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 .
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 6-10 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. Applicant amended claim 6 to delete the previous dependency from claim 1. Now claim 6 begins “wherein a space between the shaft and the shield”. There is lack of antecedent basis for “the shaft” and “the shield”. Claims 7-10 depend from claim 10 and are indefinite for the above reason. Additionally, in claim 7 there is lack of antecedent basis for “the sleeve” and “the agitator”; in claim 8 there is lack of antecedent basis for “the sleeve” and “the agitator”; in claim 9 there is lack of antecedent basis for “the sleeve”; and in claim 10 there is lack of antecedent basis for “the sleeve”.
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 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the admitted prior art of the instant application (Figs. 1A and 1B; [0017]-[0024]):
Regarding claim 1, the admitted prior art is mixer, comprising: a shaft (110); an agitator (120) coupled to the shaft, wherein the shaft and the agitator are configured to rotate together to mix a liquid composition; a shield (130) positioned around the shaft, wherein a first opening (138) extends radially-through the shield; and a sleeve (134) positioned between the shaft and the shield, wherein around the shaft forming a gap is formed between the shaft and the sleeve, wherein a lower surface of the sleeve is positioned above the first opening, and wherein the sleeve is configured to be positioned in the liquid composition such that the liquid composition fills the gap up to the surface of the liquid.
Regarding claim 6, no structural elements are positively recited in this claim, nonetheless the admitted prior art includes a space between a shaft (110) and a shield (130) having a width from about 3 mm to about 50 mm (see [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, no structural elements are positively recited in this claim, nonetheless the admitted prior includes a sleeve (134) being coupled to an inner surface of the shield, and wherein the shield and the sleeve do not rotate together with the shaft and an agitator (120).
Regarding claim 8, no structural elements are positively recited in this claim, nonetheless the admitted prior art includes a sleeve (134) incorporating the shield (130) into a single-piece sleeve/shield (130,134), and wherein the sleeve/shield does not rotate together with the shaft and an agitator (120).
Regarding claim 9, no structural elements are positively recited in this claim, nonetheless the admitted prior art includes a sleeve (134) being positioned within the space between the shaft and the shield, and wherein the sleeve extends radially-inward from the shield toward the shaft (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, no structural elements are positively recited in this claim, nonetheless the admitted prior art includes the space between the shaft and the shield being present both above and below the sleeve (see Fig. 1A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 2, 11-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated by the admitted prior art of the instant application (Figs. 1A and 1B; [0017]-[0024]):
Regarding claim 2, a numerical value in the recited range is not explicitly disclosed, however, based upon the values of the clearance between the shield and shaft disclosed in [0020], together with Fig. 1A, particularly that the clearance between the sleeve and shaft is smaller than between the shield the shaft, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the space within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, the admitted prior art is mixer comprising a shaft (110); an agitator (120) coupled to a lower end of the shaft, wherein the shaft and the agitator are configured to rotate together to mix a liquid composition, wherein the liquid composition comprises water, a surfactant, and aggregates of particles, and wherein mixing the liquid composition breaks the aggregates into smaller sizes; a shield (130) positioned around the shaft, wherein a first opening (138) extends radially-through the shield, wherein the shield does not rotate together with the shaft and the agitator, wherein a first annulus is formed between the shaft and the shield, and wherein a width of the first annulus is from about 3 mm to about 50 mm (see [0020]); and a sleeve (134) positioned at least partially within the first annulus, wherein the sleeve is coupled to an inner surface of the shield (see Fig. 1A), wherein a lower portion of the sleeve is positioned above the first opening (see Fig. 1A), wherein the sleeve does not rotate together with the shaft and the agitator, wherein the lower portion of the sleeve is configured to be positioned below a surface of the liquid composition while mixing, wherein an upper portion the sleeve is configured to be positioned above the surface of the liquid composition while mixing, wherein a second annulus is formed between the shaft and sleeve; however, numerical width value in the recited range is not explicitly disclosed. Based upon the values of the clearance between the shield and shaft disclosed in [0020], together with Fig. 1A, particularly that the clearance between the sleeve and shaft is smaller than between the shield the shaft, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the space within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, a lower end of the sleeve is positioned above lower ends of the shaft and the shield, and wherein an upper end of the sleeve is positioned below upper ends of the shaft and the shield (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 13, the agitator comprises an impeller, a rotor, or a blade (see [0018]).
Regarding claim 23, the width of the second annulus remains constant proceeding in a vertical direction along the shaft (see Fig. 1A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art of the instant application (Figs. 1A and 1B; [0017]-[0024]) in view of Kupka (US 3,922,146). It is not admitted that the sleeve is polytetrafluoroethylene. Kupka teaches making mixer parts of polytetrafluoroethylene to resist corrosion (see col. 2, lines 3-10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the sleeve of polytetrafluoroethylene to resist corrosion as taught by Kupka (see col. 2, lines 3-10).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art of the instant application (Figs. 1A and 1B; [0017]-[0024]) in view of Korstvedt (2002/0118597). In the admitted prior art, there is no opening below 138. Korstvedt teaches that plural vertically spaced openings are an alternative to a single opening in mixers (see Fig. 3A vs 3B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have vertically duplicated the opening as Korstvedt constitutes evidence that it is recognized in the art that plural vertically spaced openings are an alternative to a single opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot due to the allowable subject matter and new grounds for rejection.
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 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
Prosecution Insights