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 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) 1-4, 7, 9-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,968,938 to Gingras (Gingras) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,205,428 to Huang et al (Huang).
Concerning claim 1, Gingras discloses a grinding apparatus comprising:
a rotation member (10); and
wherein the rotation member comprises:
a disk (column 6, lines 18-26) coupled to the driving member;
a first pattern (30) inserted to a set depth on the disk and comprising a plurality of first lines (30) parallel to each other;
a second pattern (50) inserted at a set depth on the disk and comprising a plurality of second lines (140) parallel to each other, the plurality of second lines crossing the plurality of first lines; and
a plurality of grinding portions (40) between the plurality of first lines (30) and the plurality of second lines (140), and protruding toward the fixing member to grind the raw material, and wherein the grinding apparatus is a grinding apparatus for a rechargeable battery material (as it is capable of being used as such).
However, Gingras does not explicitly discuss the structure of the overarching grinding apparatus.
Huang discloses a grinding apparatus comprising:
a body member (E1 in the figure reproduced below) comprising an inlet (112, 140) through which a raw material is introduced;
a fixing member (E2 in the figure reproduced below) inside the body member (E1);
a rotation member (E3 in the figure reproduced below) inside the body member (E1) and spaced from the fixing member (E2); and
a driving member (130) outside of the body member (E1) and configured to rotate the rotation member (E3), wherein the rotation member comprises:
a disk coupled to the driving member (see figure 2);
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. grinding apparatus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the body member at it’s associated structures (i.e. everything but the rotation member). In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple addition of the body structures of Huang to the rotation member of Gingras will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being a grinding device.
Concerning claim 2, Gingras, in view of Huang, discloses the plurality of second lines (140) are positioned to be normal to the plurality of first lines (30).
Concerning claim 3, Gingras, in view of Huang, discloses the plurality of second lines (140) are positioned to be inclined to the plurality of first lines (30).
Concerning claim 4, Huang, as applied to Gingras, discloses
Concerning claim 7, Huang, as applied to Gingras, discloses the fixing member (E2) comprises an opening (E4 in the figure reproduced below) corresponding to the inlet (140) of the body member to allow raw material to pass through.
Concerning claim 9, Huang, as applied to Gingras, discloses the body member (E1) comprises an outlet (114) through which the raw material is discharged.
Concerning claim 10, Huang, as applied to Gingras, discloses the outlet (114) is positioned on a lower side of the body member.
Concerning claim 11, Gingras in view of Huang discloses the rotation member comprises a plurality of grinding regions (50a-50c).
Concerning claim 12, Gingras in view of Huang discloses the plurality of grinding regions (50) are each positioned at a set angle relative to a center of the disk.
Concerning claim 13, Gingras in view of Huang discloses the first pattern (30) in a grinding region from among the plurality of grinding regions is arranged at a set angle to the first pattern (30) in an adjacent grinding region (50).
Concerning claim 14, Gingras in view of Huang discloses the second pattern (140) in a grinding region from among the plurality of grinding regions are arranged at a set angle to the second pattern in an adjacent grinding region.
Concerning claim 15, Gingras, in view of Huang, discloses in figures 1 and 3 the rotation member comprises 6 grinding regions.
Concerning claim 16, Gingras in view of Huang does not disclose that a vertical cross-section of the plurality of grinding portions has a trapezoidal shape.
However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Gingras in view of Huang such that a vertical cross-section of the plurality of grinding portions has a trapezoidal shape as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the trapezoidal shape (see ¶76). Accordingly, such a shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Concerning claim 17, Gingras in view of Huang does not disclose a distance between tops of adjacent grinding portions in the rotation member is in a range of 3 mm to 6 mm. However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Gingras in view of Huang such that a distance between tops of adjacent grinding portions in the rotation member is in a range of 3 mm to 6 mm as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the exact distance. Accordingly, 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. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 19, Huang, as applied to Gingras, discloses the disk of the fixing member (E2) and the rotation member (E3) have corresponding sizes.
Concerning claim 20, Huang, as applied to Gingras, discloses the fixing member (E2) has a disk shape.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras in view of Huang and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0029423 to Sanagi et al (Sanagi).
Concerning claim 4, Gingras in view of Huang does not disclose a cooling unit configured to cool the fixing member.
Sanagi discloses a grinding apparatus comprising disclose a cooling unit configured to cool the fixing member (¶¶53-54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the cooling unit of Sanagi to the device of Gingras in view of Huang because, as disclosed by Sanagi, this cools the intense frictional heat (¶53).
Concerning claim 18, Gingras in view of Huang does not disclose an angle between adjacent grinding portions in the rotation member is in a range of 30 degrees to 50 degrees.
Sanagi discloses a grinding apparatus comprising a rotation member (11) and an angle between adjacent grinding portions (E10-E15 in the figure reproduced below) in the rotation member is in a range of 30 degrees to 50 degrees.
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. grinding apparatus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the rotation member of Gingras such that it had the claimed adjacent grinding portions of Sanagi. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple modification of the body structures of the rotation member of Gingras such that it had the claimed adjacent grinding portions of Sanagi will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being a grinding device.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose “the cooling unit comprises: a heat exchange member installed inside the fixing member and configured to perform heat exchange with the fixing member; and a cooler installed outside of the body member and connected to the heat exchange member” of claim 5 or “the rotation member further comprises a rotation blade installed in a central part of the disk and configured to grind the raw material” of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/Matthew Katcoff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 08/19/2026
Prosecution Insights