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 Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the angle ϴ3 in the range of 0⁰ to 30⁰ is desirable and thus arrive at a relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path in the range of 60⁰ to 90⁰ (Remarks, page 9). However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Nakamura et al. discloses the claimed range may be used (ϴ3 between 0-90⁰, para. [0082]) and Zuiderweg and Takeuchi both teach using 0⁰ to induce a vortex pattern to improve mixing (Zuiderweg, col. 1, lines 19-21) or otherwise to encourage uniform mixing (Takeuchi, para. [0052]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Zuiderweg (paraphrasing) relies on the formation of toroidal vortices to mix liquid with material phases which are partially immiscible and the person of ordinary skill would have no reason to turn to an apparatus which relies on toroidal vortex formation because vortexing would likely amplify the destruction of foam bubbles (Remarks, page 16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and the Applicant’s position on this point is considered to be speculative attorney's argument unsupported by objective technical evidence on the issue. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
While not addressed in Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that the negative effects of vortex formation mentioned in Nakamura et al. are in regard to vortex formation in the outlet conduit (pars. [0015] and [0019]-[0021]), not the mixing chamber and the Examiner contends that the use of vortex flow in mixing devices used in making foamed materials (which comprise bubbles) is well known. For example, as evidenced by:
Jones (US 20190152869) discloses mixing foam and gypsum slurry under vortex flow (para. [0002]).
Kimura et al. (attached translation of WO 03080329A1) discloses mixing foam for gypsum board (page 11, lines 15-18) and discloses: “Conventional means such as vortex turning to slurry or application of moderate shear force can also be utilized” (page 11, lines 30-31).
Dugas (US 2733053) discloses mixing for cellular concrete having “a large number of gas bubbles” (col. 1, lines 20-21) of uniform size (col. 1, lines 33-37) where swirling or vortex flow is used (col. 1, line 53).
Thus, modifying Nakamura et al. by using an inlet conduit positioned at about 0⁰ to a tangent to the mixing path to facilitate vortex flow as taught by Zuiderweg would be expected to assist in homogenizing the mixture and achieving uniform bubble size and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (paraphrasing) Takeuchi is related to a mixing device for sludges for the purpose of eventual dewatering of the sludges which have substantially different rheological properties as compared to a gypsum slurry and the components are added through the same inlet rather than separate inlets and Takeuchi teaches the tangential flow is for increasing the floc size and the person of ordinary skill would have no reason to turn to Takeuchi for modifying devices for mixing slurry and foam (Remarks, pages 16-18). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner contends that the use of the 0⁰ tangential inlet taught by Takeuchi would create further uniform mixing (Takeuchi, para. [0052]) of a wide range of liquids including slurries for stucco, especially in view of Nakamura et al. (who also discloses 0⁰ may be used, para. [0082]) and Zuiderweg (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, as discussed above) and Takeuchi is relied upon specifically for teaching the tangential inlet and not for teaching the order or method of adding ingredients nor a method of adding specific ingredients. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that minimizing the difference in residence time between the aqueous foam and the other slurry components can help with uniform mixing and decreasing the angle between the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path can help minimize differences in residence time (Remarks, pages 9-10). It is again noted that the limitation of a residence time of foam which is “similar to” the residence time of other components, as recited in claim 1, is a very broad limitation and the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Nakamura et al. teaches having the foam feeding port in close proximity to the outlet port or directly to the outlet port (Nakamura et al., para. [0033]) as a means for reducing the foaming agent (paraphrasing) and thus minimizing the foam residence time and the person of ordinary skill would have no reason to arrive at the claimed invention which requires similar residence times (Remarks, page 11). Again, the limitation of “similar” residence time is very broad. Nakamura et al. discloses the foam conduit 40 may be placed at a location along the angle β (Fig. 4, para. [0078]), which could place the foam inlet near the inlet conduits 15 and 16 and result in “similar” residence time. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that there is nothing in Yamaji et al. suggesting that the various conduits need to be arranged proximal to each other or that arranging the conduits proximal to one another would lead to similar residence times of the various components (Remarks, page 13). This is not found to be persuasive as the Examiner contends that placing the conduits at similar locations along the circular flow path as indicated in Fig. 4 of Yamaji et al. reasonably discloses “similar” residence times at least insofar as they take a flow path of similar distance between their respective inlets and the outlet and the flow velocity is being driven by the same mixing member which would result in similar residence times and thus the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that nothing in Yamaji et al. suggests that the foam feeding conduit should be angled relative to the mixing path (Remarks, pages 13-14). Again, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, supra. In this case, Yamaji et al. is merely relied upon to teach similar residence times whereas the configuration of the inlet is disclosed or taught by Nakamura et al., Zuiderweg and/or Takuchi as discussed above and the argument is not persuasive.
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 1-3, 6-9, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20070008815) in view of Yamaji et al. (US 20060045975), Zuiderweg (US 3062627) and Takeuchi (US 20050189280).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura et al. discloses a mixing apparatus and insomuch as Nakamura et al. does not explicitly state the apparatus is a stucco slurry mixing apparatus (assuming, arguendo, that a gypsum slurry, Abstract, does not read on “stucco” slurry), “it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the mixing apparatus would be fully capable of mixing a stucco slurry (similar to or the same as a gypsum slurry, Abstract).
Nakamura et al. discloses the stucco slurry mixing apparatus shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
985
1676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakamura et al. discloses the stucco slurry mixing apparatus comprises: a vessel (mixer 10/housing 20) for receiving and mixing ingredients therein; a mixing member (disc 32) configured to move within the vessel and mix ingredients contained therein, wherein the movement of the mixing member defines a non-rectilinear mixing path (rotation, para. [0041], causing a circular or otherwise curved path for the materials); wherein the vessel comprises: a first inlet (foam feeding port 41) for the introduction of ingredients comprising at least an aqueous foam (again, the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims, nevertheless the device of Nakamura et al. would be fully capable of using aqueous foam and Nakamura et al. teaches it is known to use foam which is aqueous, para. [0016]) into the vessel (Fig. 3), wherein the first inlet comprises an inlet aperture (port 41, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) in a wall of the vessel (a side wall, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) and an inlet conduit (foam conduit 40) extending therefrom such that a relative angle between a longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and a tangent (as shown above) to the mixing path at a point adjacent to the inlet aperture is between 30 and 0 degrees (by selecting a tangent at the inlet, Fig. 4, the claimed angle is equal to 90⁰ - ϴ3, para. [0082]); in that it may be between 0⁰ and 90⁰ (para. [0082]).
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 proportions taught by Nakamura et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are 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.
Further, Zuiderweg teaches a mixing device (contactor for liquid and fluent material. col. 1, lines 10-15) and Zuiderweg teaches the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that a relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path is about 0⁰ (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
499
987
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Takeuchi teaches a mixing device (para. [0004]) wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that a relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path is about 0 degrees (Fig. 1b) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
346
750
media_image3.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 Nakamura et al. wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that a relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path is between 30 and 0 degrees (about 0⁰, as shown above).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an inlet conduit whose longitudinal axis is approximately shared with a tangent line of the mixing path at a point adjacent to the aperture in order to induce a vortex pattern to improve mixing (Zuiderweg, col. 1, lines 19-21) or otherwise to encourage uniform mixing (Takeuchi, para. [0052]).
Nakamura et al. discloses a second inlet (conduit 16 and also a third inlet: conduit 15) comprising a second inlet aperture (Fig. 4) in a wall (a top wall) of the vessel for the introduction of further ingredients into the vessel; and an outlet for mixed slurry (conduit 46), wherein the first inlet and outlet are positioned such that, when in use, and a stucco slurry comprising the aqueous foam and other components is within the vessel, an average residence time of the aqueous foam within the vessel is similar to an average residence time of the other components of the stucco slurry within the vessel (“similar residence time” is a broad limitation which is met by Nakamura et al. especially since other components, such as powder and water, enter at supply conduits 15 and 16 and the foam conduit 40 may be placed at a location along the angle β, Fig. 4, para. [0078], which could place the foam inlet near the inlet conduits 15 and 16, e.g. near fractionation conduit 12a or otherwise the device could be operated such that “the other components” are fed with the foam via conduit 40 and therefore have the same residence time: As held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself”) wherein the other components comprise the ingredients in the vessel that are not the aqueous foam.
Assuming, arguendo, that Nakamura et al. does not disclose that the mixer is configured such that the residence time of components and foam are similar, Yamaji et al. discloses a similar device (gypsum slurry mixer, Abstract) and Yamaji et al. teaches that the foam inlet may be placed near an inlet for other components (water inlet 46 and/or powder supply conduit 45, Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
613
718
media_image4.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 Nakamura et al. wherein the mixer is configured such that the residence time of foam and other components is similar, such as placing the foam inlet (conduit 40) along the side wall closer to the inlet(s) for other materials.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the foam inlet near the inlet(s) for other materials in order to ensure homogenous distribution of the foam.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture in a direction away from a direction of rotation of the mixing member (Fig. 7, para. [0082]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
719
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In modifying Nakamura et al. with the teachings of Zuiderweg or Takeuchi, the inlet conduit would likewise extend from the inlet aperture in a direction away from a direction of rotation of the mixing member (at about zero degrees, Zuiderweg, Fig. 2, Takeuchi, Fig. 1b, rather than the angle shown above).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the mixing path lies entirely within a single plane and the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit lies parallel to and spaced from the plane in which the mixing path lies (Fig. 20) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
449
835
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the inlet aperture is in a side wall of the vessel (annular wall 23, Fig. 20, shown above for claim 3).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the second inlet aperture (conduit 16) is in a top wall (upper plate 21) of the vessel (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
498
659
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the second inlet is spaced from the first inlet (Fig. 3, as shown above for claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the inlet aperture is elliptical or oval in shape.
However, Nakamura et al. teaches the inlet conduit may be positioned at various angles (para. [0082]) which would result in an oval shaped inlet aperture; for example: Zuiderweg teaches a mixing device (contactor for liquid and fluent material. col. 1, lines 10-15) and Zuiderweg teaches the inlet (inlet 27) is positioned tangential to a mixing member (rotor discs 24) resulting in an oval inlet aperture as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
422
789
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 Nakamura et al. wherein the inlet aperture is elliptical or oval in shape.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use an oval shape in order to allow for the inlet conduit to be angled while entering through an annular wall and while not introducing unwanted disruption of the flow along the wall of the vessel (such as would occur in retaining a circular shape with the straight conduit entering through the annular wall).
Regarding claims 11, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that the relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path is between 20 and 0 degrees in that Nakamura et al. teaches an angle range which overlaps with 0-20⁰ (such as by selecting a tangent perpendicular to the radius, Fig. 4, the claimed angle being equal to 90⁰ - ϴ3, para. [0082]); in that it may be between 0⁰ and 90⁰ (para. [0082]).
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 proportions taught by Nakamura et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are 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.
Further, Zuiderweg teaches a mixing device (contactor for liquid and fluent material. col. 1, lines 10-15) and Zuiderweg teaches the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that a relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path is between 20 and 0 degrees (about 0⁰, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) as shown above for claim 1.
Likewise, Takeuchi teaches a mixing device (para. [0004]) wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that a relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path is between 20 and 0 degrees (about 0⁰, Fig. 1b) as shown above for claim 1.
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 Nakamura et al. wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that a relative angle between the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit and the tangent to the mixing path is between 20 and 0 degrees (about 0⁰ as shown above for claim 1).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an inlet conduit whose longitudinal axis is approximately shared with a tangent line of the mixing path in order to induce a vortex pattern to improve mixing (Zuiderweg, col. 1, lines 19-21) or otherwise to encourage uniform mixing (Takeuchi, para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura et al. discloses the angle ϴ3 (Fig. 4) could be 90⁰ (para. [0082]) which would correspond to being parallel to a tangent of the mixing path.
Otherwise, Zuiderweg teaches a mixing device (contactor for liquid and fluent material. col. 1, lines 10-15) and Zuiderweg teaches the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit is parallel to the tangent to the mixing path (as shown above for claim 1).
Likewise, Takeuchi teaches a mixing device (para. [0004]) wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit is parallel to the tangent to the mixing path (as shown above for claim 1).
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 Nakamura et al. wherein the inlet conduit extends from the inlet aperture such that the longitudinal axis of the inlet conduit is parallel to the tangent to the mixing path.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an inlet conduit whose longitudinal axis is shared/parallel with a tangent line of the mixing path in order to induce a vortex pattern to improve mixing (Zuiderweg, col. 1, lines 19-21) or otherwise to encourage uniform mixing (Takeuchi, para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the vessel further comprises a third inlet (conduit 15).
Regarding claim 16, insomuch as Nakamura et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixing path is circular; Zuiderweg teaches a mixing device (contactor for liquid and fluent material. col. 1, lines 10-15) and Zuiderweg teaches the mixing path is circular (Fig. 3 and shown above for claim 1).
Likewise, Takeuchi teaches a mixing device (para. [0004]) and Takeuchi teaches the mixing path is circular (Fig. 1b and shown above for claim 1).
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 Nakamura et al. by using a circular mixing path.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a circular mixing path such as by forming vortex flow in order to improve mixing (Zuiderweg, col. 1, lines 19-21) or otherwise to encourage uniform mixing (Takeuchi, para. [0052]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Nakamura et al. does not explicitly disclose the average residence time of the aqueous foam within the vessel is within 30% (or 20% for claim 18) of the average residence time of the other components of the stucco slurry within the vessel. Although, the device of Nakamura et al. could be operated such that some other components are introduced with the foam to meet the limitations as “it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims” (see MPEP 2115) and as held in In re Casey, supra, “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.”
Otherwise, Yamaji et al. teaches a similar apparatus (gypsum slurry mixer, Abstract) and teaches that the foam is introduced at a location (foam feeding conduit 48) so close to other inlets for ingredients (powder inlet 45 and water inlet 46, para. [0050]) that Yamaji et al. reasonably discloses the average residence time of the foam within the vessel is within 30% (or 20% for claim 18) of the average residence time of the other components of the slurry within the vessel as shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
569
586
media_image9.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 Nakamura et al. wherein in use, the average residence time of the aqueous foam within the vessel is within 30% (or within 20% for claim 18) of the average residence time of the other components of the stucco slurry within the vessel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use similar residence times for the ingredients and foam in order to ensure that the foam is uniformly distributed in the slurry.
Assuming, arguendo, that the relative residence time is not disclosed in Nakamura et al. in view of Yamaji 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 relative residence time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Nakamura et al. with the relative residence times recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20070008815) and Yamaji et al. (US 20060045975), Zuiderweg (US 3062627) and Takeuchi (US 20050189280) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Stiling (US 4176972A).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the mixing member may be positioned between the first inlet and the outlet because Nakamura et al. teaches the first inlet may be positioned between the outlet and a fractionation port (port 12a, corresponding to within the range of angle β: “the foam feeding conduit 40 is connected to the annular wall 23 within a range of the angle β”, para. [0078], Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image10.png
629
668
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Otherwise, Stiling discloses a similar device (mixer for gypsum, Abstract) wherein the mixing member is positioned above the outlet in that the outlet and inlets are positioned above the mixing disk (feed hopper 12 and conduit 14, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
577
661
media_image11.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 Nakamura et al. wherein the outlet is positioned below the mixing member such that the mixing member is positioned between the first inlet and the outlet.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the mixing member between the first inlet and the outlet by placing the inlet above the mixing member and the outlet below the mixing member in order to ensure that all of the mixture passes through the mixing member before discharge in order to facilitate mixing.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura et al. does not disclose the mixing member is positioned between the second inlet and the outlet.
However, Stiling discloses a similar device (mixer for gypsum, Abstract) wherein the mixing member is positioned between the inlets (mixing member/rotor disk 20 is positioned between inlets 12 and 14 and the outlet 96, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
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 Nakamura et al. wherein the mixing member is positioned between the second inlet and the outlet.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the mixing member between inlets and the outlet in order to ensure that all of the mixture passes through the mixing member before discharge in order to facilitate mixing.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20070008815) in view of Yamaji et al. (US 20060045975), Zuiderweg (US 3062627) and Takeuchi (US 20050189280) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wittbold et al. (US 10011045) and Yang et al. (US 6280079).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein the outlet comprises an outlet aperture and an outlet conduit extending therefrom, wherein the outlet conduit diverges from a direction of rotation of the mixing member as it extends away from the outlet aperture (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
510
692
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Otherwise, Wittbold et al. teaches a slurry mixer (Abstract) and further teaches wherein the outlet comprises an outlet aperture and an outlet conduit extending therefrom (passage 78 and conduit 40), wherein the outlet conduit diverges from a direction of rotation of the mixing member as it extends away from the outlet aperture (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image13.png
708
824
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Yang et al. teaches a slurry mixer (Abstract) and further teaches wherein the outlet comprises an outlet aperture and an outlet conduit extending therefrom (output pipe 304), wherein the outlet conduit diverges from a direction of rotation of the mixing member as it extends away from the outlet aperture (Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image14.png
580
659
media_image14.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 Nakamura et al. wherein the outlet comprises an outlet aperture and an outlet conduit extending therefrom, wherein the outlet conduit diverges from a direction of rotation of the mixing member as it extends away from the outlet aperture.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an outlet which diverges in order to facilitate collecting the slurry for discharge to the point of use.
Regarding claim 15, insomuch as Nakamura et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein a relative angle between a longitudinal axis of the outlet conduit and a further tangent to the mixing path is less than 90 degrees; Wittbold et al. teaches a slurry mixer (Abstract) and further teaches a longitudinal axis of the outlet conduit and a further tangent (two examples of further tangents shown below) to the mixing path is less than 90 degrees (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image15.png
582
714
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Yang et al. teaches a slurry mixer (Abstract) and further teaches, wherein a relative angle between a longitudinal axis of the outlet conduit and a further tangent to the mixing path is less than 90 degrees (0⁰, Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image16.png
579
596
media_image16.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 Nakamura et al. wherein a relative angle between a longitudinal axis of the outlet conduit and a further tangent to the mixing path is less than 90 degrees.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an outlet angle less than 90 degrees in order to facilitate collecting the slurry for discharge to the point of use.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20070008815) in view of Yamaji et al. (US 20060045975), Zuiderweg (US 3062627) and Takeuchi (US 20050189280) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Bruce et al. (US 20080223258) and Camp (US 2253059).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura et al. discloses a method of mixing a slurry (Abstract) using the slurry mixing apparatus as claimed in claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above) the method comprising the steps: introducing ingredients including at least aqueous foam (para. [0075]) into the vessel (mixer 10/housing 20) via the first inlet (port 41); introducing further ingredients into the vessel via the second inlet (water conduit 16), moving the mixing member to mix the ingredients within the vessel (para. [0095]) and removing mixed slurry from the vessel via the outlet (conduit 46).
Insomuch as Nakamura et al. does not discloses wherein the average residence time of the aqueous foam within the vessel is similar to the average residence time of the other components of the stucco slurry within the vessel; Yamaji et al. teaches a similar apparatus (gypsum slurry mixer, Abstract) and teaches that the foam is introduced at a location (foam feeding conduit 48) so close to other inlets for ingredients (powder inlet 45 and water inlet 46, para. [0050]) that the average residence time of the aqueous foam within the vessel is similar to the average residence time of the other components of the slurry within the vessel (annotated above for claims 17-18).
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 Nakamura et al. wherein the average residence time of the aqueous foam within the vessel is similar to the average residence time of the other components of the stucco slurry within the vessel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use similar residence times for the ingredients and foam in order to ensure that the foam is uniformly distributed in the slurry.
Nakamura et al. does not explicitly disclose the slurry is a stucco slurry (assuming, arguendo, that a “gypsum” slurry is not a stucco slurry).
However, Bruce et al. discloses a similar mixing process for mixing a stucco slurry with aqueous foam (Fig. 1, pars. [0003]-[0004] and [0074]) and Likewise, Camp teaches a similar mixing process (Fig. 5) for mixing a stucco slurry (page 1, right column, lines 23-25) with foam (page 1, left column, line 26).
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 Nakamura et al. wherein the slurry is stucco.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the device to mix stucco slurry in order to manufacture gypsum board (Bruce et al., para. [0003], Camp, page 1, left column, line 14).
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura et al. discloses wherein aqueous foam is the only ingredient introduced into the stucco slurry via the first inlet (conduit 40 is for foam and other ingredients have their own inlets: conduits 15 and 16, pars. [0074]-[0075]). Likewise, Bruce et al. further teaches foam is the only ingredient added through the foam inlet (as indicated in Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hogan et al. (US 20020197164) discloses using oval-shaped inlets to reduce flow restriction (para. [0090]).
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 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