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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1, 4-15, 17 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
The Applicant's arguments filed February 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Atsushi et al. is directed to an axial flow pump for transferring sewage containing large-sized solid material and related to an entirely different mechanism (axial flow pump) for handling an entirely different type of material (than the device of Wu) for an entirely different purpose (Remarks, pages 10-13).
Insomuch as this argument is pertinent to the new ground of rejection with follows below, the Examiner respectfully contends that the claims are directed to a mixing impeller and “it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims”. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the impeller of Atsushi et al. is a mixing impeller for a liquid (para. [0005]) and would function to mix a sealant within a cartridge or container.
The Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims 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 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the ratio” which lacks antecedent basis and should be changed to “a ratio”. Alternatively, the dependency of claim 11 could be changed to claim 10 to resolve the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP H11247788A).
Regarding claim 1, Atsushi et al. discloses a mixing impeller (para. [0005], Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
Atsushi et al. does not expressly disclose that the impeller is for mixing a sealant inside a cartridge. However, "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" (See MPEP 2111.02). Nevertheless, the impeller of Atsushi et al. would function to mix a sealant inside a cartridge (a container).
Atsushi et al. discloses the impeller shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
608
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Atsushi et al. discloses the impeller has a central hub, at least two mixing arms (thee, Fig. 6), a leading edge comprising a concave portion, a trailing edge comprising a convex portion, and a wiping edge (the gap between the wall and the edge of the impeller is eliminated or reduced such that liquid does not leak therethrough and the edge serves as a wiping edge, pars. [0007]-[0008] and [0028]-[0029]) extending circumferentially between a leading tip of the leading edge (shown above) and a trailing edge transition of the trailing edge, wherein the wiping edge has an arc length defining a wiping edge angle W (shown above), the leading tip is circumferentially offset in a direction of rotation of the mixing impeller defining a leading edge angle L (shown above).
Atsushi et al. reasonably discloses a ratio of W:L is greater than 1:1 (as indicated above, W appears to be more than twice L). Assuming, arguendo, that the ratio is not disclosed in Atsushi et al., 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, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the angle ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Atsushi et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Atsushi et al. further discloses wherein the wiping edge has a thickness measured along an axial direction of the mixing impeller that is less than the arc length of the wiping edge measured from the leading tip to the trailing edge transition (Fig. 4 and Fig. 6) as shown above and below:
PNG
media_image2.png
640
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Atsushi et al. discloses wherein the convex portion of the trailing edge has a radius of curvature along at least a portion thereof that is less than a radius of the mixing impeller (Fig. 6) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
943
1023
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Atsushi et al. reasonably discloses wherein the convex portion of the trailing edge has a radius of curvature along at least a portion thereof that is less than a radius of the mixing impeller (Fig. 6) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
1017
1303
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7-8, Atsushi et al. reasonably discloses wherein the ratio of W:L is greater than 1.5:1 per claim 7 and also greater than 1.1:1 and less than 10:1 per claim 8 (Atsushi et al., Fig. 6, as shown annotated above for claim 1, W is about three times larger than L).
Assuming, arguendo, that the ratio is not disclosed in Atsushi et al., 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 the angle ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the impeller of Atsushi et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 9, Atsushi et al. discloses wherein the trailing edge transition is circumferentially offset in the direction of rotation of the mixing impeller defining a trailing edge angle T as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
943
1178
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Atsushi et al. discloses wherein a ratio of T:L is greater than 1:1 (T is about 4 times larger than L).
Regarding claim 11, Atsushi et al. discloses wherein the ratio of T:L is from 1.1:1 to 10:1 (T is about 4 times larger than L).
Regarding claim 12, Atsushi et al. discloses wherein a ratio of W:T is from 1:2 to 2:1 (W is larger than half of T).
Regarding claim 14, Atsushi et al. discloses the mixing impeller comprises three of the mixing arms (Fig. 6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP H11247788A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kar et al. (US 20040145966) and Keeton (US 20030223874).
Regarding claim 4, Atsushi et al. discloses wherein the concave portion of the leading edge has a radius of curvature very similar to the radius of the mixing impeller as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
897
975
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Assuming that Atsushi et al. does not have a radius of curvature along the concave portion of the leading edge which is less than the radius of the mixing impeller; it would seem a slight shape change to meet the limitation would not significantly alter the device of Atsushi et al. and could be made by the person of ordinary skill in order to alter flow characteristics such as for use with different liquid compositions. See In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) and MPEP 2144.05.
Further, Kar et al. discloses a mixing impeller for liquids (slurry, Abstract) having a convex trailing edge and a concave leading edge wherein the concave leading edge has a radius of curvature along at least a portion thereof that is less than a radius of the mixing impeller (as indicated by the annotated circle below):
PNG
media_image7.png
608
618
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Further, Keeton discloses a mixing impeller (para. [0001]) having a concave leading edge (leading edge portion 32) and a convex trailing edge (trailing edge portion 34) and Keeton also discloses wherein the concave leading edge has a radius of curvature along at least a portion thereof that is less than a radius of the mixing impeller (as indicated by the annotated circles below):
PNG
media_image8.png
649
886
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 Atsushi et al. wherein the concave portion of the leading edge has a radius of curvature along at least a portion thereof that is less than a radius of the mixing impeller.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a design which includes a portion of the concave leading edge having a smaller radius than the impeller as a known design to facilitate downward flow (Kar et al., para. [0004]) or to achieve efficient linear flow (Keeton, para. [0001]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP H11247788A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kupp et al. (US 20210095672) or Kar et al. (US 20040145966).
Regarding claim 15, Kupp et al. does not expressly disclose four blades.
However, Kar et al. discloses a mixing impeller for liquids (slurry, Abstract) and Kar et al. teaches the impeller may have three blades or four (para. [0006]) or Kupp et al. discloses an impeller (impeller 534) wherein the impeller comprises four blades (in that it has five, Fig. 5A).
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 Atsushi et al. wherein the impeller comprises four blades.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use more blades in order to alter the flow or mixing characteristics such as to adjust for different liquid compositions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP H11247788A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Rosinger (US 3570819).
Regarding claim 17, Atsushi et al. does not disclose the impeller central hub has a mixing bar.
However, Rosinger discloses a mixing impeller (propeller 55, Fig. 4) and teaches using additional mixing bars with the impeller (elements 52, Fig. 4, Fig. 9) where the mixing bars extend axially outward (as best understood, a vertical direction).
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 Atsushi et al. wherein the impeller comprises at least one mixing bar extending axially outward from the central hub in an axial direction of the mixing impeller.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add mixing bars in order to enhance mixing (Rosinger, col. 6, line 16).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (previously attached translation of EP 2659958A1).
It is noted that claim 16 is dependent on claim 18.
Regarding claim 18, Krause discloses a mixing impeller for mixing material inside a cartridge (Fig. 2) and insomuch as Krause does not expressly disclose the impeller is for mixing sealant inside a cartridge, "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" (See MPEP 2111.02). Nevertheless, the impeller of Krause would be fully capable of mixing a sealant.
Krause discloses the mixing impeller as shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
693
1038
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Krause discloses the mixing impeller comprises a central hub (shown above); and at least two mixing arms extending radially outward from the central hub (Fig. 1), wherein each of the mixing arms includes: a leading edge with a leading tip at a radial outermost portion thereof and comprising a concave portion (shown above); a trailing edge with a trailing edge transition at a radial outermost position thereof and comprising a convex portion (shown above); and a mixing arm tip between the leading tip and the trailing edge transition, wherein Krause reasonably discloses the mixing arm tip has a thickness measured along an axial direction of the mixing impeller that is less than an arc length of the mixing arm tip measured from the leading tip to the trailing edge transition.
Assuming¸ arguendo, that Krause does not disclose the mixing arm tip thickness is not less than the arc length of the mixing arm tip, it would have been obvious to make slight alterations in the shape and dimensions, which would not significantly alter the device of Krause, to arrive at the mixing arm tip thickness being not less than the arc length of the mixing arm tip such as an obvious matter of design choice or to reduce friction with the wall of a vessel. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Scherl, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Krause discloses an outer annular ring connecting the at least two mixing arms together (shown above for claim 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Claim 13 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses impellers having mixing arms with leading edges having a concave portion and a leading tip offset in the direction of rotation to define an angle L, trailing edges with convex portions and a wiping edge having an arc length defining a wiping edge angle W, where W:L is greater than 1:1 and where the wiping edge has a thickness which is less than the arc length of the wiping edge.
The prior art of record discloses impellers having leading edges with a concave portion and a leading tip offset in the direction of rotation, trailing edges with a convex portion and a trailing edge transition at an outermost portion, a mixing arm tip between the leading tip and the trailing edge transition and where the mixing arm tip has a thickness less than an arc length of the mixing arm tip.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest an impeller suitable for mixing liquid including sealants and which has a leading edge with a concave portion and a leading tip offset in the direction of rotation to define an angle L, a trailing edge with a convex portion and a trialing edge transition, and a wiping edge having an arc length defining a wiping edge angle W, where W:L is greater than 1:1 and which further includes wherein the trailing edge transition is circumferentially offset in the direction of rotation of the mixing impeller defining a trailing edge angle T, wherein W is from 10° to 40°, L is from 2° to 15°, and T is from 10° to 40°.
Likewise, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest an assembly having a mixing cartridge and a mixing impeller comprising a generally cylindrical mixing cartridge and a mixing impeller structured and arranged for insertion inside the mixing cartridge, where the impeller includes mixing arms each having a leading edge with a concave portion and a leading tip offset in the direction of rotation to define an angle L, a trailing edge with a convex portion and a trailing edge transition, and a wiping edge having an arc length defining a wiping edge angle W, where W:L is greater than 1:1 and where the wiping edge has a thickness which is less than the arc length of the wiping edge where the arc length is measured from the leading tip to the trailing edge transition.
Conclusion
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
