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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/2/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulz et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0095833).
Regarding claim 1, Schulz et al. discloses a static mixing tip (figure 3B, reference #310 and 320; [0017]) comprising:
a static mixer (reference #230) having a base (reference #220; bottom end of reference #230);
a housing (reference #100) having a base (reference #134) and a body (reference #133);
a head space disposed between the housing and the static mixer (reference #25 and 101);
a sealing lip disposed on the base of the static mixer to provide a seal between the base of the static mixer and the housing (reference #140; [0044]-[0045]); and
at least one venting element disposed on the sealing lip of the static mixer or the housing (reference #150),
the at least one venting element is configured to provide a gas flow communication between two sides of the sealing lip, and a gaseous connection between the head space and an exterior ambient atmosphere outside the static mixing tip such that a portion of gases trapped in the head space between the housing and the static mixer has a pathway to escape to the exterior ambient atmosphere during normal operation and operation of the static mixing tip (figures 4A-4C, reference #20, 25 and 150; [0051]; [0054]; [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises vents radially oriented around the sealing lip or the housing (figures 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C and 4A-4C, reference #150; [0045]; [0051]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises a plurality of vents, each vent of the plurality of vents having a depth or width of 0.005 mm to 0.1 mm (reference #150; [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises a plurality of vents equal in size (figures 1B and 1C, reference #150).
Regarding claim 6, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises a plurality of vents, each vent of the plurality of vents disposed on an inner surface of the base of the housing such that a portion of the at least one venting element overlaps with a portion of an interface between the sealing lip and the housing along an axial direction (reference #150; [0046]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises approximately equally distributed vents around the sealing lip of the static mixer or the housing (figures 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C and 4A-4C, reference #150; [0045]; [0051]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises a plurality of vents, each vent of the plurality of vents configured to enable material entering the static mixing tip to push air out through the plurality of vents and seal the vents (figures 4A-4C, reference #20 and 150; [0051]; [0054]; [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 9, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the housing comprises a substantially truncated conical inner surface connecting the base of the housing to the body (figures 1B and 3B, reference #131 between reference #133 and 134).
Regarding claim 10, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the housing comprises an outer surface connecting the base of the housing to the body (figures 1A and 1B, #132), and the outer surface comprises one or more vents (figure 1B, reference #150).
Regarding claim 11, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises a plurality of vents configured to enable air but not viscous mass to pass through the vents during normal mixing and dispensing operations at pressures of less than 2 bar (reference #150; [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the at least one venting element comprises a plurality of vents disposed approximately equally distributed around the sealing lip of the static mixer or the housing (figures 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C and 4A-4C, reference #150; [0045]; [0051]; [0053]), the sealing lip or the housing comprises four or more vents (figures 1B, 1C, 3B, 3C and 4A-4C, reference #150; [0045]; [0051]; [0053]), and an inner surface of the base of the housing comprises two or more equally distributed alternating crests and troughs (reference #135; [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, Schulz et al. discloses wherein the housing comprises an outer surface connecting the base of the housing to the body (reference #132), and the outer surface comprises two or more equally spaced ribs (reference #135).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 12, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. in view of Linne et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0135963).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Schulz et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses an assembly of mixing elements (figures 3B-4C, reference #230), they do not have the exact shape as recited.
Linne et al. teaches another mixing element for plastic inside a tubular housing ([0002]). The reference teaches wherein the static mixer comprises an assembly of mixing elements to separate a material to be mixed into a plurality of streams, each mixing element comprising first and second guide walls with a common transversal edge, a separating edge at an end opposite the common transversal edge, the first and second guide walls form a curved and continuous transition between the separating edges and the common transverse edge, the transversal edge is configured to divide the material to be mixed, and the first and second guide walls and common transversal edge of a mixing element divide the material into six flow paths, and the assembly of mixing elements includes five or more mixing elements connected to one another via a common bar element (figures 1-7, reference #100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the mixing elements of Schulz et al. to have to the shaped walls and edges of Linne et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach mixing elements for plastic inside a tubular housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the mixing element as taught by Linne et al. because it ensures thorough mixing in the desired mixed ratio, and as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, Schulz et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference further discloses wherein the housing comprises a substantially truncated conical inner surface connecting the base of the housing to the body (figures 1B and 3B, reference #131 between reference #133 and 134). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a lateral surface of the base of the static mixer above the sealing lip is substantially conically truncated.
Linne et al. teaches another mixing element for plastic inside a tubular housing ([0002]). The reference teaches wherein a lateral surface of the base of the static mixer above the sealing lip is substantially conically truncated (see figures 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the shape of the base of the static mixing of Schulz et al. to have to be conically truncated as taught by Linne et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach mixing elements for plastic inside a tubular housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the shape of the static mixer as taught by Linne et al. because it ensures thorough mixing in the desired mixed ratio, and as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Schulz et al. fails to disclose one or more venting elements present on the sealing lip of the static mixer or the housing because the vent (#150) of Schulz is on “top” or at the outlet, after the mixing occurs, and not at the sealing lip as shown in figure 3B. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Figure 3B only shows the top ends of vents 150, but as can be seen in figure 1B, #150 is at the sealing lip, and also as described in paragraph [0045], #150 is on the seal 140, and as further described in paragraph [0051], #150 is along the mating/sealing portion #140. Furthermore, the claim limitation does not require the vent be disposed on the sealing lip of the static mixer, since the language of the claim limitations recites “or the housing”. The vents (#150) are described as being on the housing in paragraphs [0045] and [0046] of Schulz. Therefore, Schulz reads on the limitations of claim 1. As to Applicant’s arguments regarding the timing of the mixing, this is directed to an intended use of the static mixing tip which does not further limit the apparatus claims, and is not even recited as a claim limitation in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights