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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binley et al. (US 2003/0068409) in view of Potter (US 3,635,444) and Peyton (US 2,669,946):
Regarding claim 1, Binley discloses a variegator comprising a chamber (3,4,5) having a first set of one or more openings (opening of "7" within 3) and a second set of at least two openings (openings of "9" within 3), and one or more conduits (7) suitable for feeding the first set; and at least two conduits (9) suitable for feeding the second set from a conduit opening that is not a required element of the claimed variegator, the second set being below the first set (see Fig. 3); and a static mixer (10) below the second set, said static mixer comprising a series of baffles (see Fig. 3), where the axis of the at least two conduits is disposed perpendicular to the axis of the at least one conduit (see Fig. 3). However, Potter does not disclose the baffles being helical. Potter discloses a series of helical baffles (7) which each divide the mixer into two sections and which divide and recombine material. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized helical baffles such as those taught by Potter, because Binley at [0060] suggests using other conventional baffles. The at least two conduits are not disclosed to branch from a single conduit. Peyton teaches conduits (23) branching from a single conduit (16) in a highly analogous situation. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provide a single conduit form which the at least two conduits branch as taught by Peyton to avoid duplicating upstream feed structure such as pumps thereby saving cost.
Regarding claim 3, Binley discloses two opposed conduits (7).
Regarding claim 4, the axes of the conduits (7) are perpendicular to the axes of conduits (9).
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 3 would have suggested that the openings corresponding to "9" are very close to the upper end of the static mixer top baffle; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have varied the scale of the structure depending upon how much mixed material production capacity is desired.
Regarding claim 17, Fig. 3 would have suggested that the openings corresponding to "9" are very close to the upper end of the static mixer top baffle; it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have varied the scale of the structure depending upon how much mixed material production capacity is desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant correctly points out that Binley does not disclose the claimed conduit that branches into the at least two conduits. However, Peyton (US 2,669,946) is relied upon as teaching this feature.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights