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The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 8th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, page 12), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant further argues that there is no reason that the proposed modification of Gao et al. would function successfully. Gao et al. (paraphrasing) highlights the need to avoid sedimentation to prevent blockages and Sun et al. and Xu et al. do not provide motivation and there is no reason to conclude that Sun’s and/or Xu’s asserted “enhanced mixing” advantages would be realized in the proposed modified device of Gao et al. as neither Sun et al. nor Xu et al. have a perimeter open space (Remarks, pages 13-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the perimeter open space (slit 533) of Gao et al. functions to prevent solid material from building up or staying at the corner formed between the pipe wall and the baffle (Gao et al., para. [0014]) and would not be expected to cause substantial interference with the mixing performance of the baffles. In modifying Gao et al. to include the angled baffle sections of Sun et al. or Xu et al. the device of Gao et al. would generate more turbulence which would prevent sedimentation (Gao et al., abstract) by increasing agitation and mixing (Sun et al., para. [0005]). There is no reason to conclude that utilizing angled baffle sections as taught by Sun et al. or Xu et al. would be unsuccessful. Sun et al. also recognizes the problem of blockages (para. [0004]) and the angled baffles of Sun et al. would function to decrease sedimentation by increasing agitation and mixing and prevent blockages. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (paraphrasing) that the forwardly angled baffles produce a rearwardly flowing vortex directed behind the baffles which would interfere with the forward flow through the slit of Gao et al. which would risk sedimentation (Remarks, pages 14-15).
This argument is not found to be persuasive because Sun et al. does not show rearward motion near the wall of the pipeline where the slit of Gao et al. is located (Gao et al., slit 533, Fig. 4). As shown below, the locations of vortex flow indicated by Sun et al. are away from the wall where the slit would be (in the modified mixer of Gao et al.):
PNG
media_image1.png
723
1376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, as evidenced by Ayiehfor et al. (attached non-patent literature) baffles which are perpendicular to the wall, such as the baffle of Gao et al., will also create rearwards flow near the edge of the baffle (Ayiehfor et al., page 217, Figure 8) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
636
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In modifying Gao et al. with the teaching of Sun et al., the opening (Gao et al., slit 533) will be further from the edge of the baffle as indicated in the annotated figure above. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Sun’s or Xu’s description of mixtures including solids do not provide a reasonable expectation of success that the proposed modification would avoid sedimentation (Remarks, page 16). The Examiner respectfully contends that the enhanced mixing/agitation (e.g., the swirling/vortex shown above) would provide a reasonable expectation of success in preventing sedimentation.
The Applicant argues that the description of liquid/solid media relates to an existing mixer described in the background technique portion of the document and Sun et al. does not indicate (paraphrasing) the mixer would be suitable for mixing liquid-solid media nor does Xu et al. (Remarks, page 16). The Examiner respectfully contends that descriptions of related prior art would be reasonably pertinent to the invention described in Sun et al. or Xu et al. Moreover, Sun et al. addresses the problem of blockages (para. [0011]) which shows that solids are present (and causing blockages). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that there is no reason to modify Gao et al. to include the newly added additional features of claim 8 or claim 21 (Remarks, pages 19-20). The Examiner respectfully contends that the features are reasonably disclosed by modifying Gao et al. with the teaching of Sun et al. (see the new ground of rejection in view of Sun et al. which follows below).
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, 8-9, 16-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (previously attached translation of CN 213895221U) in view of Sun et al. (previously attached translation of CN 113083056A) or Xu et al. (previously attached translation of CN 212327973U).
Regarding claim 1, Gao et al. discloses a static mixer (Abstract, Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
742
951
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gao et al. discloses the static mixer comprises: a housing including a perimeter wall (section 53) that defines an open interior space; and a first baffle section (baffle 532) located within the open interior space, the first baffle section including a first surface that extends between a first outer perimeter side of the first baffle section and a first inner edge of the first baffle section (Fig. 4, shown above), wherein the first outer perimeter side includes: (i) a first closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall (shown above), (ii) a second closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall (shown above), and (iii) a first perimeter open space (slit 533) defining a first fluid flow passage between the first closed perimeter portion and the second closed perimeter portion.
Gao et al. does not disclose wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion.
However, Sun et al. teaches a static mixer (Abstract) and Sun et al. teaches wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, and wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion in a fluid flow direction (Fig. 7) of the static mixer as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
702
834
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Xu et al. teaches a static mixer for mixing fluids (Abstract, para. [0002]) and teaches wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, and wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion in a fluid flow direction (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
676
989
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 Gao et al. wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, and wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion in a fluid flow direction of the static mixer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an angled inner surface portion in order to generate shearing and more turbulence compared to conventional baffles and thereby enhance mixing (Sun et al., pars. [0003] and [0005]) or to enhance the mixing effect before an injection point (Xu et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Gao et al. discloses the static mixer further comprises: a second baffle section (Fig. 4, shown above for claim 1) located within the open interior space, the second baffle section including a second surface that extends between a second outer perimeter side of the second baffle section and a second inner edge of the second baffle section (the second baffle section is identical to the first baffle section), wherein the second outer perimeter side includes: (i) a third closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall, (ii) a fourth closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall, and (iii) a second perimeter open space defining a second fluid flow passage between the third closed perimeter portion and the fourth closed perimeter portion (the second baffle section is equivalent to the first baffle section, Fig. 4 and shown above), and wherein the second inner edge is spaced apart from the first inner edge (the baffles and their edges are spaced apart, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Gao et al. discloses wherein the second baffle section is sized, shaped, and oriented within the open interior space to have mirror symmetry with the first baffle section located within the open interior space (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
576
1322
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Gao et al. discloses wherein the first perimeter open space includes a first end, a second end, and a first interior edge extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the first interior edge is spaced inward from the perimeter wall of the housing (Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
381
973
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Gao et al. discloses wherein the first interior edge of the first perimeter open space follows a surface contour of the perimeter wall of the housing (Fig. 4 and as shown above for claim 4, the first interior edge has curvature matching the perimeter wall).
Regarding claim 8, Gao et al. discloses the static mixer further comprises: a second baffle section (Fig. 4, shown above for claim 1) located within the open interior space, the second baffle section including a second surface that extends between a second outer perimeter side of the second baffle section and a second inner edge of the second baffle section (the second baffle section is identical to the first baffle section), wherein the second outer perimeter side includes: (i) a third closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall, (ii) a fourth closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall, and (iii) a second perimeter open space defining a second fluid flow passage between the third closed perimeter portion and the fourth closed perimeter portion (the second baffle section is equivalent to the first baffle section, Fig. 4 and shown above).
In modifying Gao et al. with the teachings of Sun et al. as discussed for claim 1 above, both baffles of Gao et al. (Fig. 4) would be modified in the same way (Sun et al., Fig. 3) such that the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 further disclose wherein the second surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, wherein the angled inner surface portion of the second surface is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion of the second surface in the fluid flow direction of the static mixer (Sun et al., mirror symmetry between baffles, Figs. 2-4, Gao et al., mirror symmetry between baffles, Fig. 4); wherein the open interior space completely separates the first baffle section from the second baffle section across and through a center of the housing (Gao et al., Fig. 4), wherein the open interior space defines a diameter dimension D (Gao et al., Fig. 4, the cross-section is circular and has a diameter).
Gao et al. does not disclose a spacing distance within a range of 0.02D to 0.3D.
However, Sun et al. reasonably discloses a spacing distance within a range of 0.02D to 0.3D (Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
579
348
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 Gao et al. wherein the second inner edge is spaced apart from the first inner edge across the open interior space by a spacing distance within a range of 0.02 x D to 0.3 x D.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an angled inner surface portion having the spacing dimension taught by Sun et al. in order to generate shearing and more turbulence compared to conventional baffles and thereby enhance mixing (Sun et al., pars. [0003] and [0005]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the range is not disclosed in Gao et al. in view of Sun 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 spacing range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Gao et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Gao et al. further discloses wherein the first perimeter open space is the only opening defined through the first surface of the first baffle section, and wherein the second perimeter open space is the only opening defined through the second surface of the second baffle section (Gao et al., Fig. 4, each baffle has only one opening).
Regarding claim 9, Gao et al. does not disclose an angled inner surface portion.
However, Sun et al. who is relied upon to teach an angled inner surface as discussed above for claim 1, further teaches wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion at an angle within a range of 15-30⁰ (para. [0007]).
Likewise, Xu et al. who is relied upon to teach an angled inner surface as discussed above for claim 1, further teaches wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion at an angle within a range of 30-50⁰ (para. [0007]).
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 Gao et al. wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion at an angle within a range of 15-30⁰ (Sun et al., para. [0007]) or within a range of 30-50⁰ (Xu et al., para. [0007]).
The person of ordinary skill would have selected an angle between 15-30⁰ or 30-50⁰ to generate shearing and more turbulence compared to conventional baffles and thereby enhance mixing (Sun et al., pars. [0003] and [0005]) or to enhance the mixing effect before an injection point (Xu et al., para. [0008]).
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 ranges taught by Sun et al. or Xu et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges 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.
Regarding claim 16, Gao et al. discloses wherein: (i) the housing constitutes a fluid pipeline, (ii) the perimeter wall constitutes an interior surface of the fluid pipeline, and (iii) the first baffle section is mounted directly to the interior surface of the fluid pipeline (Fig. 3) as indicated below:
PNG
media_image9.png
432
543
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Gao et al. discloses a static mixer shown below:
PNG
media_image10.png
874
963
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Gao et al. discloses the static mixer comprises a housing including a perimeter wall (Fig. 4, shown above) that defines an open interior space; and a first baffle section (Fig. 4, shown above) located within the open interior space, the first baffle section including a first surface oriented to receive fluid flow (for a liquid solution comprising water, para. [0008]), wherein the first baffle section includes a first outer perimeter region and a first inner region (annotated above), wherein the first outer perimeter region defines a first outer perimeter fluid passageway (Fig. 4, shown above) that allows fluid to flow between a first outer perimeter edge of the first baffle section and the perimeter wall of the housing (shown above).
Gao et al. does not disclose wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion.
However, Sun et al. teaches a static mixer (Abstract) and Sun et al. teaches wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, and wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion in a fluid flow direction (Fig. 7) of the static mixer as shown above for claim 1.
Likewise, Xu et al. teaches a static mixer for mixing fluids (Abstract, para. [0002]) and teaches wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, and wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion in a fluid flow direction (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) 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 Gao et al. wherein the first surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, and wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion in a fluid flow direction of the static mixer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an angled inner surface portion in order to generate shearing and more turbulence compared to conventional baffles and thereby enhance mixing (Sun et al., pars. [0003] and [0005]) or to enhance the mixing effect before an injection point (Xu et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, Gao et al. discloses the static mixer further comprises a second baffle section located within the open interior space (shown above for claim 1), the second baffle section including a second surface oriented to receive fluid flow (for a liquid solution comprising water, para. [0008]), wherein the second baffle section includes a second outer perimeter region and a second inner region, wherein the second outer perimeter region defines a second outer perimeter fluid passageway (annotated above for claim 1) that allows fluid to flow between a second outer perimeter edge of the second baffle section and the perimeter wall of the housing.
Regarding claim 19, Gao et al. discloses wherein the first outer perimeter fluid passageway includes a first end, a second end, and a first interior edge extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the first interior edge is spaced inward from the perimeter wall of the housing as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
392
679
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Gao et al. discloses the static mixer further comprises: a second baffle section (Fig. 4, shown above for claim 1) located within the open interior space, the second baffle section including a second surface oriented to receive fluid flow (for a liquid solution comprising water, para. [0008]), wherein the second baffle section includes a second outer perimeter region and a second inner region (annotated above for claim 17), wherein the second outer perimeter region defines a second outer perimeter fluid passageway (Fig. 4, shown above for claim 17) that allows fluid to flow between a second outer perimeter edge of the second baffle section and the perimeter wall of the housing (shown above).
In modifying Gao et al. with the teachings of Sun et al. as discussed for claim 17 above, both baffles of Gao et al. (Fig. 4) would be modified in the same way (Sun et al., Fig. 3) such that the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 17 further disclose wherein the second surface includes an outer surface portion and an angled inner surface portion, wherein the angled inner surface portion of the second surface is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion of the second surface in the fluid flow direction of the static mixer (Sun et al., mirror symmetry between baffles, Figs. 2-4, Gao et al., mirror symmetry between baffles, Fig. 4); wherein the open interior space completely separates the first baffle section from the second baffle section across and through a center of the housing (Gao et al., Fig. 4), wherein the open interior space defines a diameter dimension D (Gao et al., Fig. 4, the cross-section is circular and has a diameter).
Gao et al. does not disclose a spacing distance within a range of 0.02D to 0.3D.
However, Sun et al. reasonably discloses a spacing distance within a range of 0.02D to 0.3D (Fig. 4) as shown above for claim 8.
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 Gao et al. wherein a first free edge of the first inner region is spaced apart from a second free edge of the second inner region across the open interior space by a spacing distance within a range of 0.02 x D to 0.3 x D.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an angled inner surface portion having the spacing dimension taught by Sun et al. in order to generate shearing and more turbulence compared to conventional baffles and thereby enhance mixing (Sun et al., pars. [0003] and [0005]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the range is not disclosed in Gao et al. in view of Sun 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 spacing range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Gao et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Gao et al. further discloses wherein the first outer perimeter fluid passageway is the only opening defined through the first surface of the first baffle section, and wherein the second outer perimeter fluid passageway is the only opening defined through the second surface of the second baffle section (Gao et al., Fig. 4, each baffle has only one opening).
Regarding claim 22, Gao et al. does not disclose an angled inner surface portion.
However, Sun et al. who is relied upon to teach an angled inner surface as discussed above for claim 17, further teaches wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion at an angle within a range of 15-30⁰ (para. [0007]).
Likewise, Xu et al. who is relied upon to teach an angled inner surface as discussed above for claim 17, further teaches wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion at an angle within a range of 30-50⁰ (para. [0007]).
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 Gao et al. wherein the angled inner surface portion is angled forward with respect to the outer surface portion at an angle within a range of 15-30⁰ (Sun et al., para. [0007]) or within a range of 30-50⁰ (Xu et al., para. [0007]).
The person of ordinary skill would have selected an angle between 15-30⁰ or 30-50⁰ to generate shearing and more turbulence compared to conventional baffles and thereby enhance mixing (Sun et al., pars. [0003] and [0005]) or to enhance the mixing effect before an injection point (Xu et al., para. [0008]).
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 ranges taught by Sun et al. or Xu et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges 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.
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (previously attached translation of CN 213895221U) in view of Sun et al. (previously attached translation of CN 113083056A) or Xu et al. (previously attached translation of CN 212327973U) as applied to claim 1 or claim 17 above and in further view of Selirio et al. (US 20190338888).
Regarding claim 6, Gao et al. discloses wherein the first perimeter open space includes a first end, a second end, and a first interior edge extending between the first end and the second end (Fig. 4) as shown above for claim 4.
Gao et al. does not explicitly disclose a first exterior edge extending between the first end and the second end.
However, Selirio et al. teaches a static mixer (Abstract) for mixing of a fluid (Abstract) and Selirio et al. teaches a perimeter open space (slot 110) having a first end, second end, interior edge, and Selirio et al. further teaches a first exterior edge extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the first exterior edge is located in close proximity to the perimeter wall of the housing (Fig. 1A) as shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
481
814
media_image12.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 Gao et al. wherein the static mixer comprises a ring structure (Selirio et al., para. [0050]) such that the perimeter opening includes
a first exterior edge extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the first exterior edge is located in close proximity to the perimeter wall of the housing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a ring structure with an exterior edge in order to allow for integral construction (Selirio et al., para. [0049]) of mixing elements having multiple opposing baffles (Gao et al., Fig. 4) and to facilitate mounting within a tube, pipe, or sleeve (Selirio et al., Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Gao et al. discloses wherein the perimeter wall of the housing defines a circular surface, wherein the first perimeter open space includes a first end and a second end, and reasonably discloses wherein the first end and the second end are separated from one another by an angle of 30° to 60° measured from a center of the circular surface as shown below:
PNG
media_image13.png
576
767
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Assuming, arguendo, that the angle range is not disclosed in Gao 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Gao et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Selirio et al. teaches a static mixer (Abstract) for mixing of a fluid (Abstract) and Selirio et al. teaches a perimeter open space (slots 910 or 1010) having a first end and a second end and wherein the first end and the second end are separated from one another by an angle of 60° measured from a center of the circular surface (Fig. 9A or Fig. 10, three equivalent slots are present in the lower or upper semi-circles and thus their ends are separated by 60°).
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 Gao et al. wherein the perimeter wall of the housing defines a circular surface, wherein the first perimeter open space includes a first end and a second end, and wherein the first end and the second end are separated from one another by an angle of 30° to 60° measured from a center of the circular surface.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use perimeter slots having ends separated by 60⁰ to assist in mixing (Selirio et al., pars. [0002] and [0056]).
Regarding claim 20, Gao et al. discloses wherein the perimeter wall (section 53) of the housing defines a circular surface, wherein the first outer perimeter fluid passageway includes a first end and a second end, and Gao et al. reasonably discloses wherein the first end and the second end are separated from one another by an angle of 30° to 60° measured from a center of the circular surface (shown above for claim 7).
Assuming, arguendo, that the angle range is not disclosed in Gao 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Gao et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Selirio et al. teaches a static mixer (Abstract) for mixing of a fluid (Abstract) and Selirio et al. teaches a perimeter open space (slots 910 or 1010) having a first end and a second end and wherein the first end and the second end are separated from one another by an angle of 60° measured from a center of the circular surface (Fig. 9A or Fig. 10, three equivalent slots are present in the lower or upper semi-circles and thus their ends are separated by 60°).
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 Gao et al. wherein the perimeter wall of the housing defines a circular surface, wherein the first perimeter open space includes a first end and a second end, and wherein the first end and the second end are separated from one another by an angle of 30° to 60° measured from a center of the circular surface.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use perimeter slots having ends separated by 60⁰ to assist in mixing (Selirio et al., pars. [0002] and [0056]).
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (previously attached translation of CN 213895221U) in view of Sun et al. (previously attached translation of CN 113083056A) or Xu et al. (previously attached translation of CN 212327973U) as applied to claim 1 or claim 17 above and in further view of Nagafuji et al. (attached translation of WO 2013168745A1) and Asdahl et al. (US 20180244539).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Gao et al. does not disclose an angled inner surface portion.
However, Nagafuji et al. teaches the static mixer sections may be manufactured such that they have baffles attached to a ring where the ring is not part of the baffle and is covered by the pipe when in operation (Fig. 6B and Fig. 3C, left side, ring is covered by pipe member 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image14.png
493
940
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 Gao et al. wherein the baffle section is integrally formed as a ring with two baffle members.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to integrally form two baffle members in order to simplify manufacturing (Gao et al. having two baffle components with mirror symmetry, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, like Nagafuji et al.).
Further, Sun et al. who is relied upon to teach an angled inner surface as discussed above for claim 1 or claim 17, also teaches two baffle members are formed on an integral ring structure and reasonably discloses the outer surface portion (flat portion of the baffle extending beyond the ring as annotated with a traced circle below) defines an area A300S1, wherein the angled inner surface portion (angle portion of baffle as shown below) defines an area A300S2, and wherein a ratio A300S1/A300S2 of the area A300S1 of the outer surface portion to the area A300S2 of the angled inner surface portion is reasonably shown to be within a range of 0.5 to 2 as shown below:
PNG
media_image15.png
563
659
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Further, Asdahl et al. also teaches a static mixer having an integral ring structure (Fig. 6A) and reasonably discloses the outer surface portion defines an area A300S1, wherein the angled inner surface portion (angle portion of baffle as shown below) defines an area A300S2, and wherein a ratio A300S1/A300S2 of the area A300S1 of the outer surface portion to the area A300S2 of the angled inner surface portion is reasonably shown to be within a range of 0.5 to 2 as shown below:
PNG
media_image16.png
451
569
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 Gao et al. wherein the outer surface portion defines an area A300S1, wherein the angled inner surface portion defines an area A300S2, and wherein a ratio A300S1/A300S2 of the area A300S1 of the outer surface portion to the area A300S2 of the angled inner surface portion is within a range of 0.5 to 2.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the area ratio to generate shearing and more turbulence compared to conventional baffles and thereby enhance mixing (Sun et al., pars. [0003] and [0005]) or to generate adequate turbulence in systems with steady flow and pressure (Asdahl et al., para. [0030]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the area ratio is not disclosed in the teachings of Sun et al. or Asdahl 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 baffle area 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 Gao et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (previously attached translation of CN 213895221U) in view of Sun et al. (previously attached translation of CN 113083056A) or Xu et al. (previously attached translation of CN 212327973U) as applied to claim 1 or claim 17 above.
Regarding claims 14 and 24, Gao et al. reasonably discloses wherein the first perimeter open space (the outer perimeter fluid passageway for claim 24) defines an area A310 (area of slit 533), wherein the first baffle section defines an area A300 (area of baffle 532, Fig. 4), and wherein a ratio A310/A300 of the area A310 of the first perimeter open space (the outer perimeter fluid passageway for claim 24) to the area A300 of the first baffle section is within a range of 0.03 to 0.2 (Fig. 4 as shown above for claim 1 and para. [0006]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the area ratio is not disclosed in the teachings of Gao 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 slit/baffle area 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 Gao et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (previously attached translation of CN 213895221U) in view of Sun et al. (previously attached translation of CN 113083056A) or Xu et al. (previously attached translation of CN 212327973U) as applied to claim 1 or claim 17 above and in further view of Glanville (US 5839828).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Gao et al. does not disclose wherein the housing constitutes a base member for a wafer style static mixer component.
However, Sun et al. teaches a static mixer (Abstract) and Sun et al. teaches wherein the housing constitutes a base member (housing 2, Fig. 1) for a wafer style (disk/wafer like, Fig. 3) static mixer component.
Likewise, Glanville teaches a static mixer (Abstract) and further teaches wherein the housing constitutes a base member (plate 26, Fig. 2) for a wafer style static mixer component (flange 14 with baffles 18, Fig. 2).
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 Gao et al. wherein the baffle sections are wafer-style and are provided on a base member.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a wafer style mixer component with a base member in order to facilitate mounting the baffle sections in a length of pipe (Glanville, Fig. 3 and Fig. 7) and/or to provide for injection inlets (Gao et al., Fig. 1, Glanville, Fig. 2) to inject additive into a stream flowing through a pipe.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (previously attached translation of CN 213895221U) in view of Sun et al. (previously attached translation of CN 113083056A) or Xu et al. (previously attached translation of CN 212327973U) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lundberg et al. (US 20110174407).
Regarding claim 16, assuming, arguendo, that Gao et al. does not teach the first baffle section is mounted to an interior surface of a fluid pipeline (as discussed above); Lundberg et al. teaches a static mixer (flow mixer, Abstract, plate 30) with baffle sections (tabs 393) and Lundberg et al. further teaches directly mounting to the interior surface of a fluid pipeline (conduit 36, 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 Gao et al. wherein: (i) the housing constitutes a fluid pipeline (Gao et al., section 53), (ii) the perimeter wall constitutes an interior surface of the fluid pipeline (Gao et al., Fig. 3), and (iii) the first baffle section is mounted directly to the interior surface of the fluid pipeline (Lundberg et al., Fig. 3).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to configure the static mixer such that the first baffle section is mounted directly to the interior surface of the fluid pipeline in order to retrofit the static mixer to existing pipe structures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (e.g., Gao et al., CN 113083056A) discloses static mixers having a housing including a perimeter wall that defines an open interior space; a first baffle section located within the open interior space, the first baffle section including a first surface that extends between a first outer perimeter side of the first baffle section and a first inner edge of the first baffle section, wherein the first outer perimeter side includes: (i) a first closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall, (ii) a second closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall and (iii) a first perimeter open space defining a first fluid flow passage between the first closed perimeter portion and the second closed perimeter portion. The prior art of record (e.g., Sun et al., CN 113083056A) also includes static mixers having baffles upstream and downstream of an injection port.
The prior art of record (e.g., Lundberg et al., US 20110174407A1) also includes static mixers having a housing including a perimeter wall that defines an open interior space; and a first baffle section located within the open interior space, the first baffle section including an edge having (i) a first free edge portion having a first end and a second end, (ii) a first recessed edge portion, (iii) a first angled portion extending between the first end of the first free edge portion and the first recessed edge portion.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a static mixer having a housing including a perimeter wall that defines an open interior space; a first baffle section located within the open interior space, the first baffle section including a first surface that extends between a first outer perimeter side of the first baffle section and a first inner edge of the first baffle section, wherein the first outer perimeter side includes: (i) a first closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall, (ii) a second closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall and (iii) a first perimeter open space defining a first fluid flow passage between the first closed perimeter portion and the second closed perimeter portion and wherein a first injection port extends through the housing and opens into the open interior space, wherein the first injection port opens into the open interior space at a location: (i) upstream of the first baffle section with respect to a fluid flow direction of the static mixer, and (ii) axially aligned with the first perimeter open space.
Likewise, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a static mixer having a housing including a perimeter wall that defines an open interior space; and a first baffle section located within the open interior space, the first baffle section including a first surface that extends between a first outer perimeter side of the first baffle section and a first inner edge of the first baffle section, wherein the first outer perimeter side includes: (i) a first closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall (ii) a second closed perimeter portion extending to the perimeter wall and (iii) a first perimeter open space defining a first fluid flow passage between the first closed perimeter portion and the second closed perimeter portion, wherein the first inner edge of the first baffle section includes: (i) a first free edge portion having a first end and a second end, (ii) a first recessed edge portion, (iii) a first angled portion extending between the first end of the first free edge portion and the first recessed edge portion and wherein the first recessed edge portion and the second recessed edge portion are parallel with the first free edge portion.
Conclusion
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