DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by MacKinnon (U.S. Publication 2019/0070572).
Regarding claim 1, MacKinnon teaches a flow channel structure (figure 8) comprising: a first flow channel (item 320 is considered reading on a flow channel since fluid flows from on end to the other end of item 320): and a second flow channel that joins the first flow channel (see annotated figure 8, second flow channel joins item 320 at the outlet of item 320), wherein an end of the second flow channel close to the first flow channel has a first region having a depth shallower than a depth of the first flow channel (portion channel 460d that extends from the outlet of item 320 has a shallower depth than item 320), wherein the first region terminates at a junction between the first flow channel and the second flow channel (the junction is considered formed where the outlet of item 320 meets channel 460d), and wherein a longitudinal direction of the first flow channel intersects a plane defined by a depth direction of the first region and a longitudinal direction of the second flow channel (a plane can extend through the depth of the narrow portion of item 460d connected to the outlet of item 320, and the direction of flow through item 460d, through which a longitudinal line extending though item 320 can intersect).
Regarding claim 2, MacKinnon teaches wherein the first flow channel and the second flow channel are cavities formed inside the flow channel structure (the volume inside items 320 and items 460d are considered reading on cavities in the flow structure, which is the entire apparatus shown in figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, MacKinnon teaches further comprising a third flow channel connected in series to an immediately upstream of a joining point of the first flow channel and second flow channel (see annotated figure 8 third flow channel between items 320 and item 460d).
Regarding claim 6, MacKinnon teaches wherein the third flow channel is a cavity formed inside the flow channel structure (the volume inside the third flow channel as shown in annotated figure 8 is considered reading on a cavity inside the flow structure, which is the entire apparatus shown in figure 8).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKinnon (U.S. Publication 2019/0070572)
Regarding claim 3, MacKinnon teaches item 460d at the outlet of item 320 has a shallow depth compared to item 320. Regarding claim 3, MacKinnon is silent to the first region specifically having a depth of less than ½ of the depth of the first flow channel. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the depth by the specific amount upstream in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, MacKinnon teaches the second flow channel (item 460d) joining the first flow channel (item 320) at an angle (item 460 is angled downward from item 320). Regarding claim 4, MacKinnon is silent to the angle being 90 degrees. Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the channel to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Mackinnon teaches the third flow channel and the first flow channel form an integrated linear flow channel (see annotated figure 8, the third channel extends at a downward angle from item 32, forming a linear channel). Regarding claim 7, MacKinnon is silent to the angle being 90 degrees. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the channel to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, MacKinnon is silent to the angles of the channels relative to each other. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the channels to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, MacKinnon teaches a method for agitating a fluid (paragraph 98 teaches two fluids) using a flow channel structure (figure 8 is considered reading on the flow channel structure), the flow channel structure including a first flow channel (see annotated figure 8 first flow channel, item 320) and a second flow channel that joins the first flow channel (see annotated figure 8 second flow channel item 460d), in which an end of the second flow channel close to the first flow channel has a first region having a depth shallower than a depth of the first flow channel (portion channel 460d that extends from the outlet of item 320 has a shallower depth than item 320), the first region terminates at a junction between the first flow channel and the second flow channel (the junction is considered formed where the outlet of item 320 meets channel 460d), and a longitudinal direction of the first flow channel intersects a plane defined by a depth direction of the first region and a longitudinal direction of the second flow channel (a plane can extend through the depth of the narrow portion of item 460d connected to the outlet of item 320, and the direction of flow through item 460d, through which a longitudinal line extending though item 320 can intersect). Regarding claim 16, Mackinnon is silent to the flowing of a first fluid from the second flow channel to the first flow channel. Regarding claim 16, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to reverse the parts to obtain the desired degree of mixing since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 17, MacKinnon teaches the second flow channel (item 460d) joining the first flow channel (item 320) at an angle (item 460 is angled downward from item 320). Regarding claim 17, MacKinnon is silent to the angle being 90 degrees. Regarding claim 17, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the channel to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, MacKinnon teaches wherein the flow channel structure includes a third flow channel connected in series to an immediately upstream of a joining point of the first flow channel to the second flow channel (see annotated figure 8 third flow channel) and flowing two fluids (paragraph 98 teaches mixing two fluids). Regarding claim 18, MacKinnon is silent to the flow of direction being from the third flow channel to the first flow channel. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to reverse the parts to obtain the desired degree of mixing since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claims 9-15 and 19-25 are still considered allowable subject matter.
The remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 16 have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to claims and 16. A new ground of rejection is provided, necessitated by amendment.
The remarks regarding the remaining depending claims are based off the rejection of claims 1 and 16 and are rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 and 19-25 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 for the reasons stated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/20/2025.
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, 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights