominantly not be processed to graphite material of this first fineness class because it is too comminuted (Paragraph 0072 lines 1-20),
wherein the separated graphite material, which is too comminuted, is fed to a second spheroidal separator (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-7), which, from this, can produce graphite material, which is spheroidized by means of folding, of a second, finer fineness class (Paragraph 0075 line 1-Paragraph 0076 line 8), which is likewise discharged from the method as end product (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-19).
Regarding claim 15, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 2, characterized in that the fine material, which is separated by the first spheroidal separator, is placed onto the second spheroidal separator, without separating and/or filtering it once again outside of the first spheroidal separator (Paragraph 0064 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 16, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 2, characterized in that the product, which the second spheroidal separator downstream in the processing chain produces by means of rounding (Fig. 1 product in #4), is a graphite material (Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3), which is finer by several fineness classes than the graphite material of the product, which the first spheroidal separator produces by means of rounding (Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3 “3-12 micrometers” several fineness classes finer than “13-25 micrometers” in Paragraph 0032 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 17, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 2, characterized in that the separator wheel speed of the first spheroidal separator can be variably controlled in the processing chain during a batch processing (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8), while the separator wheel speed of the downstream second spheroidal separator is preferably kept constant throughout a batch processing.
Regarding claim 18, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 2, characterized in that the separator wheel diameter of the fist spheroidal separator is smaller than the separator wheel diameter of the second spheroidal separator downstream in the processing chain and/or that the separator wheel of the first spheroidal separator revolves faster than the separator wheel of the second spheroidal separator downstream therefrom in the processing chain (Table 1 see speed of “secondary pulverization” 2500-4000 rpm faster than speed of “ultrafine primary pulverization” 800-1600 rpm and “ultrafine secondary pulverization” 1000-2000 rpm).
Regarding claim 19, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 2, characterized in that the first spheroidal separator of the pre-comminuted raw graphite is acted on (Paragraph 0020 lines 1-4, “20-30 micrometers”), the d50 of which is set to be 10% to 30% higher than the d50 of the coarsest fineness class, which the first spheroidal separator is to produce as product (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-4, “13-25 micrometers”).
Regarding claim 20, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 2, characterized in that the first spheroidal separator is operated so that its target product can be divided into two ready-to-use graphite quantities, which consist of graphite material of different fineness degrees (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-12), ideally SPG 18 and SPG 22.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2021/0316994) in view of Berkan et al. (US 11000857).
Regarding claim 10, Wu (US 2021/0316994) lacks teaching the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that the first spheroidal separator is operated so that in addition to graphite material of the fineness class to be produced, its product also includes graphite particles, which are separated via an additional separator and which are then placed onto the pre-comminution once again, for further comminution and placement onto the first spheroidal separator again.
Berkan et al. (US 11000857) teaches a method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect (Col. 1 lines 16-31), characterized in that the first spheroidal separator (Fig. 9 #80) is operated so that in addition to graphite material of the fineness class to be produced, its product also includes graphite particles, which are separated via an additional separator (Fig. 9 #70) and which are then placed onto the pre-comminution once again (Fig. 9 #41), for further comminution and placement onto the first spheroidal separator again (Col. 15 lines 47-55).
Berkan et al. (US 11000857) explains that a valve can be used to remove larger and geometrically asymmetric particles and return these particles to the impact processor for a further round of impact processing (Col. 15 lines 47-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu (US 2021/0316994) to include the first spheroidal separator is operated so that in addition to graphite material of the fineness class to be produced, its product also includes graphite particles, which are separated via an additional separator and which are then placed onto the pre-comminution once again, for further comminution and placement onto the first spheroidal separator again as taught by Berkan et al. (US 11000857) in order to remove graphite particles which are too large or asymmetric for another round of processing.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2021/0316994) in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 12, Wu (US 2021/0316994) lacks teaching the method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one, preferably two spheroidal separators are used, the paddle surfaces of which are enlarged in such a way that the quotient of the net volume of the separator chamber and of the paddle surface lies in the range of between 0.5 and 2.0.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, it is the position of the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art would select a quotient of the net volume of the separator chamber and of the paddle surface sufficient to perform the desired function of producing spherical graphite which meets the needs of the lithium battery industry.
Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Regarding claim 13, Wu (US 2021/0316994) teaches a method for producing graphite particles of certain, different fineness classes rounded by impact effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-7) with the help of several spheroidal separators (Paragraph 0063 lines 1-13, Paragraph 0065 lines 1-15), which are connected in series (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-9), wherein
the graphite material to be rounded is pre-comminuted (Paragraph 0067 lines 1-8),
and from this, a first spheroidal separator then produces graphite material, which is spheroidized by means of folding, of a first fineness class (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8), which is discharged from the method as end product (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-11),
and simultaneously separates graphite material, which can predominantly not be processed to graphite material of this first fineness class because it is too comminuted (Paragraph 0072 lines 1-20),
wherein the separated graphite material, which is too comminuted, is fed to a second spheroidal separator (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-7), which, from this, can produce graphite material, which is spheroidized by means of folding, of a second, finer fineness class (Paragraph 0075 line 1-Paragraph 0076 line 8), which is likewise discharged from the method as end product (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-19).
Wu (US 2021/0316994)lacks teaching wherein the quotient of the net volume of the separator chamber and the envelope volume of the separator wheel lies between 4.2 and 6.5.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, it is the position of the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art would select a quotient of the net volume of the separator chamber and the envelope volume of the separator wheel sufficient to perform the desired function of producing spherical graphite which meets the needs of the lithium battery industry.
Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe (JP 2018143947) teaches a powder processing device and powder processing method which teaches the change in yield based on changes in dimensions of the impact surface of the hammers and the volume of the liner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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 at (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 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights