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 § 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, 2, 4, 6, 8-12 and 15-20 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:
In claim 1, applicant deleted “[comprising…] at least one blade” while maintaining the phrase “each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen”. Also recited is “at least one of the multiple blades comprises a radial facing fin”. Overall, it is unclear if applicant’s intention was to change the meaning of the lumen clause to only apply to blades that comprising a radial facing fin (which seems inconsistent with applicant’s remarks), or if this was accidental and applicant means to apply the lumen clause to the blades generally. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8-12, 19 and 20 fall with claim 1 concerning this issue.
Claim 15 depends from a canceled claim.
Claim 16 depends from a canceled claim.
Claim 17 depends from a canceled claim.
Claim 18 depends from a canceled claim.
Claim 19, which requires that the blades are unitary with the shaft contradicts claim 1 from which claim 19 depends which now requires “each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen, the inner lumen being configured and sized to slide over the shaft to removably couple the at least one blade to the shaft”.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The requirement of claim 19 that the blades are unitary with the shaft was not described in combination with the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 19 depends which now requires “each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen, the inner lumen being configured and sized to slide over the shaft to removably couple the at least one blade to the shaft”.
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, 2, 4, 9-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 6,682,213) in view of Hanada (US 2011/0128814):
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a blender having proximal, distal and intermediate coupleable sections (sections of "3"; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6; col. 6, lines 7-9) each section having an upper and lower housing (upper and lower portions of 3; see Figs. 1, 5 and 6); a shaft (see Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6) extending through the proximal section, the distal section and the at least one intermediate section; and multiple blades (21, 22F, 22N, 22B, 23) disposed on the shaft (see Figs. 1, 5 and 6), wherein the blender comprises at least one blade (22N) comprising a radial-facing fin configured to drive a powder radially outward, wherein the blender comprises a rear-facing fin (22B) configured to move the powder backward from the distal end of the blender back toward the proximal end of the blender. Each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen, the inner lumen being configured and sized to slide over the shaft to removably couple the at least one blade to the shaft (see Figs. 2, 3A and 4A). However, a blender being made of a polymer is not disclosed. Hanada teaches making a blender of polypropylene (see [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made a blender of polypropylene as taught by Hanada for lightweight, low cost, or transparency advantages.
Regarding claim 2, an inlet (5) is disposed in the proximal section in the proximal upper housing.
Regarding claim 4, multiple inlets (5,8) are disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, the at least one intermediate section includes multiple intermediate sections disposed between the proximal section and the distal section (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as seen in Fig. 1 the intermediate section may be longer or short than the proximal section depending upon where one considers to be the intermediate section to begin and the proximal section end.
Regarding claim 12, the shaft includes multiple coupleable segments (21, 22F, 22N, 22B, 23) including a proximal segment coterminous with the proximal section, at least one intermediate segment coterminous with the at least one intermediate section, and a distal segment coterminous with the distal section (see Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 13, each of the at least one blade includes an inner lumen (see Figs. 2, 3A and 4A), the inner lumen being configured and sized to slide over the shaft to removably couple the at least one blade to the shaft.
Regarding claim 15, at least one of the multiple blades includes a proximal-facing fin (22F), and at least one of the multiple blades includes a distal-facing fin (22B).
Regarding claim 16, at least one of the multiple blades includes a radial fin (22N).
Regarding claim 17, at least one of the multiple blades includes a spacer (23) having no fins.
Regarding claim 18, the multiple blades include blades of different thicknesses (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, at least one semi-circular baffle (27) or at least one axially-extending weir (27) is disclosed.
Claims 6, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 6,682,213) in view of Hanada (US 2011/0128814) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueda et al. (US 7,637,650):
Regarding claim 6, Inoue does not disclose duplicating outlets. Ueda teaches providing a blender with multiple outlets (14, 15 and plural instances of 21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided plural outlets to aid in cleanout of residual materials as taught by Ueda.
Regarding claim 8, at least one of the multiple outlets includes a closeable valve (22) that can be placed in an open position or a closed position.
While claim 19 is self-contradictory as discussed above, to further prosecution is it noted that that Ueda teaches making blades unitary with a shaft (see Figs. 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant falsely states that Hanada is not for powder blending. Hanada expressly discloses powder in [0099], [0111], [0116], [0119], [0121] and claim 15.
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 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