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 statement on page 6 of the instant specification “a thread flank within the meaning of
the present invention is understood to be an area element which is wound once peripherally
around the mantle of the central shaft with one full turn” is acknowledged.
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.
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 1-3, 5-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold (US 1,786,556):
Regarding claim 1, Arnold discloses a rotor shaft comprising a mixing area (an area of the rotating structure within “1”) and a connection geometry (a geometry of a portion of 9 that is exterior to “1”) adjoining the mixing area, the mixing area comprising a central shaft (9 or a portion thereof) having a distal end and a proximal end abutting the connection geometry, wherein the connection geometry is configured to be coupled to an item that is not a required element of the claimed rotor shaft, the mixing area has at least two mixing sections along the central shaft, a first mixing section at the distal end of the central shaft comprising at least two mixing blades (two or more of 14, 15, 16) radially oriented on the surface of the central shaft and a second mixing section at the proximal end of the central shaft comprising at least one worm thread (12) having at least two spirally running thread flanks, the spirally running thread flanks peripherally entwining the surface of the central shaft (see Fig. 1). While it is seen from the drawings that worm diameter and blade diameter are approximately equal, no numerical values are provided. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have scaled the device of Arnold based upon the amount of material desired to be mixed. As held in Page Steel & Wire Co. v. Smith Bros. Hardware Co., 64 F.2d 512 (6th Cir. 1933) “mere change in dimensions is not invention”.
Regarding claim 2, the spirally running thread flanks of the at least one worm thread in the second mixing section are spaced from the at least two mixing blades in the first mixing section (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the ratio of the length of the second mixing section to the length of the first mixing section is in the range interval of 1:4 to 10:1 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, with the device of Arnold scaled in accordance with the independent claim as discussed above, widths depicted in Fig. 1 would be within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have discovered an optimal or workable width based upon strength and weight considerations.
Regarding claim 6, the thread flanks entwine the surface of the central shaft helically having a uniform thread angle (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, as seen in Fig. 1 the thread width is about 1D and the thread height is about 0.4D.
Regarding claim 8, with the device of Arnold scaled in accordance with the independent claim as discussed above, the thread depth as depicted in Fig. 1 would be within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the threads smooth to reduce fraction and thereby facilitate feeding of material.
Regarding claim 10, at least two mixing blades radially oriented in the first mixing section on the surface of the central shaft are composed each of at least three mixing blade segments, the at least three mixing blade segments being turned relative to each other on the surface of the central shaft by respectively 60° to 120° (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, a plane circular plate (11) is formed between the mixing area and the connection geometry, which circularly encloses the proximal end of the central shaft and the connection geometry adjoining thereto.
Regarding claim 12, the plane circular plate is spaced from the spirally running thread flanks of the at least one worm thread in the second mixing section (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, as held in In re Thorpe, 777 .2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985): "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the rotor shaft by injection mold or additive manufacturing to reduce cost.
Regarding claim 21 a circular plate (11) is disposed between the mixing area and the connection geometry wherein a diameter of the connection geometry is smaller than the diameter of the circular plate (see Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot due to the new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights