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 Amendment
Claims 1-12 remain pending.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer (WO 2021/110706, hereinafter Studer, machine translation provided) in view of Kageler (US 9643138, hereinafter Kageler).
Regarding claim 1, Studer discloses a direct drive batch mixing system, comprising:
a direct drive electric motor (figure 1, electric motor 16) attached to at least one rigid point (lower portion of the housing 2);
a multi-axis load cell (force sensor 6) located between the motor and the rigid point to provide signals representing forces and moments in multiple axes;
an impeller (paragraph 0004, “the agitator”) engaged with the motor such that the motor rotates the impeller; and
wherein loads and forces on the impeller are directly supported by the motor and measured by the multi-axis load cell (paragraph 0037).
Studer does not explicitly disclose a vessel as recited, although it stands to reason that the device of Studer would mix materials within some sort of container or vessel. Kageler teaches a direct drive mixing system (figure 1) including a vessel (container 102) having an interior region configured to receive a batch and an impeller (blades 130 and 132) located within the interior region of the vessel rotated by a motor (column 4, line 10, “the agitation drive may include a motor”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Studer with a vessel, as in Kageler, for the purpose of containing and holding the material to be mixed by the device.
Regarding claim 2, Studer discloses speed adjustment of the motor via gears (paragraph 0039), but does not explicitly disclose a variable speed motor. Kageler teaches a variable speed motor (column 4, line 15, “variable speed capabilities”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Studer with a variable speed motor for the purpose of mixing materials at different speeds, which is already contemplated by Studer.
Regarding claim 3, Studer discloses a motor configured to operate in forward and reverse rotational directions (paragraph 0036; figure 2, arrows Pf. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Studer discloses a motor including a rotatable shaft (figure 1, shaft 18) and the impeller being connected to the rotatable shaft (paragraph 0027). It is noted that Kageler also teaches a rotatable shaft connected to an impeller (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to have connected the shaft to an impeller for the purpose of driving the impeller to mix materials.
Regarding claim 5, Studer discloses the motor further comprising:
a casing (figure 2, casing around motor 16);
a motor flange (holding arm 7) attached to the casing; and
wherein the multi-axis load cell (force sensor 6) is mounted between the motor flange and a rigid flange (sensor arm 11) attached to the rigid point (see figure 2).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer (WO 2021/110706, hereinafter Studer, machine translation provided) in view of Kageler (US 9643138, hereinafter Kageler), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pollard (US 4594883, hereinafter Pollard).
Regarding claim 7, Studer is silent to a controller as recited. Pollard teaches a batch mixing system (figure 1) comprising a programmable motor controller (equipment 7 and control means 8) having an input for receiving AC power (any equipment would have to be powered in some way) and an output for providing electrical signals that control the operational speed (RPM), torque and directional rotation of the motor (column 5, lines 13-15), the programmable motor controller being further configured to receive feedback signals to adjust to adjust the operational speed and/or torque and/or rotational direction of the motor (column 3, lines 14-16, “varying operation of the process in accordance with information on process conditions detected by the transducers”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Studer with a controller, as in Pollard, for the purpose of adjusting the process to maximize efficiency (Pollard: column 3, line 63-column 4, line 2).
Regarding claim 8, Studer is silent to a torque sensor and data acquisition device as recited. Pollard teaches a batch mixing system (figure 1) having a torque sensor (strain gauge 5) that provides signals representing motor torque and a data acquisition device (equipment 6 and 7) that is in electrical signal communication with the programmable motor controller (control means 8) and the motor torque sensor (see figure 1). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Studer with a torque sensor for the purpose of determining density and viscosity of the mixed material (Pollard: column 4, lines 55-57) and to have provided a data acquisition device for the purpose of collecting data to send to the control system. It would have further been obvious to have connected the data acquisition device to the load cell of Studer too allow all data collected by the sensors to be sent to the control system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a specific type of load cell not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 9 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites the determination of the efficiency of the mixer, the health of the motor, and the need for adjustments to the mixing process or motor not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 12 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites multiple load cells, each mounted to a rigid point not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Studer and Kageler do not teach a “direct drive electric motor” as recited in claim 1 (remarks, page 5). The Examiner notes that the claims only recite “direct drive” with respect to the motor and make no mention of any actual connection between the motor and the impeller, merely stating that the impeller is “engaged with the motor such that the motor rotates the impeller.” Claim 1 does not even recite a shaft between the motor and the impeller. As such, it is the Examiner’s position that claim 1 does not recite an impeller attached to a motor output shaft, but merely a motor that directly drives a shaft and an impeller that is engaged with the motor in some way. The motor of Studer clearly directly drives a shaft, and is thus considered to be a direct drive motor as recited. The impellers of Studer are clearly engaged with the motor such that the motor rotates them, and thus that limitation is also met. The claims do not specifically recite a system wherein the output shaft of the motor is directly attached to the impeller, but instead are written with sufficiently broad language as to be met by the disclosure of the prior art. Thus, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
It is further noted that multiple references previously cited by both the Examiner and the Applicant include direct drive of an impeller shaft, and thus even if that were recited in the claims, would likely not make the claims allowable on its own. Previously cited references with direct drive of an impeller shaft include Elbe (US PGPub 2014/0112092), Swon (US 6155113), Coyle et al. (US 4606648), and Narholm et al. (US 5647666).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774