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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “the longitudinal axis” in line 3 which lacks antecedent basis and should be changed to “a longitudinal axis” for consistency with the way the terminology is used in other claims (claim 6). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “the radial directions” in lines 1-2 which lacks antecedent basis. This should be changed to “
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 11, and 13-15 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.
Claim 11 recites "the internal cross section" in line 5 (specifically, this is in reference to the first instance in line 5 and referring to the internal cross section of a first pipe portion ) and in line 8 (in reference to a second pipe portion). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Both of these could be changed to “an internal cross section” or “its internal cross section”.
Alternatively (and among other possibilities), both of the above instances could be resolved by amending claim 11 as “An arrangement having an internal cross section along the flow direction and comprising at least one device……….”.
Claims 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
Claim 15 recites “the apertures” (plural) it is unclear if this is requiring more than one aperture or if there are more than one aperture in each of the “at least one” devices as recited in claim 11 where each of the at least one device would have a cavity as recited in claim 1. There is only one aperture required in the dependency chain of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolff (Applicant provided AT 360737).
Regarding claim 1, Wolff discloses a device for adding and mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (concrete spraying, page 1, 4th paragraph, “continuous mixing of material”, page 1, 5th paragraph) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
490
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wolff discloses the device comprises a tubular cavity (main line 1) for conducting the hydraulically settable mixture (concrete mixture, page 1, 5th paragraph) through in an intended flow direction (direction of flow 3, Fig. 1), wherein a static flow-influencing element (helical ribs 2), in which there is an aperture (bores 4) that leads into the cavity and is intended for introducing the additive (page 2, 5th paragraph), projects into the cavity (Fig. 1, shown above).
Regarding claim 2, Wolff discloses wherein the aperture leading into the cavity is configured in such a way that the additive can be introduced into the cavity at a distance from a wall of the cavity (bores 4 are along a radius of the cavity and spaced apart from the wall, Fig. 2) shown above.
Regarding claim 3, Wolff discloses wherein the aperture leading into the cavity is configured in such a way that the additive can be introduced into the cavity on a downstream side of the flow-influencing element (shown above).
Regarding claim 4, Wolff discloses wherein the flow-influencing element has a leading edge extending into the cavity inclined with respect to the flow direction from its upstream end to its downstream end (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, shown above).
Regarding claim 5, Wolff discloses wherein the flow-influencing element is in the form of a fin (Fig. 1 or Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Wolff discloses wherein the fin is inclined with respect to a longitudinal axis of the cavity, with the result that lateral surfaces of the fin are inclined with respect to the longitudinal axis of the cavity (such that one lateral side of each fin is visible in the perspective shown in Fig. 2), and/or wherein the fin is curved (the fins are also curved, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Wolff discloses wherein a leading edge of the fin is at an angle of 20-60° with respect to the longitudinal axis of the cavity and/or Wolff discloses the trailing edge is at an angle of 80-90° (Wolff at least discloses the second limitation regarding the trailing edge: perpendicular - 90⁰, Fig. 1, and the initial limitation regarding the leading edge is optional, but Wolff appears to reasonably disclose the initial leading edge limitation as well, Fig. 1) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the cavity as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
597
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Wolff discloses a method comprising using the device as claimed in claim 1 in the production of shaped bodies by additive manufacture and/or in the application of spray concrete or spray mortar (concrete spraying, page 1, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Wolff discloses a process for adding and mixing (page 1, 4th paragraph) an additive (page 1, 5th paragraph) into a hydraulically settable mixture, by means of a device (the device shown in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2) or an arrangement as claimed in claim 11 (Wolff does not expressly disclose the arrangement of claim 11 which is interpreted as an optional limitation here due to the limitation of “a device or” in the claim), wherein the additive is introduced into the hydraulically settable mixture through the aperture (bores 4, page 2, 4th paragraph) leading into the cavity (Fig. 1).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff (Applicant provided AT 360737) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Butler (US 20190308342) and Bardin et al. (attached translation of FR 2552344A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wolff discloses at least two flow-influencing elements, but does not disclose they are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction.
However, Butler teaches a device for mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (concrete mix with admixtures containing thixotropes, thickeners and/or set accelerators or other modifiers, Abstract) and Butler teaches flow-influencing elements (vanes 14’, Fig. 9B) and further teaches wherein the flow-influencing elements are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction of the cavity (Fig. 9B).
Further, Bardin et al. teaches a device for mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (gunite, para. [0004]) and Bardin et al. teaches injecting additive at multiple locations spaced apart (arranged as a spiral, para. [0001]) along the longitudinal direction (nozzles 5, Fig. 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 Wolff wherein there are at least two flow-influencing elements spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction of the cavity.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to space apart the flow-influencing elements in order to achieve “maximum disruption without creating blockage” for efficient mixing (Butler, para. [0118]) and to ensure good mixing as the mixture is directed through the cavity by spacing the apertures longitudinally apart (Bardin et al., “optimizing the contact conditions”, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Wolff does not disclose flow-influencing elements spaced apart in a longitudinal direction.
However, Butler who teaches flow-influencing elements spaced apart in a longitudinal direction as discussed for claim 8 above further teaches wherein the radial directions of the at least two flow-influencing elements are at an angle of 360°/(number of flow-influencing elements) (such as 360⁰ / 8 = 45⁰, Fig. 9B and Fig. 9C) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
409
334
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 Wolff wherein the radial directions of the at least two flow-influencing elements are at an angle of 360°/(number of flow-influencing elements).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such a configuration for efficient mixing (Butler, para. [0118]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff (Applicant provided AT 360737) in view of Butler (US 20190308342) and Bardin et al. (attached translation of FR 2552344A1) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Hosokawa et al. (attached translation of JP H01258908A).
Regarding claim 10, Wolff does not expressly disclose at least two individual devices.
However, Hosokawa et al. teaches a device for mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (“mixing and agitating of accelerating agent with concrete”, Abstract) and Hosokawa et al. teaches devices (rapid additive addition pipe 1 and 1’) comprising a tubular cavity for conducting the hydraulically settable mixture through in an intended flow direction, wherein the devices include a static flow-influencing element (projecting ridges 5 for mixing, para. [0002]) and where the devices may have apertures that lead into the cavity (holes 5a, shown below) and which project into the cavity (Fig. 1) and where the devices can be detachably connected to one another (via flanges and bolt holes 4a, Figs. 1-3), wherein the devices are designed in such a way that they communicate with one another in the connected state by way of their tubular cavities (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
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 Wolff wherein the device comprises at least two individual devices for adding and mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture, comprising a tubular cavity for conducting the hydraulically settable mixture through in an intended flow direction, wherein a static flow-influencing element (Wolff, ribs 2, Butler, vanes 14’, Hosokawa et al., ridge 5), in which there is an aperture (Wolff, bores 4, Hosokawa et al., holes 5a) that leads into the cavity and is intended for introducing the additive, projects into the cavity (Wolff, Fig. 1, Hosokawa et al., Fig. 1), that can be detachably connected to one another (Hosokawa et al., via flanges, Fig. 1-3), wherein the devices are designed in such a way that they communicate with one another in the connected state by way of their tubular cavities (Hosokawa et al., Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use multiple devices which are attachable (and separable) to one another in order to assemble different configurations for different applications having different mixing requirements or to facilitate cleaning of the device and to facilitate blockage removal. Making the system separable into multiple components/devices would facilitate cleaning by allowing easier access to the internal space. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff (Applicant provided AT 360737) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of or Butler (US 20190308342) and Radonich (US 2392408).
Regarding claim 11, Wolff discloses the device of claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above), but does not expressly disclose tapered portions.
However, Butler teaches a device for mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (concrete mix with admixtures containing thixotropes, thickeners and/or set accelerators or other modifiers, Abstract) and Butler further teaches a mixing section (with vanes 14) wherein attached to the downstream side there is a first pipe portion that tapers in the flow direction with respect to the internal cross section, wherein the internal cross section in the first pipe portion has a conical taper, and wherein attached to the upstream side there is a second pipe portion tapering counter to the flow direction with respect to the internal cross section, wherein the second pipe portion tapers in a stepped manner (Fig. 2B) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
398
769
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Radonich teaches a mixing device for a hydraulically settable mixture (concrete [sand and cement], page 1, lines 1-5) and Radonich teaches a mixing section (at water ring 7) wherein attached to the downstream side there is a first pipe portion that tapers in the flow direction with respect to the internal cross section, wherein the internal cross section in the first pipe portion has a conical taper, and wherein attached to the upstream side there is a second pipe portion tapering counter to the flow direction with respect to the internal cross section, wherein the second pipe portion tapers in a stepped manner (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
901
914
media_image5.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 Wolff wherein attached to the downstream side there is a first pipe portion that tapers in the flow direction with respect to the internal cross section, wherein the internal cross section in the first pipe portion has a conical taper, and wherein attached to the upstream side there is a second pipe portion tapering counter to the flow direction with respect to the internal cross section, wherein the second pipe portion tapers in a stepped manner.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use tapered configurations in order to reduce the speed of the mixture in the mixing zone to allow for more time for mixing and to increase the speed out of the mixing zone (by reducing the diameter/cross section area) to facilitate application of the mixture.
Regarding claim 13, assuming, arguendo, that the device of claim 11 is a required limitation, the combined teachings of the above-cited references for claim 11 disclose a process for adding and mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture, by means of a device or an arrangement as claimed in claim 11 (see comments for claim 11 above), wherein the additive is introduced into the hydraulically settable mixture through the aperture (Wolff, bores 4 as shown above for claim 1) leading into the cavity (Wolff, Fig. 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff (Applicant provided AT 360737) in view of Butler (US 20190308342) and Radonich (US 2392408) as applied to claim 13 above and in further view of Bardin et al. (attached translation of FR 2552344A1)
Regarding claim 14, Wolff discloses the additive is added by means of a device for adding and mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (concrete spraying, page 1, 4th paragraph, continuous mixing of material, page 1, 5th paragraph), comprising a tubular cavity (Fig. 1, shown above for claim 1) for conducting the hydraulically settable mixture through in an intended flow direction, wherein a static flow-influencing element (helical ribs 2), in which there is an aperture (bores 4) that leads into the cavity and is intended for introducing the additive, projects into the cavity (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Wolff discloses at least two flow-influencing elements, but does not disclose they are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction.
However, Butler teaches a device for mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (concrete mix with admixtures containing thixotropes, thickeners and/or set accelerators or other modifiers, Abstract) and Butler teaches flow-influencing elements (vanes 14’, Fig. 9B) and further teaches wherein the flow-influencing elements are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction of the cavity (Fig. 9B).
Further, Bardin et al. teaches a device for mixing an additive into a hydraulically settable mixture (gunite, para. [0004]) and Bardin et al. teaches injecting additive at multiple locations spaced apart (arranged as a spiral, para. [0001]) along the longitudinal direction (nozzles 5, Fig. 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 Wolff wherein there are at least two flow-influencing elements spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction of the cavity.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to space apart the flow-influencing elements in order to achieve “maximum disruption without creating blockage” for efficient mixing (Butler, para. [0118]) and to ensure good mixing as the mixture is directed through the cavity by spacing the apertures longitudinally apart (Bardin et al., “optimizing the contact conditions”, para. [0005]).
The combined teaching of the above-cited references disclose wherein a first partial quantity of the additive is added through a first flow-influencing element (Wolff, ribs 2 with bores 4, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), while at the same time at least one further partial quantity is added through at least one further one of the flow-influencing elements (in modifying the device of Wolff by the spacing taught by Butler, the ribs 2 with apertures/bores 4 are arranged longitudinally like Butler, vanes 14’, Fig. 9B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff (Applicant provided AT 360737) in view of Butler (US 20190308342) and Radonich (US 2392408) as applied to claim 13 above and in further view of Spirig et al. (Applicant provided EP 1570908) and Ihle et al. (US 5372844).
Regarding claim 15, Wolff does not expressly disclose wherein the apertures leading into the cavity are subjected to and/or blown dry by a gas after the additive has finished being introduced.
However, Spirig et al. teaches a device for mixing an additive (para. [0029]) into a hydraulically settable mixture (concrete, Abstract) and Spirig et al. teaches apertures (channels 7) for introducing the additive (para. [0029]) where the channels may also receive a gas (air, para. [0024]).
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 Wolff wherein the channels are configured to receive a gas.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use gas, which could also be used for blowing the channels dry, in order to mix in air with the concrete (Spirig et al., para. [0024]).
The above-cited references do not explicitly teach blowing the apertures dry after the additive has finished being introduced.
However, Ihle et al. teaches a device for mixing a component and additive (resin and hardener, col. 5, lines 45-50) using static mixing chamber (mixer 2) and Ihle et al. further teaches blowing the lines and mixer dry by a gas (compressed air) after the additive has finished being introduced (col. 3, lines 20-22).
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 Wolff wherein the apertures leading into the cavity are subjected to and/or blown dry by a gas after the additive has finished being introduced.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to clean the device by blowing a gas through it (which would also dry any volatile liquids or otherwise remove liquids) in order to prevent blockages from occurring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lamminen et al. (US 20020121350) discloses flow-influencing elements having apertures for additives arranged longitudinally in a tube.
Sampel (US 2075867) discloses a concrete mixing nozzle where piping tapers to a larger diameter (at section 15) entering a mixing zone (with fingers 22) and then tapers to a smaller diameter (at section 14) leaving the mixing zone.
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