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 Group I, Claims 41-49 in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Ruan fails to disclose "oleophilic and hydrophilic fiber filaments filled in crevices between adjacent sheets" as claimed in claim 41. Further, Ruan does not disclose "wherein said fiber filaments are arranged in single or multiple layers, a distance between adjacent fiber filament is 0.50µm-50µm in each layer of fiber filament." As such, the shared technical feature of a microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device is a special and makes contribution to the state of art.”
This is not found persuasive because Ruan clearly discloses in figure 1 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050] that oleophilic and hydrophilic fiber filaments (#1024) fills crevices between adjacent sheets (#1025), as claimed in claim 41. Ruan further discloses wherein said fiber filaments (#1024) are arranged in multiple layers, as seen in figure 1 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]. Although Ruan is silent in regards to the distance between adjacent fiber filaments being 0.5 to 50µm in each layer of fiber filament, adjusting the distance between fiber filaments to an optimum distance, such as from 0.5 to 50µm, as claimed by the applicant, is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved mixing efficiency, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 50-55 have been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 42-43 are objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect grammar.
Claim 42 recites: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: the microchannel component in the shell of the microchannel mixer are divided...” The word “are” is incorrect because the microchannel component is a singular word.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 42 as reciting: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: the microchannel component in the shell of the microchannel mixer is divided...”
Claim 43 recites: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: said fiber filaments is arranged in 1-5 layers; and/or when said fiber filaments are arranged in multiple layers, the projection of two adjacent layers of fiber filaments along the vertical direction of the sheets forms a mesh structure; and/or in each layer of fiber filaments, the distance between adjacent fiber filaments is arranged at equal intervals; and/or, the fiber filaments are arranged along any of the transverse, longitudinal or oblique direction of the surface of the sheet; and/or said fiber filament has an arbitrary curve shape…” The term “fiber filaments” in claim 43, line 2 is in plural form, therefore, the correct word should be “are” instead of “is”. Further, in claim 43, lines 7-8, the term “fiber filament” should be plural, instead of singular.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 43 as reciting: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: said fiber filaments are arranged in 1-5 layers; and/or when said fiber filaments are arranged in multiple layers, the projection of two adjacent layers of fiber filaments along the vertical direction of the sheets forms a mesh structure; and/or in each layer of fiber filaments, the distance between adjacent fiber filaments is arranged at equal intervals; and/or, the fiber filaments are arranged along any of the transverse, longitudinal or oblique direction of the surface of the sheet; and/or said fiber filaments have an arbitrary curve shape…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 42 is 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.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: the microchannel component in the shell of the microchannel mixer is divided...” There is no mention of a microchannel mixer previously in claim 41. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 42 as reciting: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: the microchannel component in the shell of the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device is divided...”
Claim 42 recites: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: the microchannel component in the shell of the microchannel mixer is divided into a feeding end and a discharging end along the direction of the crevice…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. Claim 41 recites “…said microchannel component comprises multiple stacked sheets and oleophilic and hydrophilic fiber filaments filled in crevices between adjacent sheets…” Therefore, it is unclear as to which of the crevices applicant is referring to.
Claim 42 recites: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: the microchannel component in the shell of the microchannel mixer is divided into a feeding end and a discharging end along the direction of the crevice, wherein a feeding distribution space is provided between the material inlet and the feeding end, and a discharging distribution space is provided between the material outlet and the discharging end…” There is no mention of a material inlet or a material outlet previously in claim 41. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 recites: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: said fiber filaments are arranged in 1-5 layers; and/or when said fiber filaments are arranged in multiple layers, the projection of two adjacent layers of fiber filaments along the vertical direction of the sheets forms a mesh structure; and/or in each layer of fiber filaments, the distance between adjacent fiber filaments is arranged at equal intervals; and/or, the fiber filaments are arranged along any of the transverse, longitudinal or oblique direction of the surface of the sheet; and/or said fiber filaments have an arbitrary curve shape, preferably a periodically changing curve shape; and/or the fiber filaments in the same layer have the same shape, and preferably, the fiber filaments in all layers have the same shape; and/or said fiber filaments have a diameter of 0.5-50µm, preferably 0.5-5µm, more preferably 0.5-1µm.” The term “preferably” is considered indefinite because it this is a relative term and it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 43 as reciting: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: said fiber filaments are arranged in 1-5 layers; and/or when said fiber filaments are arranged in multiple layers, the projection of two adjacent layers of fiber filaments along the vertical direction of the sheets forms a mesh structure; and/or in each layer of fiber filaments, the distance between adjacent fiber filaments is arranged at equal intervals; and/or, the fiber filaments are arranged along any of the transverse, longitudinal or oblique direction of the surface of the sheet; and/or said fiber filaments have an arbitrary curve shape; and/or the fiber filaments in the same layer have the same shape; and/or said fiber filaments have a diameter of 0.5-50µm.”
Claim 43 recites: “The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device according to claim 41, which is characterized in that: said fiber filaments are arranged in 1-5 layers; and/or when said fiber filaments are arranged in multiple layers, the projection of two adjacent layers of fiber filaments along the vertical direction of the sheets forms a mesh structure; and/or in each layer of fiber filaments, the distance between adjacent fiber filaments is arranged at equal intervals; and/or, the fiber filaments are arranged along any of the transverse, longitudinal or oblique direction of the surface of the sheet; and/or said fiber filaments have an arbitrary curve shape; and/or the fiber filaments in the same layer have the same shape; and/or said fiber filaments have a diameter of 0.5-50µm.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to which sheet applicant refers to.
Claim 46 recites: “…which is characterized in that: said sheet has a thickness of 0.05mm, preferably 0.1-1.5mm; and/or the sheet is any one or more of metal, ceramics, organic glass, or polyester material; and/or the shape of the sheet is any one of rectangle, square, polygon, circle, ellipse, or sector.” Firstly, the first underlined limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to which sheet applicant refers to. Secondly, the term “preferably” is considered indefinite because it this is a relative term and it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
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 41-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (CN109652118A, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Ruan).
In regards to Claim 41, Ruan discloses a microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device (#100), comprising a microchannel component (#102) and a shell (#1023), wherein the microchannel component (#102) is fixed inside the shell (#1023),
wherein an inlet (#1021) is provided at a first end of the shell (#1023) for feeding at least two reaction liquid phases (water-oil heavy phases), and an outlet (#1026) is provided at a second end end for discharging a mixed material; said microchannel component (#102) comprises multiple stacked sheets (#1025) and oleophilic (polyester fiber filaments) and hydrophilic fiber filaments (stainless steel hydrophilic fiber filaments) filled in crevices between adjacent sheets (#1025), and
wherein the fiber filaments (#1024) form several microchannels between them, and the fiber filaments (#1024) are clamped and fixed by the sheets (#1025) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
Although Ruan is silent in regards to the distance between adjacent fiber filaments being 0.5 to 50µm in each layer of fiber filament, adjusting the distance between fiber filaments to an optimum distance, such as from 0.5 to 50µm, as claimed by the applicant, is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved mixing efficiency, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to Claim 42, Ruan discloses the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device which is characterized in that: the microchannel component (#102) in the shell (#1023) of the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device (#100) is divided into a feeding end (#1022) and a discharging end (#1027) along the direction of the crevice, wherein a feeding distribution space is provided between a material inlet (#1021) and the feeding end (#1022), and a discharging distribution space is provided between a material outlet (#1026) and the discharging end (#1027) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050])
Examiner notes that although Ruan does not explicitly disclose that except for the feeding end and the discharging end, all other ends of the microchannel component are connected to the shell in a sealed manner, Ruan discloses substantially the same microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Ruan’s microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 43, Ruan further discloses the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device which is characterized in that: said fiber filaments (#1024) are arranged in 1-5 layers; and/or when said fiber filaments (#1024) are arranged in multiple layers, the projection of two adjacent layers of fiber filaments (#1024) along the vertical direction of the sheets forms a mesh structure; and/or in each layer of fiber filaments, the distance between adjacent fiber filaments is arranged at equal intervals; and/or, the fiber filaments (#1024) are arranged along any of the transverse, longitudinal or oblique direction of the surface of the sheets; and/or said fiber filaments (#1024) have an arbitrary curve shape; and/or the fiber filaments in the same layer have the same shape; and/or said fiber filaments have a diameter of 0.5-50µm (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
In regards to Claim 44, Ruan discloses The microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device which is characterized in that: said oleophilic fiber filament is at least one of a polyester fiber filament, a nylon fiber filament, a stainless steel fiber filament, a polyurethane fiber filament, a polypropylene fiber filament, a polyacrylonitrile fiber filament, a polyvinyl chloride fiber filament, or an oleophilically surface-treated fiber filament material; and/or said hydrophilic fiber filament is selected from one or more of a high molecular polymer containing at least one hydrophilic group in its main chain or side chain or a fiber filament that has been hydrophilically treated with a physical or chemical method (see paragraphs [0020], [0027] and [0049]).
In regards to Claim 45, Ruan discloses the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device which is characterized in that: said hydrophilic fiber filament is selected from one or more of glass fiber filament, ceramic fiber filament, polypropylene fiber, polyamide fiber or acrylic fiber (see paragraph [0027]).
In regards to Claim 46, Ruan discloses the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device which is characterized in that: said sheet has a thickness of 0.05mm; and/or the sheet is any one or more of metal, ceramics, organic glass, or polyester material; and/or the shape of the sheet is any one of rectangle, square, polygon, circle, ellipse, or sector (see paragraphs [0020], [0027] and [0049]).
In regards to Claim 47, Ruan discloses the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device as recited in claim 41. Although Ruan does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio by weight of the oleophilic fiber filament to the hydrophilic fiber filament filled in the crevices between said adjacent sheets is 1:50-1:1, adjusting the ratio to an optimum ratio, such as 1:50-1:1, as claimed by the applicant, is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved mixing efficiency, as is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to Claim 48, Ruan discloses the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device as recited in claim 41. Although Ruan does not explicitly disclose wherein the hydrophilic fiber filaments in any layer are uniformly distributed in the oleophilic fiber filaments, adjusting/changing the location of the hydrophilic fiber filaments to be uniformly distributed in the oleophilic fiber filaments is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved mixing between liquid phases, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 49, Ruan discloses the microchannel liquid-liquid mixing device as recited in claim 41. Although Ruan does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio by weight of the oleophilic fiber filament to the hydrophilic fiber filament filled in any layer is 1:50-1:1, adjusting the ratio to an optimum ratio, such as 1:50-1:1, as claimed by the applicant, is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved mixing efficiency, as is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights