DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackdiamond (US 10,591,138) in view of Luck (US 3,694,241). Regarding claims 1 and 16, Blackdiamond discloses mixing system, and method of operating, comprising: a base module comprising: a base support (120); a drive unit (901) disposed within the base support; a drive shaft (902) coupled to the drive unit; and a drive head (903) coupled to the drive unit via the drive shaft and disposed within the base support, wherein the drive head comprises a first magnet (see col. 6, lines 25-35); a mixing unit comprising: a guide element (118); and an agitator (904) slidably coupled to the guide element, wherein the agitator comprises a second magnet and at least one vane (see col. 6, line 19) and wherein the agitator is configured to be pushed downwards along the guide element due to the force of gravity (see Fig. 9) unaided by any additional forces (see col. 6, line 6: "freely translates"); an enclosure (110) coupled to the base support and enclosing the guide element and the agitator, wherein the drive unit and the drive head are configured to generate a linear pulsating movement of the agitator along the guide element for mixing a fluid medium within the enclosure (see Fig. 9 and col. 6 lines 45-47). However, the base support having a groove that couples a lower edge of the enclosure is not disclosed. Luck teaches a base support (3a) having a groove that couples a lower edge of the enclosure (3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an edge coupling groove as taught by Luck, to facilitate assembly, disassembly and cleaning. Regarding claim 3, the drive unit comprises a rotary actuator (901) configured to generate a rotary motion of the drive head. Regarding claim 5, the first magnet is a permanent magnet (see Fig. 9). Regarding claim 7, the second magnetic is a permanent magnet (see Fig. 9). Regarding claim 8, the first magnet comprises a first pole and the second magnet comprises a second pole disposed facing the first pole, and wherein the first and second poles have same polarities (see Fig. 9). Regarding claim 9, the at least one vane comprises a plurality of side portions and a mid-portion, wherein each side portion extends outward from the mid portion at a predefined angle (see Figs. 5B and 9). Regarding claim 13, the enclosure is a vessel (110). Claim 14 solely related to the use of the claimed device, rather than further structurally limiting the claimed structure. Regarding claim 15, control unit (190) is disclosed. Regarding claim 19, generating the linear pulsating movement of the agitator comprises moving the agitator upwards resulting in downward flow of the fluid medium and moving the agitator downwards resulting in upward flow of the fluid medium (see Fig. 9). Regarding claim 20, the drive unit is controlled by control unit (190).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackdiamond (US 10,591,138) in view of Luck (US 3,694,241) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Godat et al. (US 4,380,399). A vane having a coiled plate configuration in not explicitly disclosed by Blackdiamond. Godat teaches a vane (4) have a coiled plate configuration. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a vane of Blackdiamond with a coiled plate configure as taught by Godat, because Blackdiamond expressly suggests utilizing alternative configuration vanes in col. 5, lines 58-59.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werth (US 2015/0023132) in view of Blackdiamond (US 10,591,138) and Luck (US 3,694,241). Regarding claims 1 and 16, Werth discloses a mixing system, and method of operating, comprising a base module comprising: a drive unit (80 or a portion thereof); a drive shaft (see Figs. 41 and 42) coupled to the drive unit; and a drive head (82) coupled to the drive unit via the drive shaft and disposed within the base support, wherein the drive head comprises a first magnet; a mixing unit comprising a guide element (28); and an agitator (2) slidably coupled to the guide element, wherein the agitator comprises a second magnet and at least one vane (96 for example) and wherein the agitator is configured to be pushed downwards along the guide element due to the force of gravity unaided by any addition forces (see Figs. 41 and 42); an enclosure (34 or 78) coupled to the base support and enclosing the guide element and the agitator, wherein the drive unit and the drive head are configured to generate a linear pulsating movement of the agitator along the guide element for mixing a fluid medium within the enclosure (see Figs. 38-42). However, locating the drive unit in a base support is not explicitly disclosed. Blackdiamond teaches locating a drive unit (901) in a base support (120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to located the drive unit in a base support, to protect the drive unit. However, the base support having a groove that couples a lower edge of the enclosure is not disclosed. Luck teaches a base support (3a) having a groove that couples a lower edge of the enclosure (3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an edge coupling groove as taught by Luck, to facilitate assembly, disassembly and cleaning. Regarding claim 3, the drive unit comprises a rotary actuator (80 or a portion thereof) configured to generate a rotary motion of the drive head. Regarding claims 4-7, the magnets are permanent magnets in the embodiment of Figs. 41 and 42; however, as explained in [0056], electromagnets are a recognized alternative. Regarding claim 9, the at least one vane comprises a plurality of side portions and a mid- portion, wherein each side portion extends outward from the mid-portion at a predefined angle (see Fig. 36). Regarding claim 13, the enclosure is a vessel (34 or 78). Claim 14 solely relates to the use of the claimed device, rather than further structurally limiting the claimed structure. Regarding claim 15, Blackdiamond further teaches a control unit (190). Regarding claim 18, generating the linear pulsating movement of the agitator comprises: rotating the drive head to push the agitator upwards due to a repulsive magnetic force when the first magnet is aligned with second magnet and move the agitator downwards due to a gravitational force when the first magnet is not aligned with the second magnet, wherein the first magnet comprises a first pole and the second magnet comprises a second pole disposed facing the first pole, and wherein the first and second poles have same polarities (see Figs. 41 and 42). Regarding claim 19, generating the linear pulsating movement of the agitator comprises moving the agitator upwards resulting in downward flow of the fluid medium and moving the agitator downwards resulting in upward flow of the fluid medium (see Figs. 41 and 42). Regarding claim 20, Blackdiamond further teaches a control unit (190) controlling a drive unit.
Claims 2, 11, 12, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werth (US 2015/0023132) in view of Blackdiamond (US 10,591,138) and Luck (US 3,694,241) as applied above, and further in view of Mennenga et al. (US 9,095,828). Regarding claims 2 and 17, Werth and Blackdiamond do not teach the drive unit being a linear actuator that generates a linear motion of the drive head. Mennenga teaches linear actuator (4) that generates a linear motion of the drive head. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the linear actuator of Mennenga because, as explained in [0056] of Werth, varying the drive mechanism is suggested. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Mennenga further teaches a mixing container being a bag (13). Regarding claim 21, the phrase in Mennenga "flexible disposable containers in pharmacology and biotechnology for liquids in production processes" would have suggested culture medium to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “The agitator of Blackdiamond being freely translatable does not mean that the agitator is not acted on only by gravitational forces as Applicant claims”. However, applicant is not claiming a method of not acting upon an agitator by only gravitational force, nor is applicant claiming a method of acting upon an agitator by only gravitation force. If applicant did claim a method of acting upon an agitator by only gravitational force it would be new matter because fluid media exerts forces upon the agitator including buoyancy and friction forces.
Instead, the alleged invention of claim 1 is not a method at all, but is a structure. The claims require the capability of the agitator to be pushed downward without the aid of additional forces beyond gravity. The statement in Blackdiamond that the agitator “freely translates” (col. 6, line 6) necessitates that the agitator is so capable.
The groove of Luck is best seen in Fig. V. A groove is defined in the material of 3a at 41. Unlike applicant’s drawings, Luck does show a groove.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights