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Claims 1-8 remain withdrawn from examination.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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/7/2025 has been entered.
The claims have not been amended since the Final Rejection of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-11, submitted on 1/6/2026, 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 on 4/7/2025, and in which the Final Rejection Office Action dated 7/7/2025 addressed said claims.
Regarding the 112 rejection and the arguments by the applicants. The arguments by the applicants concerning flat plates are noted, however, plates taught by the Figures include grinder plate of Figure 11, which is unclear if the flat is for only one side or for both sides from other Figures. After reconsideration, the ‘flat’ can be applied to the plate but would not preclude from additional protrusions after reviewing what is taught by the applicants in Figure 11. Whereby, the 112 rejection are now withdrawn but definition of flat plates can include features protruding from the overall surface of said plate.
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 a known venturi type orifice can be substituted with the Greller and similar to the particular direction of Greller, this is also provided with the teaching of Pease of a particular direction. The argument of tapered is noted but unpersuasive as the orifices of Pease are also venturi orifices that can be substitute for that of Greller. The argument of motivation is not persuasive, as this is a substitution for venturi type orifices that one skilled in the art would recognize.
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 then argued about the geometries that the tapered cones are not the same as the sphere into a cylinder. It is noted that combination of the references in the rejection have stated of the substitution between the venturi orifices of Greller and Pease. The applicants have further argued concerning the Pease reference of how it does not teach of the claimed cylinder and sphere. This has been reconsidered but unpersuasive in the argument, as there is a spherical curve in the portion that intersects with a cylinder as shown in the Pease reference. The argument about no dead zones and sphere being uniform is noted as seen in the surface of the Pease teaching wherein, there are not protrusions or other features that would cause an issue. The applicants would need further structural limitations in the claim to differentiate from the teachings of Pease. The argument of spherical type of Pease compared to the claimed sphere is noted but under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed sphere is seen as being encompassed by that of Pease. The claimed structure does not have any further structural limitations to further distinguish from that of the Pease teaching. Particularly after reviewing the teaching of the instant specification is of a spherical hemisphere from the text and Figures and from what is claimed, the claimed structure is still seen as being encompassed by the teaching by Pease. The argument of the structure of Pease of where the venturi occurs are noted, but unpersuasive as the structures still teach what is claimed.
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.
The applicants have argued of spheres and from the structure of Pease, however, as stated by the Examiner of the interpretation of the structures taught, that these would encompass the claimed sphere structure of the orifice, particularly after reviewing the applicant’s teachings in the instant specification and Figures.
After review of the claimed invention and applicant’s arguments, the claims remain rejected. The prior art rejection of claims 9-11 below remain the same as previously presented in the previous Final Office Action of 7/7/2025.
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 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 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 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;
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.
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 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];
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
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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