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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 8 in the reply filed on 9/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/5/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation comprises a mixer unit, and the claim also recites comprises or constitutes at least two mixer units which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is unclear whether “at least two mixer units” is further narrowing “a mixer unit” as recited in line 3, or if it is in addition to “a mixer unit”. By reciting both “comprises a mixer unit” followed by “comprises or constituted of at least two mixer units” it is unclear how many mixer units are part of the static mixer element. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-5 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation the distance d may be larger than 0, and the claim also recites may be at least 0.5 the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 0.5×h, or the distance d may be at least the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 1×h which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-5 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation the distance d may be at maximum 10 times the thickness of a mixer unit, and the claim also recites or at maximum 5 times the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 5×h, or at maximum 3 times the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 3×h. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-5 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the symbols “xh” without defining what they mean. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-5 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-5 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a static mixer element” in line 22. It is unclear whether “a static mixer element” of line 20 is the same or different as “a static mixer element” as recited in line 1 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-5 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation wherein the distance d between adjacent mixer units is at maximum 0.030 m, and the claim also recites or at maximum 0.020 m or at maximum 0.010 m which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 recites the symbol/unit “m” without defining what it means. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “wherein the static mixer element comprises at least two mixer units” in lines 1-2. Claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, already recites “the static mixer comprises or is constituted of at least two mixer units” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if the claim 3 limitation is an additional two mixer units or how it further limits the limitation in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Regarding claim 3, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation wherein the static mixer element comprises at least two mixer units, and the claim also recites e.g. exactly or at least 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more mixer units, or between 2 and 100 mixer units, or between 2 and 50 mixer units or between 4 and 40 mixer units or between 4 and 35 mixer units, where each through opening in each previous mixer unit at least partly faces a surface of the following mixer unit thereby forcing the fluid flow to change direction which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “a previous and a following mixer unit” in line 1-2. Claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends, already recites “a first or previous mixer unit and a second and adjacent mixer unit” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if the claim 5 limitation is an additional previous and a second and adjacent mixer or how it further limits the limitation in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Regarding claim 5, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation wherein a previous and a following mixer unit are substantially parallel and comprising a surface facing perpendicular to the direction of flow, and the claim also recites i.e. a surface of a first mixer unit facing a surface of a following mixer units deviates less than 10°, normally less than 5° or less than 2° from the following mixer unit which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki (U.S. Patent No. 9,656,223).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki discloses A static mixer element (reference #1, 1a, 1b, 1c) which static mixer element comprises a mixer unit extending over a cross-section area of the flow channel (reference #21a, 21b) which mixer unit comprises a plurality of through openings (reference #22), the static mixer element comprises or is constituted of at least two mixer units, a first or previous mixer unit and a second and adjacent mixer unit, which first and second mixer units are displaced relative to each other in a direction of flow (reference #21a-21g), in such a way that a through opening in the first or previous mixer unit at least partly faces a surface of the second and adjacent mixer unit thereby forcing a fluid flow to change direction (see figure 3b, reference #21a, 21b and 22), wherein
adjacent mixer units have substantially the same height or thickness h, and are substantially parallel having a distance d between them, which distance d is selected from one of the following conditions:
approximately 0 as two adjacent mixer units may be in contact with each other at one or more points, or
the distance d may be larger than 0 and may be at least 0.5 the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 0.5×h, or the distance d may be at least the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 1×h, or
the distance d may be at maximum 10 times the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 10×h, or at maximum 5 times the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 5×h, or at maximum 3 times the thickness of a mixer unit i.e. 3×h (figures 1 and 3b, reference #21a and 21b);
wherein the mixer units are positioned in and attached to a frame, which frame defines a position of each mixer units relative to all other mixer units in a static mixer element (reference #3 and 4),
wherein each mixer unit comprises a plurality of position lockers and a plurality of rods extending in the full length of the static mixer element and fitting into openings constituting the position lockers, the position lockers being distributed equally, with same radial distance between adjacent position lockers measured in degrees, along a circle with radius r and centre C (see figure 1, reference #11 and figure 2 with 4 equidistant circular holes in reference #21a and 21b, not labeled; see figure 26B, reference #11 passes through equidistant position lockers/openings in reference #21, not labeled, see vertical lines through axis of reference #11 to reference #12), and
wherein the rods are fastened to the frame by fastening means (figures 1 and 26B, reference #12).
Regarding the limitation in the preamble, “configured to reduce the size of gas bubbles in a liquid for installation in a flow channel” that has not been given patentable weight, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). As such, the intended use of the static mixer and the flow channel is not a positive structural limitation required to be disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Mochizuki discloses wherein the distance d between adjacent mixer units is at maximum 0.030 m, or at maximum 0.020 m or at maximum 0.010 m (figure 3B, reference #21a and 21b; figures 24A and 24B, reference #21; figure 37, reference #21).
Regarding claim 3, Mochizuki discloses wherein the static mixer element comprises at least two mixer units (1), e.g. exactly or at least 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more mixer units, or between 2 and 100 mixer units, or between 2 and 50 mixer units or between 4 and 40 mixer units or between 4 and 35 mixer units (figure 3B, reference #21a and 21b; figures 24A and 24B, reference #21; figure 37, reference #21), where each through opening in each previous mixer unit at least partly faces a surface of the following mixer unit thereby forcing the fluid flow to change direction (figures 3B, 24A, 24B, 36 and 37, reference #22 with arrows indicating fluid flow).
Regarding claim 4, as explained above in the rejection to claim 1, the flow channel is part of the preamble and is not a positive structural limitation of the claim, and therefore, claim 4 which attempts recite a limitation in relation to the flow channel fails to further limit. Mochizuki discloses wherein each mixer unit is capable to form a fluid-tight connection to or lie against an inner surface of the flow channel (reference #1a or 1b or 1c).
Regarding claim 5, Mochizuki discloses wherein a previous and a following mixer unit are substantially parallel and comprising a surface facing perpendicular to the direction of flow, i.e. a surface of a first mixer unit facing a surface of a following mixer units deviates less than 10°, normally less than 5° or less than 2° from the following mixer unit (figure 3B, reference #21a and 21b; figures 24A and 24B, reference #21; figure 37, reference #21).
Regarding claim 8, Mochizuki discloses wherein the through openings in each mixer unit are of same shape and size and the shape of the through openings are e.g. rhombic or circular or rectangular (figure 9A and 9B, reference #22; figure 13A, reference #22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tecson et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0058606) discloses the mixer units with openings, frame, position lockers, rods and fastening means as recited in claims 1-5 and 8 (figures 4, 6, 7, 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774