Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/266,990

GYROSCOPIC LIQUID SAMPLE MIXER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 13, 2023
Examiner
SORKIN, DAVID L
Art Unit
1774
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
787 granted / 1170 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1213
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1170 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 1-5 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 rendered indefinite by the term “small” because no standard is set forth establishing a threshold of what is considered “small” side flaps. In independent claim 1, “at least one belt” is recited, followed by “the drive belt” and “the torque transmission belt”. It is confusing whether or not these all refer to the same belt. In independent claim 1, “a rotor…having…an orthogonal base, being fastened on a rotor base…” is confusing the orthogonal base and the rotor base are the same part according the specification and drawing, but are being recited as if they were two different parts. Claim 5 is further rendered indefinite by the phrase “make the belt to a greater degree the drive rollers”. 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. Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (JP H08-038871) in view of Flackett (US 2003/0198126). Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a gyroscopic mixer comprising a rear support (part of 2 or 100) having a fixed pulley (7 or 105) and a motor (3, 14, 15, 16, 27 or 101, 103A, 104) including a rotor (4 or 102) mounted on the drive motor axis having a vertical disk and an orthogonal base (see Figs. 1 and 12), and being fastened on a rotor base a bearing (that of 33 or 106) for axial swivel of a cup holder and the rotor and cup holder being simultaneously driven by at least one belt (6 or 109) where the rotor has two small side flaps for fastening one or more rollers (20 or 108), wherein the holder includes a shaft (33 or 106) for performing axial turning which is mounted on the bearing fastened on the rotor base and having a drive pulley (37 or 107) responsive to the turning of the cup holder by way of the torque transmission belt. However, a cabinet with an upper lid is not disclosed. Flackett teaches placing a mixer with a cabinet (16) having an upper lid (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have placed the mixer in a cabinet having an upper lid as taught by Flackett so as to protect an operator from injury while still permitting access. Claim 3 solely concerned a cup holder that is not a required element of the claimed structure, but which is instead recited in the context of what a bearing is “for” during an intended operation. Regarding claim 4 and 5, it would have been obvious to have duplicated parts to mix more containers at once; see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) concerning the obviousness of duplicating parts. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (JP H08-038871) in view of Flackett (US 2003/0198126) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jepson (US 2098098). The shaft of Nakagawa is not disclosed as having a channel. Jepson teaches a shaft having channel (25) for fitting elastic ring (26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the shaft of with a channel from retention purposes as taught by Jepson. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600060
DEVICE FOR PRODUCING AND CONDITIONING A MULTI-COMPONENT MIXTURE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A DEVICE OF THIS KIND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599881
MIXER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599879
NANO CELL BLOCK MODULE FOR HOMOGENIZING A SOLUTION WITH A HIGH PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594532
FOAM PITCHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596312
TONER PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING TONER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+12.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1170 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month