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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 28th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 11 have been canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the objections, 112(b) rejections and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 4th, 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.
Claim 12 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least one…spheroidal separators”, and the claim also recites “or two spheroidal separators” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-5, 7-9, 14-16 and 18-20 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 (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-8), of a first fineness class (Paragraph 0071 lines 1-6), which is discharged from the method as end product (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-9),
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 (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-10), 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 (Paragraph 0087 lines 1-3, Table 2, see product yield collected from second outlet in step 3 of more than 50% by weight) of the graphite material placed onto the first spheroidal separator are separated via a separator wheel of the first spheroidal separator (Paragraph 0071 lines 1-6) and can then be placed onto the second separator (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-3), which produces graphite material of a finer fineness class (Paragraph 0076 lines 1-10).
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 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 a separator wheel diameter of the first spheroidal separator is smaller than a separator wheel diameter of the second spheroidal separator downstream in the processing chain and/or that a separator wheel of the first spheroidal separator revolves faster than a separator wheel of the second spheroidal separator downstream therefrom in the processing chain (Table 1 see speed of step (3) faster than speed of step (6)).
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), the different fineness degrees being SPG 18 and SPG 22 (Paragraph 0032 lines 5-6).
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 (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-8), of a first fineness class (Paragraph 0071 lines 1-6), which is discharged from the device as end product (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-9),
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 (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-10), of a second, finer fineness class (Paragraph 0075 line 1-Paragraph 0076 line 8), which is likewise discharged from the device 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 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 a separator wheel diameter of the first spheroidal separator is smaller than a separator wheel diameter of the second spheroidal separator downstream in the processing chain and/or that a separator wheel of the first spheroidal separator revolves faster than a separator wheel of the second spheroidal separator downstream therefrom in the processing chain (Table 1 see speed of step (3) faster than speed of step (6)).
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), the different fineness degrees being SPG 18 and SPG 22 (Paragraph 0032 lines 5-6).
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 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2021/0316994) in view of legal precedent.
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 a separator wheel speed of the first spheroidal separator can be variably controlled in the processing chain during a batch processing (Paragraph 0071 lines 1-6).
Wu (US 2021/0316994) lacks teaching a separator wheel speed of the downstream second spheroidal separator is kept constant throughout a batch processing. Wu (US 2021/0316994) explains that the speed of the classifying impellers of the pulverizers is gradually increased and decreased according to the desired impact force on the graphite particles (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0077 lines 1-6), and in step (6), the speed of the classifying impellers of the pulverizers was decreased one by one in a series of pulverizing units (Paragraph 0077 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu (US 2021/0316994) to include a separator wheel speed of the downstream second spheroidal separator kept constant throughout a batch processing in order to provide a specific desired impact force to the graphite particles during spheroidization, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
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 a 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).
Wu (US 2021/0316994) lacks teaching while a separator wheel speed of the downstream second spheroidal separator is kept constant throughout a batch processing. Wu (US 2021/0316994) explains that the speed of the classifying impellers of the pulverizers is gradually increased and decreased according to the desired impact force on the graphite particles (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0077 lines 1-6), and in step (6), the speed of the classifying impellers of the pulverizers was decreased one by one in a series of pulverizing units (Paragraph 0077 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu (US 2021/0316994) to include a separator wheel speed of the downstream second spheroidal separator kept constant throughout a batch processing in order to provide a specific desired impact force to the graphite particles during spheroidization, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 recites “the quotient of the net volume of a separator chamber and of the paddle surface lies in the range of between 0.5 and 2.0”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 12, was not seen in the searched prior art. The specification has defined the net volume as the total volume of the separator chamber minus the envelope volume of the separator wheel, and states the criticality of the range explaining that the spheroidization can be accelerated in this way because more energy can be placed onto the material to be spheroidized, without having to increase the speed.
Claim 13 recites “the quotient of the net volume of a separator chamber and the envelope volume of a separator wheel lies between 4.2 and 6.5” wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 13, was not seen in the searched prior art. The specification has explained this range allows for a higher loading capacity and simultaneously increases the mobility of the material to be spheroidized in the separator space, which has a positive impact on the folding process and its yield.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Wu (US 2021/0316994) does not disclose spheroidal separators that round graphite particles by impact effect through spheroidization by means of folding, the Examiner would like to clarify the following. Wu states “the pulverizers used in step (1), step (2) and step (3) have the same structure, mainly composed of turbine, main shaft, classifying impeller, screen and other components. The pulverizer is at least one of airflow vortex micro-pulverizer, high-pressure mill micro-pulverizer, rod mechanical micro-pulverizer, impact micro-pulverizer, and pendulum mill, preferably airflow vortex micro-pulverizer.” (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-8) and “The ultrafine pulverizer is at least one of an airflow ultrafine pulverizering classifier, a jet ultrafine pulverizering classifier, a vertical ultrafine pulverizer and a horizontal ultrafine pulverizer, preferably an airflow ultrafine pulverizer.” (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-10). Therefore, Wu teaches the pulverizers including a turbine, main shaft, classifying impeller, screen and other components. Wu further explains that the speed of the classifying impellers of the pulverizers corresponds to the impact force on the graphite particles (Paragraph 0067 line 5-Paragraph 0068 line 8), and explains that as the impact force on the graphite particles is increased, the graphite particles become spherical, oval or potato-shaped (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-10). The instant application describes “folding” as when graphite flakes carried by a carrier gas stream or process gas stream, respectively, are made to collide repeatedly with obstacles, with a kinetic energy, which is selected so that the graphite particles are not crushed, but only folded, thus deformed. Therefore, the impellers of the airflow pulverizers taught by Wu act as separator wheels and impact the graphite particles in order to provide repeated collisions with the particles, thus teaching the spheroidization by means of folding as claimed.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Wu lacks teaching the two-separator architecture in which a first spheroidal separator simultaneously produces a first end product and separates the too-comminuted material that is fed to a second spheroidal separator, the Examiner would like to clarify that the first spheroidal separator is taught by step (3) in Wu, wherein the pulverizer #31 feeds the material to the airflow classifier #22, cyclone collector #12 and dust collector #5 in series (see Fig. 1). The first spheroidal separator produces a first end product discharged from the airflow classifier #22 into the stock bin #2 as a first end product, and separates the too-comminuted material which is fed through cyclone collector #12, dust collector #5, and then into a tailing bin #3 which feeds the second spheroidal separator (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-9). Wu explains that the materials collected in the stock bin #2 are stored for use in the lithium-ion battery production, therefore reciting a finished end product.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Berkan lacks teaching the separated particles placed into the pre-comminution once again for further comminution as claimed, the Examiner would like to clarify that Berkan explains that “classifier” #80 is an air classifier mill (Col. 6 lines 30-48), therefore the impact processor #41 is an upstream pre-comminution device which oversized materials may be directed to for further impact processing.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 12 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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