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 with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the method and apparatus claims would require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Please refer to MPEP § 808.02, "Establishing Burden", "A different field of search" for more detail.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler (U.S. Publication 2011/0249527) in view of Persson (U.S. Patent 4,428,680).
Regarding claim 1, Seiler teaches a system (figure 2), comprising: a mixer vessel that defines a chamber (item 3 which volume inside defining a chamber); a first mixing blade to cause a first rotational movement to mix a material within the chamber (item 6 includes multiple blades, each blade introducing a rotational movement to mix material, the material is considered intended use); a second mixing blade to cause a second rotational movement to mix the material within the chamber of the mixer vessel (item 6 includes multiple blades including a second one, that introduces a rotational movement to mix material); a mixing element to cause a third rotational movement to mix the material within the chamber of the mixer vessel (paragraph 4 teaches that the mixing container rotates, the inner walls of the container rotate which imparts a third rotational movement to mix material). Regarding claim 1, Seiler is silent to the first mixing blade to cause the first rotational movement independent from at least one of the second rotational movement and the third rotational movement. Regarding claim 1, Persson teaches a first mixing blade imparting a first rotational movement (figures 1 and 2, item 10), a second mixing blade imparting a second rotational movement (item 11) the first mixing blade to cause the first rotational movement independent from the second rotational movement (items 10 and 11 rotate in opposite directions, see column 1 lines 50-56, since they are rotating in opposite directions, they are considered independent from each other). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler with the two independent blade configurations of Persson in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Regarding claim 2, Seiler teaches the mixer vessel including a stationary outer vessel (item 2 which is stationary relative to item 3); the mixing element including an inner vessel (item 3 rotates and therefore is considered the mixing element), the inner vessel positioned within the stationary outer vessel of the mixer vessel to define the chamber (item 3 is housed in item 2); and the inner vessel to rotate relative to the stationary outer vessel to mix the material within the chamber (item 3 rotates relative to stationary item 2 which imparts motion to mix material).
Regarding claim 3, Seiler teaches the mixer vessel including a stationary outer vessel (item 2 is stationery and houses item 3); the mixing element including an inner vessel (item 3), the inner vessel positioned within the stationary outer vessel of the mixer vessel to define the chamber (item 3 is housed in item 2 and the inner volume defines the chamber); the first mixing blade to rotate in a first direction with the first rotational movement (item 6 is capable of rotating which imparts a first rotational movement). Regarding claim 3, Seiler is silent to the second mixing blade to rotate in a second direction with the second rotational movement, the second direction being opposite the first direction; and the inner vessel to rotate in either the first direction or the second direction relative to the stationary outer vessel with the third rotational movement. Regarding claim 3, Persson teaches the second mixing blade to rotate in a second direction with the second rotational movement (see figure 2 which shows arrows of rotation in opposite directions for each of items 10 and 11), the second direction being opposite the first direction (see figure 2 which shows arrows of rotation in opposite directions for each of items 10 and 11, note that the rotating item 3 of Seiler would rotate opposite to one of the opposite rotating blades of Persson). Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler with the two independent blade configurations of Persson in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Regarding claim 5, Seiler teaches the mixer vessel including a stationary outer vessel (item 2 is stationery and houses item 3); the mixing element including an inner vessel (item 3), the inner vessel positioned within the stationary outer vessel of the mixer vessel to define the chamber (item 3 is housed in item 2 and the inner volume defines the chamber); the first mixing blade to rotate in a first direction with the first rotational movement (item 6 is capable of rotating which imparts a first rotational movement); and the first rotational movement of the first mixing blade and the third rotational movement of the inner vessel creating a high shear mixing zone between the first blade and the inner vessel to mix the material (the shear rate is a function of the rotation speed and material being worked upon). Regarding claim 5, Seiler is silent to the vessel rotating in an opposite direction to the first mixing blade. Regarding claim 5, Persson teaches two blades rotating in opposite directions (see figure 2 items 10 and 11 rotation arrows, which one pair would rotate opposite the rotating chamber of Seiler). Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler with the two independent blade configurations of Persson in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Regarding claim 6, Seiler is silent to the first mixing blade to rotate in a first direction with the first rotational movement; the second mixing blade to rotate in a second direction with the second rotational movement, the second direction being opposite the first direction; and the first rotational movement of the first mixing blade and the second rotational movement of the second mixing blade to create a high shear mixing zone between the first mixing blade and the second mixing blade to mix the material. Regarding claim 6, Persson teaches the first mixing blade to rotate in a first direction with the first rotational movement (item 10 rotates in one direction as shown in figure 2); the second mixing blade to rotate in a second direction with the second rotational movement (item 10 rotates in a second direction with a second rotational movement), the second direction being opposite the first direction (figure 2 items 10 and 11 are shown rotating in opposite directions); and the first rotational movement of the first mixing blade and the second rotational movement of the second mixing blade to create a high shear mixing zone between the first mixing blade and the second mixing blade to mix the material (the shear rate is a function of the rotation speed and material being worked upon). Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler with the two independent blade configurations of Persson in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Regarding claim 9, Seiler teaches the mixer vessel includes an inner wall (see inner wall of item 3); and shear created between the first and second mixing blades (shear is a function of the rotational speed and the material being worked upon, item 6 includes two blades), the second rotational movement of the second mixing blade and the third rotational movement of the mixing element create a medium shear mixing zone between the second mixing blade and the mixing element (shear is a function of the rotational speed and the material being worked upon, both blades on item 6 and item 2 rotate), the third rotational movement of the mixing element to create a low shear mixing zone between the inner wall and the mixing element (there space between the inner wall at each side of item 3, shear is a function of the rotational speed and the material being worked upon).
Regarding claim 12, Seiler teaches a gearbox coupled with the first mixing blade and the second mixing blade (paragraph 9 gear mechanism is considered reading on a gearbox), the gearbox to cause the first mixing blade to rotate with the first rotational movement and the second mixing blade to rotate with the second rotational movement (the reduction taught in page 9 is considered causing the blades to rotate in their respective rotational movements); and hood positioned around at least a portion of the first mixing blade and the second mixing blade with the first mixing blade and the second mixing blade extending into the chamber (item 5 housing cover is considered reading on a hood and covers blades on item 6 from above, item 6 and the blades on item 6 extend into item 3).
Seiler is silent to the language of claim 13. Regarding claim 13, Persson teaches two blades having different respective geometries (item 10 is shown as smaller than item 11 in figure 1). Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler with the two independent blade configurations of Persson in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Claims 4, 7, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler (U.S. Publication 2011/0249527) in view of Persson (U.S. Patent 4,428,680) in further view of Oliveira (U.S. Publication 2023/0056863).
Regarding claim 4, Seiler teaches the mixer vessel including a stationary outer vessel (item 2 is stationery and houses item 3); the mixing element including an inner vessel (item 3), the inner vessel positioned within the stationary outer vessel of the mixer vessel to define the chamber (item 3 is housed in item 2 and the inner volume defines the chamber); the first mixing blade to rotate at a first speed in a first direction with the first rotational movement (item 6 is capable of rotating which imparts a first rotational movement which inherently has a first speed); Regarding claim 4, Seiler is silent to the second mixing blade to rotate at a second speed different than the first speed in a second direction with the second rotational movement, the second direction being opposite the first direction; and the inner vessel to rotate in either the first direction or the second direction relative to the stationary outer vessel with the third rotational movement. Regarding claim 4, Persson teaches the second mixing blade to rotate in a second direction with the second rotational movement (see figure 2 which shows arrows of rotation in opposite directions for each of items 10 and 11), the second direction being opposite the first direction (see figure 2 which shows arrows of rotation in opposite directions for each of items 10 and 11, note that the rotating item 3 of Seiler would rotate opposite to one of the opposite rotating blades of Persson). Regarding claim 4, Oliveira teaches the mixing blades can mix at different speeds (paragraph 20). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler in view of Persson with the blade drive configuration of Oliveira in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Seiler is silent to the language of claim 7. Regarding claim 7, Persson teaches two mixing blades rotating in opposite directions (see figure 2 items 10 and 11 arrows showing opposite rotation) creating a high shear mixing zone between the mixing blades to mix the material (the shear rate is a function of the rotation speed and material being worked upon). Regarding claim 7, Oliveira teaches the mixing blades can mix at different speeds (paragraph 20). Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler in view of Persson with the blade drive configuration of Oliveira in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Seiler is silent to the language of claim 14. Regarding claim 14, Oliveira teaches a thermal element to provide energy to the chamber to alter the temperature of the material (paragraph 53 heating system to transfer heat to the mixing tank). Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler in view of Persson with the heater configuration of Oliveira in order to obtain the desired mixed product.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler (U.S. Publication 2011/0249527) in view of Persson (U.S. Patent 4,428,680) in further view of Fradera (U.S. Publication 2014/0042666).
Seiler is silent to the language of claim 8. Regarding claim 8, Fradera teaches a baffle extending into the chamber imparting a third rotational movement (paragraph 56 and figure 5 item 24, deflector is considered reading on a baffle, and the rotating vessel of Seiler is modified by the deflector if Fradera would impart an additional rotational movement). Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler in view of Persson with the deflector configuration of Fradera in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Seiler is silent to the language of claim 10. Regarding claim 10, Persson teaches opposite rotating blades, each with a respective rotational movement (figure 2 items 10 and 11 are shown rotating in opposite directions). Regarding claim 10, Fradera teaches a baffle extending into the chamber imparting a third rotational movement (paragraph 56 and figure 5 item 24, deflector is considered reading on a baffle, and the rotating vessel of Seiler is modified by the deflector if Fradera would impart an additional rotational movement and would rotate either alongside item 11 or 12 of Persson). Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler in view of Persson with the deflector configuration of Fradera in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler (U.S. Publication 2011/0249527) in view of Persson (U.S. Patent 4,428,680) in further view of Oliveira (U.S. Publication 2023/0056863) in further view of Fradera (U.S. Publication 2014/0042666).
Seiler teaches multiple blades rotating with respective rotational movements (item 6 has multiple blades). Regarding claim 11, Seiler is silent to the opposite rotating blades at different speeds and the baffle configuration. Regarding claim 11, Persson teaches opposite rotating blades (figure 2 items 10 and 11 are shown rotating in opposite directions). Regarding claim 11, Oliveira teaches blades each rotating at different speeds (paragraph 20). Regarding claim 11, Fradera teaches a baffle extending into the chamber imparting a third rotational movement (paragraph 56 and figure 5 item 24, deflector is considered reading on a baffle, and the rotating vessel of Seiler is modified by the deflector if Fradera would impart an additional rotational movement and would rotate either alongside item 11 or 12 of Persson). Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Seiler in view of Persson in further view of Oliveira with the deflector configuration of Fradera in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Walter Griffin can be reached at (571)272-1447. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774