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 1-10, in the reply filed on 04 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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 10 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. In claim 10, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the process fluid”.
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis (US 2,082,752):
Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses an apparatus comprising a tube (a) with a length provided with stationary axial baffles (f’ or a subset thereof) mounted to provide a continuous gap between the baffles and the interior surface of the tube and further provided with axial stirrer blades (j’ or a subset thereof) which can be driven to sweep the gap.
Regarding claim 2, the tube is provide with connections (i,l) for feed and discharge.
Regarding claim 3, the intended use steps of this claim fail to further structurally limit the claimed structure. The structure of Lewis would be capable of being used in the recited manner.
Regarding claim 4, stationary radial baffles (j) within the plug flow length which do not extend into the gap.
Regarding claim 5, the tube is provided with covers (b, h) at its ends and the stirrer blades are held in position by a shaft (e) which passes through one end cover and the axial baffles are held in position by the opposing end cover.
Regarding claim 10, external jacket (a’’) is provided.
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 2,082,752) in view of Rainey (US 4,494,878). The apparatus of Lewis was discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Lewis does not disclose axial and radial baffles being joined together by interlocking slots. Rainey teaches axial (11a-11d) and radial baffles (12) being joined together by interlocking slots (16, 19a-19b, 22a-22d) to form a rigid assembly without welding, bonding, screws or fixing bolts (see col. 1, lines 17-25). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the interlocking slot arrangement of Rainey for the advantage of easier disassembly and cleaning (see col. 1, lines 17-25).
Regarding claim 7, Lewis further teaches mounting the axial and radial baffles on a baffle support shaft (i) as a slide fit.
Regarding claim 8, Rainey further teaches that the baffles are formed of a synthetic polymer (see col. 2, lines 14-22). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the baffles of synthetic polymer for the advantage of slight adjustment as explained by Rainey in col. 2, lines 14-22.
Regarding claim 9, the synthetic polymer taught by Rainey is polytetrafluorethylene (see col. 2, lines 14-22).
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 2,082,752) in view of Webb (US 3,898,042). The apparatus of Lewis was discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Lewis does not disclose the baffles being formed of a synthetic polymer. Webb teaches forming a baffle of synthetic polymer (see col. 13, lines 17-21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the baffles of synthetic polymer for the advantage of non-stick properties as taught by Webb in col. 13, lines 17-21.
Regarding claim 9, the synthetic polymer taught by Webb is polytetrafluorethylene (see col. 13, lines 17-21).
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