DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-8 remain withdrawn from examination.
Claims 9-11 have been examined.
Claims have not been amended in the latest response.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-11, submitted on 7/8/2026, have been considered but are not persuasive, in which the arguments are over the rejection of the claims based upon the Greller reference in view of Pease. The claims are the same as previously presented since 4/7/2025, and in which the Final Rejection Office Action dated 1/6/2026 addressed said claims.
It is noted that the examined claims are directed to apparatus claims, as seen to the claimed device.
The arguments by the applicants concern the combination of Greller with Pease, the claimed geometry, and of the ratios.
The argument by the applicants that the rejection does not provide for the claimed ratio. In the claimed structure, it is only stated a ratio is provided that would create a venturi effect. No other provision is provided of the particular ratio, and wherein, the teachings by the references as any arrangement that causes a venturi would suffice and thus the teaching of Pease would also inherently teach this arrangement.
Regarding claim 9, the applicants have consistently argued based upon piecemeal analysis of the Greller and Pease references and further argued the motivation of the combining Pease and Greller. The analysis of Greller is noted that the tapered cones that are taught as venturi nozzles, see [0002, 0018, 0024] of Greller that are set upon a plate, with the tapering that are upward or downward, which is of a particular direction. Wherein, the teaching of Pease of known and different shaped venturi type orifices, and these can be used as known alternate designs for the venturi orifice in Greller. The applicants argument concerning the reason for such combination is noted but this is under KSR rationale with the regarding substitution of the orifice design.
The argument of hydroponics and vibrational mixers are noted but unpersuasive as it is related for fluid flow concepts. The claimed structure is not limited to a particular area and wherein, the concepts of venturi and fluid flow are applicable to both the vibrational mixers and hydroponics. Whereby, one of ordinary skill in the art would not disregard the basics of fluid flow dynamics and concepts in the respective areas. Hence, the arguments by the applicants have been considered but unpersuasive.
The applicants have further argued concerning the Pease reference of how it does not teach of the claimed cylinder and sphere. Wherein, the argument of the concave shape that does not teach of the spherical shape. In review of the Pease teaching and in particular of the different orifice shape teachings that include both concave shapes and spherical shapes. The arguments concerning Figures 11a and 12a are noted, in particular the teaching of the spherical features for the mixing. However, there includes the spherical portion initially that allows for forming venturi, see 8, and thereby, the spherical shaping is known in Pease also for forming a venturi. This would be applicable to the concave teaching of Figure 11a of Pease as the such spherical shapes would also contribute to the venturi effect.
Claims 10 remain rejected as the applicants rests the arguments upon what was mentioned for claim 9.
Claim 11 remains rejected as also for the same reasons stated above.
After review of the claimed invention and applicant’s arguments, the claims remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greller (US2009/0275121) in view of Pease (US 2012/0324789).
In regards to claim 9, Greller teaches of a device (see plate 9) comprising a multiplicity of unattached orifices (see teaching of holes 10 of venturi nozzles orifice) within a plate (mixer plate 9, see teaching of openings (venturi nozzles) in the mixer plates, see [0018], see also teaching of flat mixer plate 9 with the holes 10 in the form of venturi nozzle, see [0024]).
The Greller reference does not teach of the particular orifice features.
Furthermore, in an analogous prior art regarding the use of venturi orifices used in the flow of materials, the Pease reference teaches of a variety of venturi surfaces as seen in Figs. 11a-12d, see [0061]-[0063], and specifically of the teaching of a smooth venturi surface, see Fig. 11a, that includes the housing 8 with the antechamber housing 6, here corresponds to a spherical type portion, the contraction intersects a cylinder passage portion which results in the formation of the venturi effect, see in particular Figs. 11a and 12a.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the orifices of Greller with the substitution of venturi orifice taught by Pease in providing known alternate configurations, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as this is a substitution of one known element (venturi orifices of Greller) for another (the venturi orifice from Pease) to obtain predictable results.
In regards to the claimed structure of “flat plate”, it is noted that the Greller reference teaches of a flat plate 9, that is flat and further contains the venturi structures, see Figs. 1 and 2.
In regards to the interpretation of the claimed sphere, this is a broad interpretation as it is unclear as to the extent of the required spherical shape is to be defined in the claimed invention. In this regard, the curved surface being of a concave portion as seen in Figs. 10a, 11a being also of portions that is considered encompassing the sphere shape, particularly the bottom half formed.
Furthermore, Pease also specifically teaches of spherical chambers are taught in [0063] and in Fig. 12a, and see similar structure in Fig. 11a, see curved surface which corresponds to the claimed concave portion:
PNG
media_image1.png
528
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said sphere having no static or dead zones, and pressure inside is uniform in all directions (see teaching in Pease of the one embodiment in [0066] of the smooth portion, and 11a, teaches of the venturi surface that is smooth and largely featureless, see also [0126]), see also [0103], wherein furthermore in Fig. 12a, the spherical chamber allow for expansion and contraction in the stream, wherein the spherical chamber acts as a venturi, see [0132], further the sphere taught in Pease having only an opening at the “top” portion and an opening at the “bottom” portion as the flow travels through the sphere, see Fig. 12a, and in which Figure 12a also designates 8, which is the venturi [0233];
wherein the orifice consisting of a sphere intersecting a contracted portion, which results in product acceleration of a product passing through said orifice with a corresponding pressure drop through said orifice (see structure as seen in Fig. 11a);
each of said orifices having a single opening on top of said sphere, solid side wails leading to said intersection and a single opening on bottom of said cylinder (see spherical orifice of Pease in Fig. 11a and 12a);
wherein said sphere is a constriction from a fixed point where a distance of said constriction is equidistant from said fixed point (see teaching of Pease, Fig. 10a, 11a, and 12a, [0132]).
In this regard, the Pease reference teaches of different embodiments of the concave surfaces that pertain to the claimed sphere that is formed along with the contraction portion, as seen in Figs. 11a and 12a, and further the contraction surface of the venturi that contracts to a cylinder portion, as seen in Fig. 10a and 11a.
The feature in Fig. 11a being seen as a portion of a sphere that intersects a cylinder, while in Fig. 12a, teaches of a plurality of spheres each intersecting contracted portion that is associated with the claimed cylinder, the claimed structure of a sphere with associated cylinder feature as venturi orifices, wherein the structures can be incorporated into the Greller reference.
In regards to “wherein ratio of diameter of said sphere and diameter of said cylinder create a venturi effect on product as it passes through said at least one of said orifices”, Pease already teaches of a venturi effect through the venturi throat 7, see [0050], and in Figs. 10a, 11a, and 12a. Whereby the teaching of Pease would encompass the currently claimed ratio, as what is taught in Pease would also be sufficient in forming the venturi effect.
In regards “said sphere having no static or dead zones, and pressure inside said sphere is uniform in all directions”, see teaching of sphere by Pease, this would infer pressure being uniform in all directions due to the spherical shape.
In regards to “said sphere is a constriction from a fixed point where a distance of said constriction is equidistant from said fixed point”, see sphere taught by Pease, the constriction would be equidistant due to the shape of the sphere.
In regards to claim 10 (dependent upon claim 9), wherein said orifices change size from a larger to a smaller cross-sectional area with vertical or concave sides, see teaching in Pease of the orifices that would change in cross sectional area due to the concave sides (as these are forming the constriction area towards the venturi throat 7.
In regards to claim 11 (the claimed invention encompasses similarly with that in claim 9 above), Greller teaches of a device (mixer plate 9) comprising a multiplicity of orifices which creates a venturi (see holes 10) (see Figs. 1-2, [0018, 0024]);
said multiplicity of orifices being within a flat plate (see flat mixer plate 9, [0024].
each of said orifices being side by side, said orifices not connected to each other
(see teaching of holes 10 and Figs 1-2);
The Greller reference does not teach of the particular orifice features.
However, in an analogous prior art regarding the use of venturi orifices used in the flow of materials, the Pease reference teaches of a variety of venturi surfaces as seen in Figs. 11a-12d, see [0061]-[0063], and includes teaching of a smooth venturi surface, see Fig. 11a, that includes the housing 8 with the antechamber housing 6, here, the contraction intersects a cylinder portion (see venturi throat 7, see Figs. 10a, 11a, 12a) which results in the formation of the venturi effect, see in particular Figs. 11a and 12a.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the orifices of Greller with the substitution of venturi orifice taught by Pease in providing known alternate configurations, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as this is a substitution of one known element (venturi orifices of Greller) for another (the venturi orifice from Pease) to obtain predictable results.
In regards to the claimed structure of “flat plate”, it is noted that the Greller teaches of a flat plate, see [0024] and Figs. 1-2.
In regards to the interpretation of the claimed sphere, this is a broad interpretation as it is unclear as to the extent of the required spherical shape is to be defined in the claimed invention. In this regards, the curved surface being of a concave portion as seen in Figs. 10a, 11a being also of portions that is considered encompassing the sphere shape, particularly the bottom half formed.
Furthermore, Pease also specifically teaches of spherical chambers are taught in [0063] and in Fig. 12a, and similar structure in Fig. 11a, see curved surface which corresponds to the claimed concave portion:
PNG
media_image1.png
528
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said sphere having no static or dead zones, and pressure inside is uniform in all directions (see teaching in [0066] of the smooth portion, Fig. 11a, teaches of the venturi surface that is smooth and largely featureless, see also [0126]), see also [0103], wherein in Fig. 12a, the spherical chamber allows for expansion and contraction in the stream, wherein the spherical chamber acts as a venturi, see [0132], and in which Figure 12a also designates 8, which is the venturi [0233];
wherein the orifice consisting of a sphere intersecting a contracted portion, which results in product acceleration of a product passing through said orifice with a corresponding pressure drop through said orifice (see the structure of Fig. 11a);
each of said orifices having a single opening on top of said sphere, solid side wails leading to said intersection and a single opening on bottom of said cylinder (see spherical orifice of Pease in Figs 10a and 11a);
wherein said sphere is a constriction from a fixed point where a distance of said constriction is equidistant from said fixed point (see teaching of Pease, particularly of the shape of the sphere, Fig. 12a, [0132], and further, see also teaching of the structure in Fig. 11a).
In this regard, the Pease reference teaches of different embodiments of the concave surfaces that pertain to the claimed sphere that is formed along with the contraction portion, as seen in Figs. 11a, and further the contraction surface of the venturi that contracts to a cylinder portion, as seen in Fig. 11a.
The feature in Fig. 11a being seen as a portion of a sphere that intersects a cylinder, while in Fig. 12a, teaches of a plurality of spheres each intersecting contracted portion that is associated with the claimed cylinder, the claimed structure of a sphere with associated cylinder feature as venturi orifices, wherein the structures can be incorporated into the Greller reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights