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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the generic placeholder “an object” is modified by sufficient structure “a grid” and therefore not considered invoking a means plus function.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhrmacher (U.S. Patent 2,122,900) in view of Coleman (US20180027764A1) in further view of Hildreth (U.S. Publication 2007/0025179).
Regarding claim 1, Reiff teaches a device for dissolving in an aqueous liquid an essentially water-soluble substance (see lone figure), thereby obtaining an aqueous solution and filtering said aqueous solution to remove, if present, insoluble solid matter (the materials being worked upon are considered intended use), comprising a container for holding the aqueous liquid (item 1 tank) wherein the an interior of the container is divided into two separate compartments (item 3 divides the tank into a compartment on each side of item 3), respectively a mixing compartment (compartment from item 9 to item 3 is considered the mixing compartment) and a filtering compartment (compartment from item 3 to item 14 is considered the filtering compartment), separated by a vertically positioned filter screen (item 3 is considered a filter screen) comprising a filter (item 7 is considered the filter), a mixer positioned in the mixing compartment (openings items 11 are considered reading on a mixer since they spread out the solvent evenly with the solid material), an outlet in a lower half of one of a wall or a base of the mixing compartment for removal of the insoluble solid matter from the mixing compartment (item 13). Regarding claim 1, Reiff is silent to the grid and object for opening a bag on or above the grid and an electronic device. Regarding claim 1, Coleman teaches a feeder (item 205) with a grid (item 109 grate is considered reading on a grid) and an object for opening a bag on or above the grid (item 113 above item 109) wherein the feeder is positioned above the location of where the contents of the bag are to be fed. Regarding claim 1, Hildreth teaches an electronic device (paragraph 21 programmable logic controller) liquid level sensor (paragraph 33) a concentration sensor (paragraph 6) for mixing a solid (paragraph 32 salt) and a solvent (paragraph 32 water). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the chute of Reif with the bag opener and grid of Coleman in order to prevent solids from falling into the mixing compartment. Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixer of Reiff in view of Coleman with the sensors and electronic device of Hildreth in order to allow for a more accurate mixing operation.
Reiff is silent to the language of claim 4. Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the compartments in order to mix the desired volume of material since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Reiff teaches wherein the mixing compartment comprises a water inlet (item 10).
Regarding claim 6, Reiff is silent to a lid. Regarding claim 6, Coleman teaches a lid (item 205 and item 207 are each considered reading on a lid since they cover what is beneath them). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Reiff with the lid configuration of Coleman to prevent contamination of materials being mixed.
Regarding claim 7, Reiff is silent to a lid. Regarding claim 7, Coleman teaches a lid (item 207). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Reiff with the lid configuration of Coleman to prevent contamination of materials being mixed.
Reiff is silent to the specific filtration amount of claim 8. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to duplicate the number of openings in the filter item 3 in order to obtain the desired degree of filtration since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Reiff is silent to the specific mesh size of claim 9. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the opening size in item 3 in order to obtain the desired degree of filtration since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Reiff is silent to the level sensor of claim 10. Regarding claim 10, Hildreth teaches a level sensor capable of detecting a level of aqueous solution in a mixing compartment (paragraph 33 liquid level sensors). Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixer of Reiff in view of Coleman with the sensors and electronic device of Hildreth in order to allow for a more accurate mixing operation.
Reiff is silent to the height sensor of claim 11. Regarding claim 11, Hildreth teaches a height sensor capable of detecting a level of aqueous solution in a mixing compartment (paragraph 33 liquid level sensors, see figure 3 which shows sensors 118, 120, and 122 measure fluid at specific heights). Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixer of Reiff in view of Coleman with the sensors and electronic device of Hildreth in order to allow for a more accurate mixing operation.
Reiff is silent to the electrical conductivity sensor of claim 12. Regarding claim 12, Hildreth teaches an electrical conductivity sensor for measuring the electrical conductivity of the aqueous solution (paragraph 7 solution sensor detects conductivity of the solution). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixer of Reiff in view of Coleman with the sensors and electronic device of Hildreth in order to allow for a more accurate mixing operation.
Regarding claim 13 is silent to the wheels. Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention with wheels in order to allow for easier transport of the mixing apparatus since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
Reiff is silent to the language of claim 17. Regarding claim 17, Hildreth teaches a digital display (paragraph 57). Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Reiff in view of Coleman with the display of Hildreth in order to better monitor the mixing operation.
Reiff is silent to the specific filtration amount of claim 21. Regarding claim 21, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to duplicate the number of openings in the filter item 3 in order to obtain the desired degree of filtration since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 are allowed.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the method including the device of claim 1, providing an amount of aqueous liquid in to the mixing compartment, and activating the mixer until the essentially water-soluble substance is dissolved.
Claims 2, 3, 18, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, while Reiff teaches a solvent pipe (item 10) for feeding solvent into the mixing operation, the solvent pipe is not considered capable of delivering air to the mixing compartment since such a modification would prevent solvent from feeding into the mixing compartment.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the lid having an opening for the water uptake.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication 2019/0134571 to Dubiel teaches an injection tube (item 74) with a filter (item 79) and an outlet at a lower end (item 92). Dubiel is silent to the grid positioned above the mixing compartment comprising an object for opening a bag positioned above the grid, the electronic device connected to a sensor, and a container specifically divided into two separate compartments separated by a vertically positioned filter screen as claimed in independent claims 1 and 14.
U.S. Publication 2015/0351317 to Frogner teaches a pressurized mixing tank (item 12), a self-cleaning filter (item 14), a main water inlet pipe (item 11), an electrical conductivity meter which is considered reading on a sensor (item 15). Frogner is silent to the grid positioned above the mixing compartment comprising an object for opening a bag positioned above the grid, the electronic device connected to a sensor, and a container specifically divided into two separate compartments separated by a vertically positioned filter screen as claimed in independent claims 1 and 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Walter Griffin can be reached at (571)272-1447. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774