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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 05 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-19 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:
In claim 1, it is unclear if “the hub” refers back to the “hub disc” or refers to something else.
Claim 2 is rendered indefinite by the word “preferably” which makes unclear what is required versus optional.
Claim 3 is rendered indefinite by the word “preferably” which makes unclear what is required versus optional.
In claim 3 “jet angle of upper blade” make unclear if an upper blade of the parent claim is being reference and if so which one.
Claim 4 is rendered indefinite by the word “preferably” which makes unclear what is required versus optional.
Claim 5 is rendered indefinite by the word “preferably” which makes unclear what is required versus optional.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the base edge”.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite by the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” which make unclear what is required versus optional.
Claim 9 is rendered indefinite by the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” which make unclear what is required versus optional.
Claim 10 is rendered indefinite by the word “preferably” which makes unclear what is required versus optional.
Claim 11 is rendered indefinite by the word “preferably” which makes unclear what is required versus optional.
Claim 12 is rendered indefinite by the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” which make unclear what is required versus optional.
In claim 12, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the base edge”.
In claim 17, it is unclear if “the blade” refers to one of the upper blades or one of the lower blades.
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.
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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrory (US 4,577,975):
Regarding claim 1, McCrory discloses a stirring impeller (25), comprising a hub disc (the flat portion of the impeller lying in plane 28) comprising a shaft attachment structure (central hole, see Fig. 3) arranged centrally in the hub for receiving a shaft centrally and perpendicularly from an upper side of the hub disc, a plurality of upper blades (27) arranged on the upper side of the hub disc, a plurality of lower blades (29) arranged on a lower side of the hub disc, and wherein the lower blades have a jet angle that is different than said jet angle of least one of said plurality of upper blades (see Fig. 2). While McCrory does not make a numerical statement concerning jet angle, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the angle as depicted in the drawings (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, all the upper blades have the same angle (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the angle as depicted in the drawings (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, while the lead angle of the upper blades in not disclosed to be in the claimed range, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected an optimal or workable range of blade angle based upon the desired amount of interaction with the material being agitated.
Regarding claim 5, while the lead angle of the upper blades in not disclosed to be in the claimed range, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected an optimal or workable range of blade angle based upon the desired amount of interaction with the material being agitated.
Regarding claim 6, while it is unclear what is being claimed, a base edge of the upper blade is chamfered (see Fig. 2). Also, some curvature in the base of the blade would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to bend the blades out of the plane (28).
Regarding claim 7, while the claimed height range of the upper blade is not disclosed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected an optimal or workable height range based upon the desired amount of interaction with the material being agitated.
Regarding claim 8, the jet angle of the lower blades is depicted as being approximately zero in Fig. 2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the angle as depicted in the drawings (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the jet angle of the lower blades is depicted as being approximately zero in Fig. 2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the angle as depicted in the drawings (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, while the lead angle of the lower blades in not disclosed to be in the claimed range, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected an optimal or workable range of blade angle based upon the desired amount of interaction with the material being agitated.
Regarding claim 11, while the lead angle of the lower blades in not disclosed to be in the claimed range, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected an optimal or workable range of blade angle based upon the desired amount of interaction with the material being agitated.
Regarding claim 12, the leading angle of the upper blades is different from the leading angle of the lower blades (see Figs. 1-3 and col. 2, lines 50-57).
Regarding claim 13, while it is unclear what is being claimed, some curvature in the base of the blade would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to bend the blades out of the plane (28).
Regarding claim 14, while the claimed height range of the lower blade is not disclosed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected an optimal or workable height range based upon the desired amount of interaction with the material being agitated.
Regarding claim 15, the hub disc around the shaft attachment structure has a uniform thickness (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, while the height of the impeller is not disclosed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected and optimal or workable range of height based upon the desired amount of interaction with the material being agitated.
Regarding claim 17, the upper blade blades have a length within the claimed range as depicted in Fig. 3. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the blades as depicted in the drawings.
Regarding claim 18, the number of upper blades is equal with number of lower blades (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, the impeller diameter is at least substantially equal with the diameter of the hub disc (see Figs. 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774