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The objections to claims 25-26 and 43 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 50 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that for Schryver et al., the Office action identifies random locations in the marked-up image as “ends” and Schryver et al. clearly shows the tube is a continuous section (Remarks, page 11-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). In this case, nothing in claim 41 precludes the tube and mixer portion from being a continuous mixer device. That sections of tubing are molded to the mixer portion does not, in and of itself, provide recited structure to distinguish a continuous inline mixer device from a discontinuous one (as the Applicant appears to be arguing), as molding the structure piecewise could result in a unitary structure indistinguishable from a unitary structure molded as a single piece. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. It is also noted that the Applicant’s specification discloses that molding the different sections could occur by simultaneous molding (see Applicant’s specification, pars. [0032], [0098], [0113], [0152]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Grout discloses multiple separately formed helical elements that would teach away from the claimed invention (Remarks, page 12). However, it is unclear how this would teach away from the claimed invention as Grout discloses an inline mixer (Abstract, Fig. 5) comprises molded (col. 5, line 25) helical elements (claim 1, Fig. 6) the claims do not preclude helical elements and the instant application also discloses an inline mixer (Abstract) with molded helical elements (Fig. 1). Also, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Grout is relied upon to teach an inline mixer constructed by molding or an inline mixer constructed of multiple separately molded units whereas other references are relied upon to teach specific structure of mixing elements (e.g. Schryver et al.) or molding components together (e.g. Warburton-Pitt et al.). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schryver et al. discloses molding an entire continuous mixer without any preformed tube elements. Any modification of Schryver et al. would change the principle of operation of Schryver et al. (Remarks, page 12). While this argument was in regard to claim 8 which has been cancelled, aspects of this argument may be applicable to the new grounds of rejection below. It is noted that claim 8 was an apparatus claim. Schryver et al. discloses structure broadly meeting the limitation “preformed tube elements” (at lumens 14 and 15, Fig. 1, the entire device, including ends/tube portions, being pre-formed). Again, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. The principle of operation of the device disclosed by Schryver et al. is mixing fluids using an inline mixer (pars. [0003] and [0010]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Schryver et al. does not disclose any molded-in-place component which is molded to a preformed section of tubing and none of the portions of Schryver et al. are molded to a preformed portion and Schryver et al. discloses extrusion and extrusion and molding are incompatible (Remarks, page 14).
However, 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, Schryver et al. teaches molding is suitable for shorter mixing tubes (para. [0009]) and Grout teaches forming an inline mixer using molding (Grout, col. 5, lines 30-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to form a short mixing section, such as that shown by Schryver et al. (Fig. 1) using molding.
It is noted that claim 51 states that the mixer portion is “molded within the at least one preformed section of tubing” and does expressly specify an order of molding. Molding the different sections could occur by simultaneous molding (see Applicant’s specification, pars. [0032], [0098], [0113], [0152]). Moreover, claim 51 is not a method claim and again: product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Claim 51 also recites “a mixer portion integrally connected to the tube portion” and it is deemed that the device of Schryver et al. meets the claimed structure, especially when modified by molding the mixer as taught by Grout (Grout, col. 5, lines 30-35) and as suggested by Schryver et al. for mixers having shorter length (para. [0009]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 41-43, 45, 47 and 49 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 41-43, 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuya (previously attached JP 2005305219A) in view of Schryver et al. (US 20060051448), Grout (US 3860217) and Warburton-Pitt et al. (US 6290265).
Regarding claim 41, Katsuya discloses an inline mixer device shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
406
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Katsuya discloses an inline mixer includes a first length of preformed tube having a first end (the left end of holder 18 shown above, the tube is preformed in that it must be formed by some process prior to being assembled as shown above); a second length of preformed tube having a first end (the right end of holder 18, shown above); and a mixer portion (tubular body 16) mechanically connecting and fluidly communicating the first end of the first length of tube to the first end of the second length of tube.
Katsuya discloses the mixer portion is flexible (elastic, para. [0009]) and formed by molding (para. [0047]), but Katsuya does not teach the first and second lengths are flexible.
However, Schryver et al. discloses an inline mixer device shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
434
909
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schryver et al. teaches an inline mixer device comprises a first length of flexible tube (flexible mixing tube, Abstract) having a first end (shown above);a second length of flexible tube having a first end (shown above) and a mixer portion mechanically connecting and fluidly communicating the first end of the first length of flexible tube to the first end of the second length of flexible tube (shown above for claim 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 Katsuya wherein the inline mixer device comprises a first length of preformed flexible tube having a first end; a second length of preformed flexible tube having a first end; and the mixer portion mechanically connecting and fluidly communicating the first end of the first length of preformed flexible tube to the first end of the second length of preformed flexible tube.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include flexible first and second lengths on each side of the mixer portion in order to provide for smooth connecters (Schryver et al., lumen 14 and 15) to allow for connecting to standard tubing connectors of fluid manifolds (Schryver et al., para. [0018]).
Insomuch as the above-cited references do not disclose the mixer portion is molded to the first and second lengths of preformed flexible tube; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. It is deemed that Katsuya et al. in view of Schryver et al. discloses the recited structure (Katsuya, elastic, para. [0009], and molded, para. [0046], Schryver et al., flexible material for looping, para. [0009]) in that molding the structure piecewise would result in a unitary structure indistinguishable from a unitary structure molded as a single piece. It is also noted that the Applicant’s specification seems to imply that such a step could occur by simultaneous molding (see Applicant’s specification, pars. [0032], [0098], [0113], [0152]).
Otherwise, Grout teaches an inline mixer wherein the mixer may comprise a plurality of units (Grout, col. 3, lines 10-11) wherein the units (Grout, units 18, col. 5, lines 8-9, Fig. 11) are formed by molding (Grout, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Further, Warburton-Pitt et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting tubing and Warburton-Pitt et al. teaches connecting a first section (tube 18, Fig. 5), a second section (connection 12/14, Fig. 5), and a third section (tube 20, Fig. 5) by molding the first and third sections to the second section (col. 1, lines 40-44).
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 Katsuya wherein the mixer portion is molded to the first and second lengths of preformed flexible tube.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to connect flexible tubing to a flexible mixer portion using molding.
Regarding claim 42, the combined teaching of the above cited references for claim 41 further disclose wherein the mixer portion is positioned, at least in part, axially between the first end of the first length of preformed flexible tube and the first end of the second length of preformed flexible tube (Katsuya, Fig. 6, shown above for claim 41, Schryver et al., Fig. 1, shown above for claim 41).
Regarding claim 43, insomuch as Katsuya does not disclose the mixer portion includes at least one radially inward projecting mixing element projecting radially inward farther than an inner periphery of the first length of preformed flexible tube; Schryver et al. discloses the mixer portion includes at least one radially inward projecting mixing element (baffles 18); the mixing element projects radially inward farther than an inner periphery of the first length of preformed flexible tube and an inner periphery of the second length of flexible tube as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
401
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the first length of the flexible tube could be interpreted as being longer (indicated by longer arrow on the left) such that the mixing element extends axially into and is secured to an inner periphery of the first length of flexible tube.
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 Katsuya wherein the mixer portion includes at least one radially inward projecting mixing element; the mixing element projects radially inward farther than an inner periphery of the first length of preformed flexible tube and an inner periphery of the second length of preformed flexible tube; and the mixing element extends axially into and is secured to the inner periphery of the first length of preformed flexible tube.
The person ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a simple configuration comprising flexible tube with projections therein (Schryver et al., Fig. 1, shown above) which allows for mixing and connection to standard tubing (Schryver et al., pars. [0012] and [0018]).
Regarding claim 45, Katsuya in view of Schryver et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixer portion is secured to an outer periphery of the first ends of the lengths of flexible tubes (such as by molding).
However, Warburton-Pitt et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting tubing and Warburton-Pitt et al. teaches connecting a first length of flexible tubing (tube 18, Fig. 5), a connecting section (connection 12/14 which could be used as a mixing section by combining two flows, Fig. 5), and a second length of flexible tubing (tube 20, Fig. 5) by molding the first and second lengths together by the connecting section (col. 1, lines 40-44) and wherein the connecting section is secured to an outer periphery of the first end of the first length of flexible tube and secured to an outer periphery of the first end of the second length of flexible tube to connect the first and second lengths of flexible tube (Fig. 5).
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 Katsuya wherein the mixer portion is molded to flexible tubing and wherein the mixer portion is secured to an outer periphery of the first end of the first length of flexible tube and secured to an outer periphery of the first end of the second length of flexible tube to connect the first and second lengths of flexible tube.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated mold the mixer portion to the tubing where a portion of the mixer portion covers a portion of the outer periphery of the tubes in order to form an integral fluid conveyance system which is not easily compromised (Warburton-Pitt et al., col. 3, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 47, Katsuya in view of Schryver et al. discloses wherein the mixer portion is positioned axially between the first and second lengths of flexible tube (shown above for claim 41).
Katsuya in view of Schryver et al. does not expressly disclose the first and second lengths of flexible tube have a first outer diameter and the mixer portion has a second outer diameter that is larger than the first outer diameter (such as by molding over a portion of the flexible tube).
However, Warburton-Pitt et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting tubing and Warburton-Pitt et al. teaches connecting a first length of flexible tubing (tube 18, Fig. 5), a connecting section (connection 12/14 which could be used as a mixing section by combining two flows, Fig. 5), and a second length of flexible tubing (tube 20, Fig. 5) by molding the first and second lengths together by the connecting section (col. 1, lines 40-44) and wherein the connecting section has a second outer diameter which is larger than the outer diameter of the flexible tubes (Fig. 5).
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 Katsuya wherein the first and second lengths of flexible tube have a first outer diameter and the mixer portion has a second outer diameter that is larger than the first outer diameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mold the mixer portion to the tubing where a portion of the mixer portion covers a portion of the outer periphery of the tubes and therefore forms a larger diameter than the tubes in order to form an integral fluid conveyance system which is not easily compromised (Warburton-Pitt et al., col. 3, lines 2-5).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuya (previously attached JP 2005305219A) in view of Schryver et al. (US 20060051448), Grout (US 3860217) and Warburton-Pitt et al. (US 6290265) as applied to claim 41 above and in further view of Gunderson at al. (US 20100030192).
Regarding claim 49, Katsuya in view of Schryver et al. discloses the first length of flexible tube and the mixer portion are integrally connected (Schryver et al., unitary construction, para. [0010]).
Katsuya does not explicitly disclose the integral connection between the first length of flexible tube and the mixer portion includes cross-link bonding such as would be used in molding.
However, Warburton-Pitt et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting tubing and Warburton-Pitt et al. teaches connecting a first length of flexible tube (tube 18, Fig. 5), a connecting or mixing section (connection 12/14 could serve as a mixing section by combining two flows, Fig. 5), and a second length of flexible tube (tube 20, Fig. 5) by molding the connection/mixing section to the lengths of tube (col. 1, lines 40-44) at an outer periphery of the tube (tube 18 or 20, Fig. 5) which would involve bonding the mixing section to the flexible tubes.
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 Schryver et al. wherein the integral connection between the first length of flexible tube and the mixer portion includes bonding and the second length of flexible tube and the mixer portion are integrally connected, the integral connection between the second length of flexible tube and the mixer portion includes bonding.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to secure the mixing section by molding/bonding in order to form an integral fluid conveyance system which is not easily compromised (Warburton-Pitt et al., col. 3, lines 2-5).
The above cited references do not expressly disclose the bonding is cross-link bonding.
However, Gunderson et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting articles by a molded bond (Abstract) and Gunderson et al. teaches the bond is formed by cross-linking (para. [0024]).
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 Katsuya wherein the bond is a cross-link bond.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a cross-link bond to create a stronger bond (Gunderson, para. [0024]).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schryver et al. (US 20060051448) in view of Grout (US 3860217).
Regarding claim 51, Schryver et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a tube portion defining a flow path, the tube portion includes at least one preformed section of tubing (preformed with the mixer portion by extrusion, para. [0010]); and a mixer portion integrally connected (unitary construction, para. [0010]) to the tube portion, the mixer portion including at least one mixing element (baffles 18) extending into and disrupting the flow path defined by the tube portion, the mixer portion and tube portion being comprised of flexible material (flexible mixing tube, Abstract) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
317
755
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schryver et al. does not explicitly disclose the mixer portion is a molded-in-place component molded within the at least one preformed section of tubing.
However, while Schryver et al. discloses extrusion (para. [0010]), Schryver et al. also teaches the use of molding which would be suitable for short lengths of tube (para. [0009]) and Grout teaches an inline mixer wherein the mixer may be formed by molding (Grout, col. 5, lines 30-35).
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 Schryver et al. wherein the inline mixer (Grout, unit 18 ) is formed using molds (Grout, col. 5, lines 30-35, Schryver et al., para. [0009]) by substituting one manufacturing process (Schryver et al., extrusion, para. [0022]) for another known process (injection molding, Schryver et al., para. [0009], Grout, col. 5, lines 30-35) wherein the mixer portion is a molded in place component molded with the at least one preformed section of tubing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious substitute one manufacturing process (extrusion) for another known process (molding) to achieve the predictable result of producing an inline mixing device (Grout, col. 5, lines 30-35, Schryver et al., Abstract). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schryver et al. (US 20060051448) in view of Grout (US 3860217) as applied to claim 51 above and in further view of Warburton-Pitt et al. (US 6290265).
Regarding claim 56, Schryver et al. does not disclose a connection portion wherein the connection portion is a molded-in-place component that is molded to the first and second preformed sections of tubing.
However, Warburton-Pitt et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting tubing and Warburton-Pitt et al. teaches connecting a first preformed section of flexible tube (tube 18, Fig. 5), a connecting or mixing section (connection 12/14 could serve as a mixing section by combining two flows, Fig. 5), and a second preformed section of flexible tube (tube 20, Fig. 5) by molding the connection/mixing section to the tubes (col. 1, lines 40-44).
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 Schryver et al. wherein the apparatus comprises a connection portion wherein the connection portion is a molded-in-place component that is molded to the first and second preformed sections of tubing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a connection portion wherein the connection portion is a molded-in-place component that is molded to the first and second preformed sections of tubing to form an integral fluid conveyance system which is not easily compromised (Warburton-Pitt et al., col. 3, lines 2-5).
The combined teachings of the above-cited references disclose: the at least one preformed section of tubing includes a first preformed section of tubing (Warburton-Pitt et al., tube 18) defining a first portion of the flow path; the at least one preformed section of tubing includes a second preformed section of tubing (Warburton-Pitt et al., tube 20) defining a second portion of the flow path; a connection portion (Warburton-Pitt et al., connector 12/14) connects the first and second preformed sections of tubing and forms part of the tube portion, the connection portion defines a third portion of the flow path of the tube portion, the third portion of the flow path being positioned fluidly between and interconnecting the first and second portions of the flow path; and the connection portion is a molded-in-place component that is molded to the first and second preformed sections of tubing (Warburton-Pitt et al., col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 1); and the mixer portion (Warburton-Pitt et al., connector 12/14 corresponding to the section of Schryver et al. with baffles 18) is formed as part of the connection portion.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schryver et al. (US 20060051448) in view of Grout (US 3860217) and Warburton-Pitt et al. (US 6290265) as applied to claim 56 above and in further view of Gunderson at al. (US 20100030192).
Regarding claim 58, the combined teachings of the above-cited references for claim 56 disclose molded bonding (Warburton-Pitt et al. between the tubes 18 and 20 and the connector 12/14, Fig. 5), but do not expressly disclose cross-link bonding.
However, Gunderson et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting articles by a molded bond (Abstract) and Gunderson et al. teaches the bond is formed by cross-linking (para. [0024]).
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 Schryver et al. wherein the connection between the connection portion (Warburton-Pitt et al., connector 12/14) and the first preformed section of tubing (Warburton-Pitt et al., tube 18) is provided, at least in part, by cross-link bonding (Gunderson et al., para. [0024]) between the material of the connection portion and the material of the first preformed section of tubing; and the connection between the connection portion (Warburton-Pitt et al., connector 12/14) and the second preformed section of tubing (Warburton-Pitt et al., tube 20) is provided, at least in part, by cross-link bonding (Gunderson et al., para. [0024]) between the material of the connection portion and the material of the second preformed section of tubing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use cross-link bonding in order to increase the strength of the bond (Gunderson et al., para. [0024]).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schryver et al. (US 20060051448) in view of Grout (US 3860217) and Warburton-Pitt et al. (US 6290265) as applied to claim 56 above and in further view of Bartell (US 4257630).
Regarding claim 59, the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 56 disclose
wherein a second portion of the mixer portion (Warburton-Pitt et al., connector 12/14 corresponding to the section of Schryver et al. with baffles 18) extends around an outer periphery of the first (Warburton-Pitt et al., tube 18) and second preformed sections of tubing (Warburton-Pitt et al., tube 20, Fig. 5).
The above-cited references do not disclose wherein a portion of the mixer portion extends into at least one of the first and second preformed sections of tubing.
However, Bartell et al. discloses a system which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting tubing and Bartell teaches two sections of hoses are connected using a mandrel and a sealing elastomer forming a protrusion (elastomer 18) extending from one section of tubing (hose) into another section (Fig. 2c) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
564
760
media_image5.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 Schryver et al. wherein a portion of the mixer portion extends into at least one of the first and second preformed sections of tubing to form an internal connection with the tubing (Bartell, elastomer 18, spanning from one section to another).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include connection points between sections of tube in order to provide for internal bonding of the tube connections to provide more surface area for contact in order to increase the strength of the connections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 15-17, 19, 24-26 and 28 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses inline mixers constructed of flexible material and having a flexible tube portion with sections free of mixing elements at the ends of the tube. The prior art of record discloses inline mixers comprising flexible material which are manufactured by a molding process. The prior art of record includes static mixers having a tube portion free of mixing elements at the ends of the tube and where an outer diameter of a central portion is different than a diameter of end portions of the tube.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest an inline mixer comprising a flexible tube portion and a flexible mixer portion each comprising flexible material and where the inline mixer has first and third sections at the ends of the tube portion each having a first outer diameter and a second section located axially between the first and third sections where the second section has a second outer diameter different from the first outer diameter and where the mixer portion has first and second molded mixing elements where the first mixing element is distinct from the second mixing element where the first mixing element extends radially inward from a wall of the first and third sections and wherein the second mixing element extends radially inward from the wall of the first section and a wall of the second section.
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 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
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights