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 1-16, in the reply filed on 21 January 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant added a “closed” limitation to claim 1, creating a new independent claim 23 for the mixer without the “closed” limitation, and argues the there is unity of invention because Casper allegedly does not disclose a helical mixer that is closed between an inlet and an outlet. It is not agreed that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes Casper, because a closed helical conduit does exist between an inlet point and an outlet point (for example between 5 and the junction with the first instance of 2, or between the junction of the last instance of 2 and 8); however, as seen herein below, there are other prior art disclosures of helical conduits closed between and inlet and an outlet, for example Ito (US 2014/0290786). Nonetheless, upon any allowance of Group I claims, Group II claims requiring all the limitations of an allowed claim will be rejoined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 9, 12-14, 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (US 2014/0290786):
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a helical mixer comprising an inlet (1a) configured to receive liquids, an outlet (1b) configured to output mixed liquid and a helical flow channel (1) configured to mix the liquids, wherein the helical mixer is closed between the inlet and outlet (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 2, the helical flow path has an inner winding diameter in the claimed range (see [0059] “1 mm” and Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 3, the helical mixer is capable of receiving volumes in the recited range based upon the 1 mm diameter disclosed in [0059].
Regarding claim 4, the helical flow path has a circular cross section (see [0027] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, the helical flow path has a same diameter along an entire length of the helical flow path (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 9, the helical flow path comprises at least 5 turns (see Figs. 2 and 3A).
Regarding claim 12, the helical mixer would be capable of being used at the recited flow rated based upon the 1mm diameter disclosed in [0059].
Claim 13 fails to further structurally limit the claimed structure.
Claim 14 fails to further structurally limit the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 16, the helical mixer is configured for microfluidics (see [0002]).
Regarding claim 23, Ito discloses a helical mixer comprising an inlet (1a) configured to receive liquids at an inlet mass flow rate; an outlet (1b) configured to output a mixture of the liquids at the inlet mass flow rate; and a helical flow path (1) extending between the inlet and the outlet, wherein the helical mixer is configured to mix the liquids at a mix rate of the inlet mass flow rate (see Fig. 3A).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2014/0290786). The mixer of Ito was discussed above. A flow path length is not explicitly disclosed. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) concerning the obviousness of scaling a device. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a length of the path based upon a desired amount of material to be mixed and desired homogeneity.
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2014/0290786) in view of Kingsford (US 2007/0019503). The mixer of Ito was discussed above:
Regarding claim 7, while Ito further discloses that the helical mixer comprises a tube (see Fig. 3A) forming the helical flow path, Ito does not disclose the tube being made of polymeric material. Kingsford teaches making a helical mixer of polymeric material and explains that the benefit of resisting corrosion is realized (see [0054] and [0055]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the mixer of a polymeric material to resist corrosion as taught by Kingsford.
Regarding claim 8, Kingsford further teaches the polymeric material being a fluorinated ethylene propylene (see [0055]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2014/0290786) in view of Farrar (US 2017/0348667). The mixer of Ito was discussed above. A temperature controlling element is not disclosed. Farrar providing a helical mixer with a temperature control element (see [0057]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a temperature control element to achieve reaction conditions that art different from ambient as taught by Farrar.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2014/0290786) in view of (US 3,035,820). The mixer of Ito was discussed above. A flow direction mechanism is not disclosed. Todd teaches a flow direction mechanism to reverse the flow of liquid through a mixer channel (see col. 3, lines 5-25). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a flow direction mechanism to cause material to repeating pass through a mixer, as taught by Todd.
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