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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed August 14th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Lee does not recognize any of the issues that the present application addresses, nor suggests rotation of the rotors in the same direction and Lee also contemplates that use of this rotor-rotor type apparatus, where the material moves through in a one-pass manner, provides the desired level of ability to create dispersions in high-viscosity material (see e.g., paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0077]). To modify Lee for application to high-viscosity material in any other manner would destroy this principle of operation of Lee (Remarks, pages 8-9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage (the issues that the present application addresses) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Second, there is no mention of “viscosity” in the claims and it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Third, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lee is directed to a dual-rotor system (Abstract) whose principle of operation is to create dispersions (para. [0001]) such as using homogenization (para. [0021]) and which could be modified or operated such that the rotors spin in the same direction (see new ground of rejection in view of Bachelier et al., US 20010036125, which follows below) to allow for adjustment of the shear (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]) to facilitate using the device for processing of different materials/applications. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1, 4-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodson (US 4889428) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125).
Regarding clam 1, Hodson discloses in a first embodiment, an apparatus for mixing two or more substances (cement and water, col. 1, line 60) into a mixed blend (“rotary mill to colloidalize a premixed mortar in a high energy manner so as to increase the degree of hydration”, abstract) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
935
1445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hodson discloses an apparatus comprising: a first surface (mixing member 18 with surface 68), the first surface having a first profile (Fig. 1, as shown above), a second surface (mixing member 20) spaced apart from the first surface, the second surface having a second profile (shown above),
a mixing gap (shear zone 22) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface, and at least one input channel (inlet region 24) in liquid communication with the mixing gap (Fig. 1), to feed the mixing gap with the two or more substances to be mixed, wherein each of the first surface and the second surface are rotating surfaces (“counterrotating members”, abstract, col. 3, lines 3-5), and wherein the first profile and the second profile are configured to mix and disperse the two or more substances flowing through the mixing gap together using one or more of high shear, cavitation, or impacting forces (“high energy shear”, abstract).
Hodson does not explicitly disclose each rotatable surface is rotatable in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hodson wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device so that each rotating surface may be rotated in the same or different directions in order to achieve variable shear (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Alternatively, in a second embodiment, Hodson also discloses an apparatus for mixing two or more substances into a mixed blend, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
812
957
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hodson discloses the apparatus comprises: a first surface (shearing plate 78), the first surface having a first profile (Fig. 2, shown above), a second surface spaced apart from the first surface (shearing plate 80), the second surface having a second profile (Fig. 2, shown above), a mixing gap (shear zone 22) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface, and at least one input channel (inlet region 24) in liquid communication with the mixing gap, to feed the mixing gap with the two or more substances to be mixed, wherein each of the first surface and the second surface are rotating surfaces (“counterrotating members”, abstract, col. 3, lines 3-5), and wherein the first profile and the second profile are configured to mix and disperse the two or more substances flowing through the mixing gap together using one or more of high shear, cavitation, or impacting forces (“high energy shear”, abstract).
Again, Hodson does not explicitly disclose each rotatable surface is rotatable in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hodson wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device so that each rotating surface may be rotated in the same or different directions in order to achieve variable shear (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Hodson discloses the apparatus further comprises a container (collector casing 12) for receiving the mixed blend from the mixing gap.
Regarding claim 5, Hodson discloses wherein the mixing gap (shear zone 22) includes a narrow portion and a broad portion (Fig. 1, shown above for claim 1), wherein distance between the first surface and the second surface is longer in the broad portion than in the narrow portion.
Regarding claim 6, Hodson discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a driving means (gears 42, 46, and 48) linked to the first surface for rotating the first surface in the predetermined direction (direction A, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hodson discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a driving means (gears 52, 56, and 58) linked to the second surface for rotating the second surface in the predetermined direction (direction B, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Hodson discloses wherein the second surface is coaxial to the first surface (Fig. 2, surfaces share a common axis) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
843
850
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Hodson discloses wherein the second surface is formed in a first plate and the first surface is formed in a second plate, the first plate being along a first plane, the second plate being along a second plane, the first plate opposing the second plate (Fig. 2, as shown above for claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, “it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, Hodson discloses the two or more substances is a liquid and a solid (water and cement, col. 2, line 60), and wherein the mixed blend is a homogenous blend of the solids suspended in the liquid (mixed product, abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Hodson discloses a method of mixing two or more substances (cement and water, col. 2, line 60) into a mixed blend (mixed product, abstract), the method comprising: providing an apparatus according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above), feeding the two or more substances through the input channel (inlet 24), rotating at least one of the first surface or the second surface (counterrotating the surfaces, abstract) while the two or more substances flow through the mixing gap (shear zone 22) thereby mixing the substances, and collecting the mixed blend (at discharge outlet 16, Fig. 1 or Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Hodson discloses a method of mixing two or more substances (cement and water, col. 2, line 60) into a mixed blend (mixed product, abstract), the method comprising passing two or more substances through a gap (shear zone 22) formed by two co-axial surfaces (mixing members 18 and 20 share a common axis as shown below), the two co-axial surfaces having profiles such that the distance between the two co-axial surfaces varies throughout the gap (as indicated by “broad” and “narrow”) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
674
1332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hodson further discloses that each of the two co-axial surfaces are capable of rotating (counterrotating, abstract); rotating each of the two co-axial surfaces (as indicated by arrow A and arrow B in Fig. 1) while the two or more substances pass through the gap thereby mixing the substances, and collecting the mixed blend (mixed product, abstract, at discharge 16).
Hodson does not explicitly disclose rotating each of the two co-axial surfaces in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hodson to include rotating each of the two co-axial surfaces in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rotate the surfaces in the same direction in order to adjust the amount of shear used during mixing (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, Hodson discloses a composition produced by an apparatus according to claim 1 (mixed product, abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Hodson discloses wherein the two or more substances is a liquid (water, col. 2, line 60) and particles (cement, col. 2, line 60) and wherein the composition is a homogenous blend of the particles suspended in the liquid (high degree of hydration, col. 1, line 8).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodson (US 4889428) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Fraser (US 1696083) or Morioka et al. (US 20130264406).
Regarding claims 2-3, Hodson does not disclose wherein the profile of at least one of the first surface and the second surface comprises alternating concave and convex surfaces or per claim 3: the profile of both the first surface and the second surface comprise alternating concave and convex surfaces.
However, Hodson discloses a rotary mill to colloidalize a premixed mortar (abstract) and Fraser discloses a colloid mill (page 1, line 1) with a mixing gap (“space between said discs”, page 1, lines 22-26) where a first surface (member a) and a second surface (member b) are both rotating surfaces (page 1, lines 75-79) and Fraser teaches the profile of the first and the second surface comprises alternating concave and convex surfaces (shown below, “teeth or the like”, page 1, line 49, “corrugations”, page 1, line 91) also see claim interpretation section from Office action dated 20 September 2024) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
783
1328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further, Morioka et al. discloses a dispersion mixer (abstract) having high shearing force (para. [0051]) with a rotating surface and a gap (para. [0048]) and Morioka et al. further teaches that wherein the profile of both the first surface and the second surface comprises alternating concave and convex surfaces (abstract, Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
319
843
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hodson wherein the profile of at least one of the first surface and the second surface comprises alternating concave and convex surfaces and wherein the profile of both the first surface and the second surface comprises alternating concave and convex surfaces.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known surface characteristics for generating high shear (Morioka et al, para. [0051]) or to cause the material to impinge repeatedly to improve mixing (Fraser, page 1, line 94). The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use alternating concave and convex surfaces in order to achieve uniform particle diameter (Morioka et al., para. [0007]).
Claims 1, 5-7, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Claes (previously attached GB 1358157A) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125).
Regarding claim 1, Claes discloses an apparatus for mixing two or more substances (a substance in a liquid, page 1, lines 10-12) into a mixed blend (dispersion, page 1, line 14) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
813
1205
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claes discloses the apparatus comprises a first surface (disc 1), the first surface having a first profile (shown above), a second surface (disc 7) spaced apart from the first surface, the second surface having a second profile (shown above), a mixing gap (shown above) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 1, shown above), and at least one input channel (hollow shafts 4 and 4’) in liquid communication with the mixing gap (Fig. 1), to feed the mixing gap with the two or more substances to be mixed, wherein each of the first surface and the second surface are rotating surfaces (page 3, lines 37-55, as indicated above with rotation “A” and rotation “B”), and wherein the first profile and the second profile are configured to mix and disperse (page 3, line 53) the two or more substances flowing through the mixing gap together using one or more of high shear, cavitation, or impacting forces (shearing forces, page 3, line 50).
Claes does not explicitly disclose each rotatable surface is rotatable in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Claes wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device so that each rotating surface may be rotated in the same or different directions in order to achieve variable shear (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Claes discloses wherein the mixing gap includes a narrow portion and a broad portion (shown above for claim 1), wherein distance between the first surface and the second surface is longer in the broad portion than in the narrow portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Claes discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a driving means (shaft 4) linked to the first surface for rotating the first surface in the predetermined direction (direction A, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Claes discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a driving means (shaft 4’) linked to the second surface for rotating the second surface in the predetermined direction (direction B, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Claes discloses wherein the second surface is coaxial to the first surface (along the axis of shaft 4 and shaft 4’, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Claes discloses wherein the second surface is formed in a first plate (disc 7) and the first surface is formed in a second plate (disc 1), the first plate being along a first plane, the second plate being along a second plane, the first plate opposing the second plate (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
732
1086
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, “it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, Claes discloses the two or more substances is a liquid and a solid (such as water and ethylcellulose, page 4, lines 41-42 or water and polymethylmethacrylate, page 4, lines 76-80), and wherein the mixed blend is a homogenous blend (page 4, line 112) of the solids suspended in the liquid.
Regarding claim 17, Claes discloses a method of mixing two or more substances (a substance in a liquid, page 1, lines 10-12) into a mixed blend (dispersion page 1, line 14), the method comprising: providing an apparatus according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above), feeding the two or more substances (solution of polymer, page 2, line 32) through the input channel (through either hollow shaft 4 or hollow shaft 4’, page 2, lines 30-34), rotating at least one of the first surface or the second surface (both, Fig. 1, rotation “A” and “B”) while the two or more substances flow through the mixing gap thereby mixing the substances, and collecting the mixed blend (at outlets 5 and 6, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Claes discloses a method of mixing two or more substances (a substance in a liquid, page 1, lines 10-12) into a mixed blend (dispersion, page 1, line 14), the method comprising passing two or more substances through a gap (shown above for claim 1) formed by two co-axial surfaces (disc 1 and disc 7 are shown to share the same axis, namely the longitudinal axis of shaft 4 or shaft 4’, Fig. 1), the two co-axial surfaces having profiles such that the distance between the two co-axial surfaces varies throughout the gap (as indicated by “broad” and “narrow”, as shown above for claim 1) each of the two co-axial surfaces being capable of rotating (rotation “A” and “B”, Fig. 1); rotating each of the two co-axial surfaces (as indicated by arrow A and arrow B in Fig. 1) while the two or more substances pass through the gap thereby mixing the substances, and collecting the mixed blend (at outlets 5 and 6, Fig. 1).
Claes does not explicitly disclose rotating each of the two co-axial surfaces in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Claes to include rotating each of the two co-axial surfaces in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rotate the surfaces in the same direction in order to adjust the amount of shear used during mixing (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, Claes discloses a composition produced by an apparatus according to claim 1 (page 4, lines 75-85 and 110-118).
Regarding claim 20, Claes discloses wherein the two or more substances is a liquid (ethanol/water. Page 4, line 41-42, water, page 4, line 80) and particles (polymer, page 4, line 41, page 4, line 76), and wherein the composition is a homogenous blend of the particles suspended in the liquid (page 4, line 112).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claes (previously attached GB 1358157A) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Gallagher (US 20140131487) and Holl (US 5279463).
Regarding claim 4, Claes does not expressly disclose a container.
However, Gallagher discloses an apparatus for mixing having a first surface (stator 20F), a second surface (Rotor 20R) and a mixing gap formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 4) and Gallagher further teaches the apparatus further comprises a container (housing 20H, Fig. 1) for receiving the mixed blend from the mixing gap and Holl discloses an apparatus comprising a first surface (plate 44), a second surface (plate 34) and a mixing gap (flow passage 68) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface and Holl teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a container for receiving the mixed blend from the mixing gap (collection trough 70, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Claes wherein the apparatus further comprises a container for receiving the mixed blend from the mixing gap.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a container for receiving the mixed blend in order to provide for a storage location.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claes (previously attached GB 1358157A) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Holl (US 5279463) or as being unpatentable over Hodson (US 4889428) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Holl (US 5279463).
Regarding claim 9, Hodson does not disclose an ultrasonic or low frequency transducer and Claes does not disclose an ultrasonic or low frequency transducer.
However, Holl discloses the apparatus having a first surface (plate 44), a second surface (plate 34) spaced apart from the first surface, a gap (flow passage 68) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface and Holl teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises an ultrasonic or low frequency transducer (ultrasonic generators 40, col. 12, lines 52-53) connected to one or both of the first surface and the second surface (connected to the second surface, Fig. 3) to apply ultrasonic and/or low frequency vibrations into the substances being mixed at the gap (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disclosure of Hodson or the disclosure of Claes wherein the apparatus further comprises an ultrasonic or low frequency transducer connected to one or both of the first surface and the second surface to apply ultrasonic and/or low frequency vibrations into the substances being mixed at the gap.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an ultrasonic transducer in order to generate mixing eddies and improve mixing and dispersion (Holl, col. 4, lines 29-31).
Claims 1, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler et al. (US 20090225624) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125).
Regarding claim 1, Nadler et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing two or more substances into a mixed blend (to process emulsions and suspensions, para. [0009]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
728
709
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Nadler et al. discloses the apparatus comprises: a first surface (rotor 140), the first surface having a first profile (Fig. 1), a second surface (rotor 130) spaced apart from the first surface, the second surface having a second profile (Fig. 1) a mixing gap (shown above) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface, and at least one input channel (opening in container 110, para. [0050]) in liquid communication with the mixing gap, to feed the mixing gap with the two or more substances to be mixed; wherein each of the first surface and the second surface are rotating surfaces (para. [0053], counterrotating), and wherein the first profile and the second profile are configured to mix and disperse the two or more substances flowing through the mixing gap together using one or more of high shear, cavitation, or impacting forces (shear gap, para. [0021], concentric teeth, para. [0030], Fig. 2, would produce impact forces on the substance being processed).
Nadler et al. does not explicitly disclose each rotatable surface is rotatable in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nadler et al. wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device so that each rotating surface may be rotated in the same or different directions in order to achieve variable shear (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Nadler discloses wherein the first profile of the first surface includes first set of structures (teeth, para. [0030]) that project into the mixing gap and mate with grooves (Fig. 1, shown above for claim 1) formed in the second profile which form interdigitations (teeth, para. [0030]) in the mixing gap (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Nadler discloses wherein the second surface is coaxial to the first surface (Fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler et al. (US 20090225624) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Fabiano et al. (US 4993593).
Regarding claim 8, Nadler et al. does not disclose a heating cartridge, but discloses that some substances may require a heating time (para. [0010]) and Fabiano et al. discloses a device for mixing (col. 1, line 9) a flowable medium such as a liquid (abstract) where a heating cartridge (heating cartridge 72, Fig. 2, col. 8, line 17) is used to heat a rotating surface (blades, col. 3, lines 42-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nadler et al. wherein at least one heating cartridge is connected to one or both of the first surface and second surface.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a heating cartridge when processing substances which require heating (Nadler, para. [0010]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler et al. (US 20090225624) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Irwin (US 2577247).
Regarding claim 13, Nadler et al. does not disclose wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one electrode pair connected to the first surface and the second surface, that generate an electric field between the first surface and the second surface.
However, Irwin discloses an apparatus for mixing two or more substances (oil and water, col. 1, lines 1-5) into a mixed blend (emulsion, col. 1, line 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image10.png
387
741
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Irwin discloses the apparatus comprises: a first surface (rotor 11), the first surface having a first profile (conical, Fig. 1), a second surface (stator 12) spaced apart from the first surface, the second surface having a second profile (conical, Fig. 1), and a mixing gap (passage therebetween, col. 3, line 27) and Irwin teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one electrode pair connected to the first surface and the second surface (col. 3, lines 1-15), that generate an electric field between the first surface and the second surface (col. 3, lines 14-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nadler et al. wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one electrode pair connected to the first surface and the second surface, that generate an electric field between the first surface and the second surface.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include at least one electrode pair in order to electrically charge fluid particles to promote emulsification (Irwin, col. 3, lines 39-41, Nadler et al., para. [0009]).
Claims 1, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170173542) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus for mixing two or more substances into a mixed blend (dispersion-emulsion, abstract) as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
797
1014
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses the apparatus comprises: a first surface (rotor 30), the first surface having a first profile (Fig. 3), a second surface (rotor 30b) spaced apart from the first surface, the second surface having a second profile (Fig. 3) a mixing gap (shown above) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface, and at least one input channel (inlet 31, shown above) in liquid communication with the mixing gap, to feed the mixing gap with the two or more substances to be mixed; wherein each of the first surface and the second surface are rotating surfaces (“the first rotor and the second rotor are driven in reverse rotational states to each other by driving motors”, abstract), and wherein the first profile and the second profile are configured to mix and disperse the two or more substances flowing through the mixing gap together using one or more of high shear, cavitation, or impacting forces (“strong shearing”, para. [0016]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose each rotatable surface is rotatable in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device so that each rotating surface may be rotated in the same or different directions in order to achieve variable shear (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the first profile of the first surface includes a first set of structures (teeth 310, Fig. 3) that project into the mixing gap and mate with grooves formed in the second profile (teeth 320) which form interdigitations (teeth) in the mixing gap (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the second surface is coaxial to the first surface (Fig. 3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170173542) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Schnöring et al. (US 3744763), Badve et al. (previously attached non-patent literature titled “Modeling the shear rate and pressure drop in a hydrodynamic cavitation reactor with experimental validation based on KI decomposition studies”), and Czerwinski et al. (previously attached non-patent literature titled “Gas-Enhanced Ultra-High Shear Mixing: A Concept and Applications”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee does not disclose air injection.
However, Lee discloses generating microcavities to break up particles (para. [0013]) and Schnöring et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing and having a mixing gap (filled with tooth rings 7, Fig. 2) formed from a first and second surface (Fig. 2) and Schnöring et al. also teaches cavitation (col. 2, lines 18-20), Badve et al. teaches a stator and rotor assembly (abstract, Fig. 1) and further teaches that cavitation is the formation, growth and collapse of vaporous cavities in the liquid and typically high energy shock waves are generated due to the implosion of cavities and the energy released is useful to the chemical/physical transformation (page 272, left column), and Czerwinski et al. teaches a high shear rotator-stator system (abstract) and further teaches injecting gases through the high-speed rotor generates highly refined bubbles directly in the shear zone (abstract) and Czerwinski et al. further teaches the gas is air (page 984, right column, first paragraph) as shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
488
632
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee wherein the apparatus further includes air injection lines in communication with the mixing gap to promote cavitation on the substances flowing through the gap.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include air injection lines to generate cavitation nuclei (Czerwinski et al., page 984, right column, fourth paragraph) and thereby enhance mixing capabilities and cause superior refining and homogenizing of the liquids or solid–liquid slurries (Czerwinski et al., abstract).
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomura (US 20150328602) in view of Bachelier et al. (US 20010036125) and Enomura (US 20180056255) hereinafter “Enomura II”.
Regarding claim 1, Enomura discloses an apparatus for mixing two or more substances into a mixed blend (para. [0053]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image13.png
709
680
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Enomura discloses the apparatus comprises: a first surface (screen 23), the first surface having a first profile (Fig. 2), a second surface (blade 22) spaced apart from the first surface, the second surface having a second profile (Fig. 2) a mixing gap (shown above) formed between the first and second profiles of the first surface and the second surface, and at least one input channel (“inlet” shown above) in liquid communication with the mixing gap, to feed the mixing gap with the two or more substances to be mixed; wherein each of the first surface and the second surface are rotating surfaces (“a screen rotates at a high speed in the opposite direction of the rotation direction of the rotating blade“, para. [0003]), and wherein the first profile and the second profile are configured to mix and disperse the two or more substances flowing through the mixing gap together using one or more of high shear, cavitation, or impacting forces (shear force by relative motion, abstract, high-speed rotation, para. [0010]).
Enomura does not explicitly disclose each rotatable surface is rotatable in the same direction.
However, Bachelier et al. discloses an apparatus for mixing (homogenizing substances, para. [0001]) and having two rotating surfaces (rotor 4 and rotating element 6) and Bachelier et al. further teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0008]).
Likewise, Enomura II teaches a similar device having a first surface (screen 9) and a second surface (rotor2/blade 12, Fig. 7) and Enomura II teaches wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction (para. [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Enomura wherein each rotating surface is rotatable in the same direction.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device so that each rotating surface may be rotated in the same or different directions in order to achieve variable shear (Bachelier et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Enomura discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a container (vessel 11, Fig. 5) for receiving the mixed blend from the mixing gap.
Regarding claim 10, Enomura discloses wherein at least one of the first profile or second profile includes an airfoil or hydrofoil profile (stirring blade 22, Fig. 2, shown above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Enomura discloses wherein the second surface is coaxial to the first surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cave (US 10926236) discloses a two-rotor system which has rotors which may be rotated in the same direction (col. 7, line 59).
Lais (US 20090175122A1) discloses a two-rotor system which has rotors which may be rotated in the same direction (para. [0021]).
Reinhall (US 5042726) discloses a two-rotor system which has rotors which may be rotated in the same direction.
Surtees (attached GB 238425A) discloses a two-rotor system which has rotors which may be rotated in the same direction.
Luscher (attached GB 254130A) discloses a two-rotor system which has rotors which may be rotated in the same direction.
Bosch et al. (US 6241472) discloses concave and convex surfaces.
Järvenkylä et al. (US6309574) discloses concave and convex surfaces.
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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/DUANE SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759