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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the microwave reflective member of claim 8 and the driving gear and driving motor of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10: “a rotating apparatus including a driving gear coupled to surround the cylindrical rotating tube and a driving motor engaged with the driving gear and configured to rotate the cylindrical rotating tube in a horizontal direction through the driving gear”
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.
With regards to the rotating apparatus of claim 10, the corresponding structure described in the claim is an assembly comprising “a driving gear” and “a driving motor” (claim 10).
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR20220041646A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026, in view of Evans (US4941822A).
Regarding claim 1, Seong teaches
a rotary microwave apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a sintering body (tube module 100);
a microwave-permeable cylindrical rotating tube (tube 110; “tube 110 is made of a ceramic material” [0030]; thus, tube 110 is microwave permeable) located in the sintering body (as shown on fig. 1) and configured to mix a powder raw material while rotating in a horizontal direction (“The tube 110 is made of a ceramic material, and has a hollow cylindrical shape into which a powder-type reaction raw material can be injected” [0030]; “rotates in a horizontal direction to mix” [0005]); and
a microwave generator connected to the sintering body and configured to radiate microwaves to the cylindrical rotating tube (heating element 130; “The heating element 130 is provided between the tube 110 and the heat insulating material 120, and generates heat by a heat source such as microwave to heat the reaction raw material accommodated in the tube 110”) [0051]
Seong does not teach
wherein the cylindrical rotating tube includes a stirring unit provided on an inner circumferential surface in a longitudinal direction, and configured to mix the powder raw material while being rotated by the cylindrical rotating tube
Evans teaches
wherein the cylindrical rotating tube includes a stirring unit provided on an inner circumferential surface in a longitudinal direction, and configured to mix the powder raw material while being rotated by the cylindrical rotating tube (“Located within drum 3 are a plurality of longitudinal baffles 39 having bent ends 40. As drum 3 rotates the baffles 39 tend to engage and lift the sand or particulate material to provide more uniform heating and expose all of the sand grains to the flow of air passing through the drum” [col. 3 lines 58-63])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the longitudinal baffles 39 of Evans to the tube 110 of Seong in order to effectively provide more uniform heating to the material of Seong.
Regarding claim 5, Seong, as modified, does not teach the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the cylindrical rotating tube is provided so that a rotary shaft of the cylindrical rotating tube forms an inclination of 2° to 10° with respect to a lower surface of the sintering body (fig. 3 of Seong; “the hollow may be formed in a structure inclined at an angle of 1° to 10°, preferably 3° to 5°, with respect to the outer wall 114 of the tube” [0037])
Regarding claim 7, Seong, as modified, teaches the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the cylindrical rotating tube is formed of a microwave-permeable material (“tube 110 is made of a ceramic material” [0030 of Seong]; thus, tube 110 is formed of a microwave-permeable material)
Regarding claim 8, Seong, as modified, teaches the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the sintering body includes a microwave reflective member on at least one surface of inner circumferential surfaces (“For example, the tube 110 may be made of high-purity alumina”) [0031]; while alumina is highly microwave transparent, it still reflects small amounts of microwaves and thus reads on a microwave reflective member)
Regarding claim 10, Seong, as modified, does not teach the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the sintering body further includes a rotating apparatus including a driving gear coupled to surround the cylindrical rotating tube and a driving motor engaged with the driving gear and configured to rotate the cylindrical rotating tube in a horizontal direction through the driving gear
Evans teaches
wherein the sintering body further includes a rotating apparatus including a driving gear (sprocket 46, fig. 2) coupled to surround the cylindrical rotating tube (drum 3, fig. 2) and a driving motor engaged with the driving gear and configured to rotate the cylindrical rotating tube in a horizontal direction through the driving gear (motor 50, fig. 2)
Seong teaches “rotates in a horizontal direction to mix” [0005], but does not explicitly teach the structure for rotating the tube module 100. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sprocket 46, gearbox 49 and motor 50 arrangement of Evans to Seong, in order to rotate the tube at a rate to effectively mix the material and “move the particulate material within the drum to the lower or downstream end” [col. 4 lines 11-12 of Evans].
Regarding claim 12, Seong, as modified, teaches the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1,
wherein a plurality of microwave generators are provided on one surface of the sintering body in the longitudinal direction of the cylindrical rotating tube (plurality of heating elements 130 provided on outer surface of tube 110 (and inner surface of insulating material 120), fig. 1 of Seong)
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR20220041646A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026, in view of Evans (US4941822A), in further view of Kim (KR20220041424A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026.
Regarding claim 2, Seong, as modified, teaches the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the stirring unit has a structure protruding toward a center of rotation of the cylindrical rotating tube and includes a plurality of blades provided along a circumference of the inner circumferential surface of the cylindrical rotating tube (as shown on fig. 3 of Evans); and
Seong, as modified, does not teach
the blade is formed of a microwave-permeable material
Kim teaches
the blade is formed of a microwave-permeable material (“The stirring member may include a plurality of lifting blades, and the lifting blades may extend from the tube inner wall to have an angle of 0° to 30° with respect to the normal direction, and are made of a ceramic material”) [0014]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the longitudinal baffles of Evans, as applied to Seong, as a ceramic material as taught in Kim since “when the lifting blade is made of a metal material, it may react with the reacting raw material to corrode or contaminate the raw material” [0058].
Regarding claim 3, Seong, as modified, teaches the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 2,
wherein, in the stirring unit, a ratio (H/ID) of a height (H) of the blade to an inner diameter (ID) of the cylindrical rotating tube is 0.25 to 0.45 (as shown on fig. 3 of Evans, the height of the longitudinal baffles 39 is approximately 1/3 of the inner diameter of drum 3, thus comprising a ratio of approximately 0.33)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR20220041646A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026, in view of Evans (US4941822A) and Kim (KR20220041424A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026, in further view of Fry (WO2023025916A1).
Regarding claim 4, Seong, as modified, does not teach the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 2,
wherein, in the stirring unit, a ratio (H/D50) of a height (H) of the blade to an average particle diameter (D50) of a carbon-based material included in the powder raw material is 1,000 to 10,000
Fry teaches
wherein, in the stirring unit, a ratio (H/D50) of a height (H) (“Typically, such tubes have an average diameter of from 100mm to 1600mm”) [page 11 lines 32-33]; to an average particle diameter (D50) (“the cathode active material may be milled until it has a D50 particle size of at least 3 µm, e.g. at least 5 µm. The cathode active material may be milled until it has a D50 particle size of 20 µm or less” [page 14 line 28]) of a carbon-based material (“Suitably the lithium source comprises one or more lithium compounds selected from lithium carbonate…” [page 7 lines 6-7]) included in the powder raw material is 1,000 to 10,000 (wherein the diameter of the tube is 100mm, and the cathode active material has a D50 particle size of 20 µm, the ratio of the diameter of the tube to the D50 particle size is 5,000)
Seong, as modified, describes the stirring unit as claimed, however does not describe the It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ratio of Fry to Seong, as modified, since “The shape and dimensions of rotary furnace tubes are well known to the skilled person and such parameters are selected according to the required throughput of material and the required residence time of the material in the tube in order to achieve the desired product properties” [page 11 lines 28-31 of Fry].
The combination teaches
wherein, in the stirring unit, a ratio (H/D50) of a height (H) of the blade to an average particle diameter (D50) of a carbon-based material included in the powder raw material is 1,000 to 10,000 (as shown on fig. 3 of Evans, the height of the longitudinal baffles 39 is approximately 1/3 of the inner diameter of drum 3; therefore, if the ratio of the diameter of the tube to the D50 particle size is 5,000, the ratio of the height of the longitudinal baffles to the D50 particle size is approximately 1,667)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR20220041646A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026, in view of Evans (US4941822A), in further view of Foulard (US5160477A).
Regarding claim 6, Seong, as modified, does not teach the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1,
wherein, in the cylindrical rotating tube, a ratio (ID/L) of an inner diameter (ID) to a length (L) is 0.7 to 1.3
Foulard teaches
wherein, in the cylindrical rotating tube, a ratio (ID/L) of an inner diameter (ID) to a length (L) is 0.7 to 1.3 (“the ratio between the length of the cylinder and its diameter is between 1.3 and 1.9” [col. 2 lines 49-50 of Foulard]; therefore, a ratio of 1.3 as taught in Foulard reads on the claimed ratio range)
Seong teaches It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the ratio between the length of the tube 110 and its diameter of Seong between 1.3 and 1.9, as taught in Foulard, in order to effectively “to limit the losses through the walls” [col. 3 line 3 of Foulard].
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR20220041646A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026, in view of Evans (US4941822A), in further view of Kahn (US20070108672A1).
Regarding claim 9, Seong, as modified, does not teach the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sintering body further includes:
a raw material inlet unit configured to allow one end of the cylindrical rotating tube to be rotatably inserted, and provided with a raw material inlet configured to inject the powder raw material into the cylindrical rotating tube; and
a raw material outlet unit configured to allow the other end of the cylindrical rotating tube to be rotatably inserted, and provided with a raw material outlet configured to discharge the powder raw material discharged from the cylindrical rotating tube
Kahn teaches
a raw material inlet unit (feed system 36) configured to allow one end of the cylindrical rotating tube to be rotatably inserted (as shown on fig. 1), and provided with a raw material inlet configured to inject the powder raw material into the cylindrical rotating tube (product inlet end 15); and
a raw material outlet unit (discharge hopper 38) configured to allow the other end of the cylindrical rotating tube to be rotatably inserted (as shown on fig. 1), and provided with a raw material outlet configured to discharge the powder raw material discharged from the cylindrical rotating tube (product discharge end 17)
Seong teaches tube module 100, however does not show the rest of a kiln arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the feed system 36 and discharge hopper 38 of Kahn to the tube module 100 of Seong, in order to effectively allow the system to input and discharge the positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 11, Seong, as modified, does not teach the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sintering body further includes:
a gas inlet unit provided with a gas inlet provided in communication with the cylindrical rotating tube and configured to allow a gas to move; and
a gas outlet unit provided with a gas outlet
Kahn teaches
a gas inlet unit provided with a gas inlet provided in communication with the cylindrical rotating tube and configured to allow a gas to move (gas inlet 25); and
a gas outlet unit provided with a gas outlet (scrubber 66)
Seong teaches “a heating unit for reacting the precursor and lithium raw material by adding heat to the sintering container” [0005]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas inlet 25 and scrubber 66 of Kahn to the tube module 100, in order to “to enhance the reaction thereof” [0080 of Kahn].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR20220041646A), referring to the English translation dated 09/21/2026, in view of Evans (US4941822A), in further view of Jiang (US20200300465A1).
Regarding claim 13, Seong, as modified, does not teach the rotary microwave apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the microwave generator further includes a waveguide configured to guide microwaves radiated from the microwave generator to the cylindrical rotating tube
Jiang teaches
wherein the microwave generator (electric heating device 20) further includes a waveguide (metal waveguide tube 203) configured to guide microwaves radiated from the microwave generator to the cylindrical rotating tube (roller 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the metal waveguide tubes 203 of Jiang between the heating element 130 and interior of tube 110, since “The metal waveguide tube 203 can prevent the microwave from leaking out, and the metal waveguide tube 203 separates the microwave heating device away from the roller wall of the roller 2 , which can prevent the microwave heating device from being damaged by the heating of the roller wall of the roller 2” [0153 of Jiang].
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Oishibashi (US20180352616A1), which teaches a similar rotary microwave apparatus to that claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 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 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights