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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2 and 4-18, in the reply filed on 16 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two foreign patent documents have been crossed off by the examiner on an IDS because no copy of the actual foreign documents was provided, but only translations thereof. Importantly, the drawings of the documents were not provided.
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 1, 2 and 4-18 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:
Independent claim 1 is indefinite because establishing laminar flow does not occur at a particular distance but instead depends upon the velocity of the fluid and composition of the fluid which are a matter of intended use. Dependent claims 2 and 4-18 fall with claim 1.
In claim 9, “the static mixing is disposed” is confusing. Perhaps “mixing” should read “mixer”. Dependent claims 10-14 fall with claim 9.
In claim 15, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the nozzle”, “the nozzle inlet” and the nozzle outlet”.
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, 4-6, 8, 9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fox (US 3,791,255):
Regarding claim 1, Fox discloses system comprising a first reservoir (1); a second reservoir (2); a delivery apparatus (13,8,16) having a central bore that extends a length of the delivery apparatus from a proximal end to the distal end of the delivery apparatus and an outlet disposed at the distal end; and a static mixer (7, or a subset of the elements 9 of 7) disposed within the central bore of the delivery apparatus a predetermined distance from the outlet of the delivery apparatus (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, the emulsion matrix is not a required element of the claimed system, but instead intended contents of a reservoir during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 5, the sensitizing agent is not a required element of the claimed system, but instead intended contents of a reservoir during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 6, the delivery apparatus comprises a delivery hose (13,8) with a central bore and an outlet, wherein the static mixer is disposed within the central bore of the delivery hose the predetermined distance from the outlet of the delivery hose (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, the static mixer is “couplable” within the central bore of the delivery hose the predetermined distance from the outlet of the delivery hose via items that are not required elements of the claimed system (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9 the delivery apparatus comprises a mixing tube (8) comprising a central bore that extends from a mixing tube inlet to a mixing tube outlet, wherein the mixing tube inlet is configured to couple to an outlet of a delivery hose, and wherein the static mixer (7) is disposed within the central bore of the mixing tube; and a nozzle (16) comprising a central bore that extends from a nozzle inlet to a nozzle outlet, wherein the nozzle inlet is coupled to the mixing tube outlet, and a length of the nozzle is the predetermined distance.
Regarding claim 15, the nozzle of this claimed is not positively recited as a required element of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 16 fluid expelled from the outlet of the delivery apparatus at an angle less than 45 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the delivery apparatus (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, as seen in Fig. 2, at least five instances of “9” are disclosed. Two subsets of these elements maybe be considered first and second mixers.
Regarding claim 18, the second static mixer is a three-element static mixer (see Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halander (US 2010/0296362):
Regarding claim 1, Halander discloses system comprising a first reservoir (14 or 214 or 380); a second reservoir (12 or 212); a delivery apparatus (418, as an instance of 290, 322, or 392 in Fig. 3) having a central bore (420) that extends a length of the delivery apparatus from a proximal end to the distal end of the delivery apparatus and an outlet (424) disposed at the distal end; and a static mixer (432) disposed within the central bore of the delivery apparatus a predetermined distance from the outlet of the delivery apparatus (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, the emulsion matrix is not a required element of the claimed system, but instead intended contents of a reservoir during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 5, the sensitizing agent is not a required element of the claimed system, but instead intended contents of a reservoir during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 9, the delivery apparatus comprises a mixing tube (the left segment in Fig. 5) comprising a central bore that extends from a mixing tube inlet to a mixing tube outlet, wherein the mixing tube inlet is configured to couple to an outlet of a delivery hose, and wherein the static mixing is disposed within the central bore of the mixing tube; and a nozzle (the right segment in Fig. 5) comprising a central bore that extends from a nozzle inlet to a nozzle outlet, wherein the nozzle inlet is coupled to the mixing tube outlet, and a length of the nozzle is the predetermined distance.
Regarding claim 10, as seen in Fig. 5, the inner diameter of the mixing tube expands from a small diameter to a larger diameter that receives the nozzle and mixer.
Regarding claim 11, the static mixer is disposed within a shoulder of the central bore of the mixing tube (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, the nozzle is detachably attachable to the mixing tube (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, the mixing tube comprises threads on an inner surface of the mixing tube outlet and the nozzle comprises corresponding threads on an outer surface of the nozzle inlet, wherein the threads are configured to couple to each other (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, the nozzle of this claimed is not positively recited as a required element of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 16 fluid expelled from the outlet of the delivery apparatus at an angle less than 45 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the delivery apparatus (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17 a second static mixer (for example 290) is configured to partially mix fluids from the reservoirs before the emulsion matrix enters the delivery apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, the second static mixer is a three-element static mixer (see Fig. 5).
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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 3,791,255). The system of Fox was discussed above. Numerical information concerning the distance to the outlet is not disclosed; however, as held in n re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) scaling the size of a system is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have scaled the distance based upon the dimension of the bore hole.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halander (US 2010/0296362). The system of Halander was discussed above:
Regarding claim 2, The system of Halander was discussed above. Numerical information concerning the distance to the outlet is not disclosed; however, as held in n re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) scaling the size of a system is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have scaled the distance based upon the dimension of the bore hole.
Regarding claim 12, the mixing tube has threading on the inside, not the outside. However, as held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) if “there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. Here, there are only two choices, threads on the outside or thread on the inside, and therefore both would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 3,791,255) in view of Halander (US 2010/0296362). The systems of Fox and Halander were discussed above:
Regarding claim 7, threading is not disclosed by Fox. However, as seen in Fig. 5 of Halander threading to couple pipes is notoriously well known. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized threading as taught by Halander to achieve secure fastening.
Regarding claim 13, it is not expressly stated that nozzle is detachably attachable. Halander teaches making a nozzle detachably attachable via threaded coupling (see Fig. 5). See also In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) concerning make parts detachable. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the nozzle detachably attachable to facilitated assembly, repair or cleaning.
Regarding claim 14, threading is not disclosed by Fox. However, as seen in Fig. 5 of Halander threading to couple pipes is notoriously well known. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized threading as taught by Halander to achieve secure fastening.
Conclusion
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