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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 28th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The objections to claims 10, 13 and 18 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 15-17 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 Objections
Claim 7 recites “sensor exceeds” in line 5 which may be better stated as “sensor exceeding”.
Claim 20 recites “trigged based” in the last line. This should be changed to “triggered based”.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “the derivative of the temperature change” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This could be changed to “the time derivative of the temperature” or “a derivative of the temperature”.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 11.
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 1-4, 6, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uby (US 20180057380) in view of Cramer et al. (US 4671872), Lefebvre et al. (US 20120134231) and McIver (US 2015265979).
Regarding claim 1, Uby discloses a method for monitoring and controlling (Abstract) the operation of a mixer (mixer 4, Fig. 1) as outlined below:
PNG
media_image1.png
639
1089
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Uby discloses the mixer is configured for operation in a tank (Fig. 1) housing a liquid comprising solid matter (Abstract), the mixer comprising a propeller openly exposed to the liquid in the tank (Fig. 1) and a main body having a drive unit (built-in variable speed drive 5, para. [0026]), wherein the drive unit comprises a motor (a device meeting the limitation of motor must be present to power the blades shown in Fig. 1) located in said main body and a drive shaft (Fig. 1) connected to the motor and extending from the main body (Fig. 1), wherein the propeller comprises a hub (shown above) and a plurality of blades (at least 2, Fig. 1) connected to said hub (Fig. 1), wherein the hub is connected to the drive shaft and driven in rotation by said motor during operation of the mixer, a control unit (control unit 6) being operatively connected to the mixer (Fig. 1) in order to monitor and control the operation of the mixer, the method comprises the steps of: driving the propeller in a normal direction of rotation in order to generate a bulk flow of liquid that circulates in the tank, wherein the bulk flow of liquid that circulates in the tank is directed from an upstream side of the propeller towards a downstream side of the propeller (shown above), wherein the main body is submerged in the liquid and located at the upstream side of the propeller (Fig. 1).
Uby never explicitly states the mixer comprises an electric motor and insomuch as the presence of an electric motor is not inferred from the disclosure of Uby; Cramer et al. discloses a similar mixer (Abstract, Fig. 1) and Cramer et al. teaches the mixer’s motor may comprise an electric motor (col. 3, line 16).
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 Uby wherein the motor is an electric motor.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known motor types for submersible mixers.
Uby does not disclose performing a cleaning sequence.
However, Lefebvre et al. discloses a system, which like Uby (Uby, para. [0001]) is for wastewater treatment (Lefebvre et al., para. [0002]) and which has a control unit (controller 55) and Lefebvre et al. teaches performing a cleaning sequence in response to a main body cleaning signal (commands, para. [0017]), wherein the cleaning sequence comprises the steps of: stopping the propeller from rotating in the normal direction of rotation, conducting a reverse operation of the propeller comprising driving the propeller in a reverse direction of rotation (pars. [0016]-[0018]) in order to generate a local flow of liquid from the downstream side of the propeller towards the upstream side of the propeller (reversing the normal direction of flow); stopping the propeller from rotating in the reverse direction of rotation, and resuming driving of the propeller in the normal direction of rotation (para. [0018]).
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 Uby wherein the method includes performing a cleaning sequence in response to a main body cleaning signal, wherein the cleaning sequence comprises the steps of: stopping the propeller from rotating in the normal direction of rotation, conducting a reverse operation of the propeller comprising driving the propeller in a reverse direction of rotation in order to generate a local flow of liquid from the downstream side of the propeller towards the upstream side of the propeller and in modifying the method of Uby with the teaching of Lefebvre et al., the method would include driving flow over the main body (being submerged and coaxial with the propeller) while in the reverse direction which would remove any solid matter accumulated on the main body, and stopping the propeller from rotating in the reverse direction of rotation, and resuming driving of the propeller in the normal direction of rotation.
The above-cited references do not disclose the duration of the reverse operation of the propeller is equal to or greater than 5 seconds or equal to or less than 60 seconds.
However, McIver discloses a method for monitoring and controlling (monitoring mechanism, Abstract) the operation of a mixer (water aerator blades 42, Fig. 3) configured for operation in a tank (Fig. 3) housing in a liquid comprising solid matter (implied by pars. [0005]-[0006], “blockage” would be caused by solid material), the mixer comprising a propeller (having blades 42) and McIver teaches performing a cleaning sequence (para. [0036]) in response to a main body cleaning signal (para. [0037]) and further teaches wherein the duration of the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence may be equal to or more than 5 seconds and equal to or less than 60 seconds in that McIver teaches 30 seconds or more (pars. [0030]-[0031]) which overlaps with the claimed range.
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 Uby wherein the duration of the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence is 30 seconds or more (which overlaps with 5-60 seconds).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a duration such as 30-60 seconds as an effective range for removing material, such based on conditions in the tank and/or user observations (McIver, para. [0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by McIver overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Uby does not disclose a reverse rotation speed.
However, McIver further discloses wherein the rotational speed of the mixer during the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence is equal to or more than 25% of the max rotational speed of the flow generator and is equal to or less than 100 % of the max rotational speed of the mixer because the motor may be equally capable of operating in both directions under the same speed (para. [0029]).
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 Uby wherein a rotational speed of the mixer during the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence is equal to or more than 25 % of a max rotational speed of the mixer and is equal to or less than 100 % of the max rotational speed of the mixer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a motor capable of rotating up to 100% speed in the reverse direction in order to create good reverse flow for cleaning.
Further, assuming arguendo that the relative rotational speed range is not disclosed by McIver, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameter or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of relative rotational speed of the flow generator during the reverse operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Uby with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 2, Uby does not disclose the control unit verifies that the propeller is standing still before initiating the reverse operation.
However, McIver further teaches wherein the control unit verifies that the propeller is standing still before initiating the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence (at least via an elapsed stopping period, para. [0038], which the user could select to ensure the propellor is stopped, para. [0038], to prevent stress on the motor, para. [0039]).
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 Uby wherein the control unit verifies that the propeller is standing still before initiating the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated verify the propeller is standing still in order to prevent stress on the motor (McIver, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Uby does not disclose the control unit verifies that the propeller is standing still before initiating the normal direction of rotation.
However, McIver discloses wherein the control unit verifies that the propeller is standing still before resuming the normal operation of the propeller after the cleaning sequence (at least via an elapsed stopping period for both directions, para. [0038], which the user could select to ensure the propellor is stopped, para. [0038], to prevent stress on the motor, para. [0039]).
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 Uby wherein the control unit verifies that the propeller is standing still before resuming driving of the propeller in the normal direction of rotation after the cleaning sequence.
The person of ordinary in the art would have been motivated verify the propeller is standing still in order to prevent stress on the motor (McIver, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Uby does not disclose a reverse operation.
However, McIver further teaches wherein the duration of the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence may be equal to or more than 15 seconds and equal to or less than 30 seconds in that McIver teaches 30 seconds or more (pars. [0030]-[0031]).
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 Uby wherein the duration of the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence is equal to or more than 15 seconds and is equal to or less than 30 seconds.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a duration such as 30 seconds or more as an effective range for removing material, such based on conditions in the tank and/or user observations (McIver, para. [0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by McIver overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Regarding claim 6, Uby does not disclose a main body cleaning signal.
However, McIver discloses wherein the main body cleaning signal is triggered on a time-based condition (“run-time”, pars. [0057] – [0060]), the time-based condition comprising a time interval between two consecutive main body cleaning signals (counter is reset, para. [0060]), wherein the time interval is equal to or more than 15 minutes and is equal to or less than 1440 minutes (20-60 minutes, para. [0061]).
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 McIver wherein the main body cleaning signal is triggered on a time-based condition, the time-based condition comprising a time interval between two consecutive main body cleaning signals, wherein the time interval is equal to or more than 15 minutes and is equal to or less than 1440 minutes.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an interval equal to or more than 15 minutes and is equal to or less than 1440 minutes as a preventive measure to prevent malfunctions due to build-up of solids on the mixer.
Regarding claim 16, Uby does not disclose a main body cleaning signal time interval.
However, McIver who is relied upon to teach a time interval as discussed for claim 6 above, further teaches a time interval which overlaps with the claimed range (20-60 minutes, para. [0061]).
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 Uby wherein the time interval is equal to or more than 30 minutes and is equal to or less than 360 minutes such as 30-60 minutes (McIver, para. [0061]).
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select an interval equal to or more than 30 minutes as a preventive measure to prevent malfunctions due to build-up of solids on the mixer.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by McIver overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Regarding claim 17, Uby does not disclose the main body cleaning signal time interval.
However, McIver who is relied upon to teach a time interval as discussed for claim 6 above, further teaches wherein the time interval is equal to 60 minutes (includes 60 minutes , para. [0061]).
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 Uby wherein the time interval is equal to 60 minutes.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an interval equal to 60 minutes as a preventive measure to prevent malfunctions due to build-up of solids on the mixer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uby (US 20180057380) in view of Cramer et al. (US 4671872), Lefebvre et al. (US 20120134231) and McIver (US 2015265979) as applied to claim 1 above and with or without Fullemann (US 20170198698).
Regarding claim 5, Uby does not expressly disclose wherein the rotational speed of the mixer during the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence is equal to or more than 60 % of the max rotational speed of the mixer and is equal to or less than 80 % of the max rotational speed of the mixer.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of reverse operation speed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Uby with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Fullemann discloses a method for monitoring and controlling the operation of a device (“method for controlling a pump arrangement upon clogging”, Abstract) which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to selecting rotating speeds of a device having a motor, shaft, hub and blades (motor 7, shaft 9, impeller 8, Fig. 1 ) and Fullemann discloses wherein the rotational speed during the reverse operation (second direction, Abstract) of the propeller (impeller 8) during the cleaning sequence (para. [0036]) is equal to or more than 60 % of the max rotational speed and is equal to or less than 80% of the max rotational speed in that Fullemann discloses 75-85% (para. [0049]).
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 Uby wherein the reverse operation of the propeller during the cleaning sequence is 75-85% of the max rotational speed (overlapping with the claimed 60-80%) of the mixer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a motor capable of rotating at 75-85% speed in the reverse direction in order to create good reverse flow for cleaning.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the speed range taught by Uby in view of Fullemann overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uby (US 20180057380) in view of Cramer et al. (US 4671872), Lefebvre et al. (US 20120134231) and McIver (US 2015265979) as applied to claim 1 above and in further of Keeton (US 10022688).
Regarding claim 15, Uby does not expressly disclose non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions embedded therein.
However, Keeton teaches a method for controlling a mixer (Abstract) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions embedded therein (col. 2, line 52 – col. 3, line 25).
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 Uby to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions embedded therein, wherein the computer-readable program code portions when executed by a computer cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1 in order to perform a cleaning of the mixer.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to facilitate automation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 20 are objected to for minor informalities (see Claim Objections section above).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 7-14 and 18-20 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 (and upon resolution of the above-mentioned objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses methods for monitoring the operation of a mixer configured for operation in a tank and having a propeller openly exposed to the liquid inside the tank and having a main body with a drive shaft and an electric motor and where the mixer generates a bulk flow that circulates in the tank. The prior art of record discloses mixers with open propellers having cleaning sequences where the direction of the propeller and the flow of liquid is reversed to remove debris from mixer components, including devices undergoing a cleaning sequence on a set time interval and for a set duration.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a method for monitoring the operation of a mixer configured for operation in a tank and having a propeller openly exposed to the liquid inside the tank and having a main body with a drive shaft and an electric motor and where the mixer generates a bulk flow that circulates in the tank and having a cleaning sequence where the direction of the propeller and the flow of liquid is reversed to remove debris from mixer components during a set time duration and wherein the mixer includes a temperature sensor located in the main body and/or where the method includes temperature-based triggering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Senior et al. (US 6379109) discloses stopping rotation before changing the direction of rotation.
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