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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a static mixer”, and the claim also recites “in particular a dental static mixer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “he flow-influencing elements (101A, 102A, 101B, 102B) having the form of prism shells standing substantially perpendicularly on the front side (10A) and/or the rear side (10B)”, and the claim also recites “in particular on the basis of an orthodiagonal quadrilateral” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how the side edges can both be connected to each other and have a passage. If there is a passage or gap or space, then it is not possible for them to be connected to each other.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the side edges (1011A/1023A, 1011B/1023B) of the at least two flow influencing elements (101A, 102A,101B, 102B), which overlap or are connected to each other in pairs" in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 3 should depend upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the angle α is greater than or equal to 1° and less than or equal to 89°”, and the claim also recites “preferably greater than or equal to 25° and less than or equal to 85°, particularly preferably greater than or equal to 50° and less than or equal to 80°, and/or the angle β is less than or equal to −1° and greater than or equal to −89°, preferably less than or equal to −25° and greater than or equal to −85°, particularly preferably less than or equal to −50° and greater than or equal to −80°”. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “at least one inlet opening”, and the claim also recites “in particular with at least two inlet openings” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “static mixer’, and the claim also recites “in particular dental static mixer’ which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 13 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 14 recites a use of a mixing element, but since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the use, it is unclear what method/process/use applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite wherein it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
Regarding claim 14, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “for mixing at least two low- to high-viscosity components”, and the claim also recites “in particular at least two low- to high-viscosity dental materials” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bublewitz et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0154628).
Regarding claim 1, Bublewitz et al. discloses a mixing element (reference #2), comprising:
a flat middle part extending along a longitudinal axis L and having a front side and a rear side opposite the front side (reference #14),
wherein at least two flow influencing elements are arranged on the front side and/or on the rear side of the middle part (reference #17 and 18), each of the flow influencing elements enclosing at least one passage opening located in the middle part (reference #15 and 16),
characterized in that the flow-influencing elements having the form of prism shells standing substantially perpendicularly on the front side and/or the rear side, in particular on the basis of an orthodiagonal quadrilateral, which overlap or are connected to one another in pairs at a respective side edge (reference #17 and 18 form walls/shells of an irregular prism shape (it is noted that a prism can be an irregular shape, and it is further noted that, similar to applicant’s invention described in figure 5 and claim 2 the walls may have spaces/gaps between that, if closed, would form that irregular prism or gaps between where the elements would overlap).
Regarding claim 2, Bublewitz et al. discloses wherein the flow influencing elements each having a common passage at their side edges, which overlap or are connected to each other in pairs (figure 3, reference #19).
Regarding claim 3, Bublewitz et al. discloses wherein the side edges of the at least two flow influencing elements, which overlap or are connected to each other in pairs, are arranged on the longitudinal center axis LM of the middle part (figure 3, reference #18 along center axis; [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Bublewitz et al. discloses wherein the middle part exhibiting at least two flow influencing elements arranged on the front side and at least two flow influencing elements arranged on the rear side, which are at least partially offset from each other in the direction of the longitudinal axis L (see figures 6-11 with various sides showing offset reference #17 and 18; [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Bublewitz et al. discloses wherein the at least two flow-influencing elements arranged on the front side (reference #17 and 18; [0057]) and the at least two flow-influencing elements arranged on the rear side (reference #17 and 18; [0057]) each include at least two through-openings located in the middle part (reference #15 and 16), wherein the one through-opening is arranged in the region of the pairwise overlapping or interconnected side edges of the flow-influencing elements on the front side and the other passage opening is arranged in the region of the pairwise overlapping or interconnected side edges of the flow-influencing elements (101B, 102B) on the rear side (reference #15 and 16; [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Bubblewitz et al. discloses wherein on the front side and/or on the rear side between two middle part segments in each case there is arranged a crossbar oriented substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis L. (reference #2b, 12 and 22).
Regarding claim 10, Bubblewitz et al. discloses wherein the mixing element further comprises a first side part and a second side part arranged at a distance from the first side part , and the middle part is connected to the first side part and the second side part in such a way that the front side and the rear side are aligned substantially perpendicular to the first side part and/or the second side part (figure 3, reference #13 on each side with reference #14 connected to each reference #13).
Regarding claim 11, Bubblewitz et al. discloses wherein the mixing element further comprises a bottom part with at least one inlet opening, in particular with at least two inlet openings, which is oriented substantially perpendicular to the middle part and/or to the first side part as well as to the second side part (reference #3, 7 and 12).
Regarding claim 12, Bubblewitz et al. discloses a static mixer according to claim 1 (abstract; figures; see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein further comprising an elongated mixer sleeve (reference 1) with at least one outlet opening (reference #6) and a mixer lid closing the mixer sleeve (reference #3) and having at least two inlet openings for introducing the components to be mixed (reference #7), characterized in that
the mixer sleeve is provided for receiving the mixing element (figures 1 and 2, reference #2), and the inner walls of the mixer sleeve and the at least two flow-influencing elements on the front side and/or the rear side of the middle part forming at least two interconnected mixing chambers (reference #20 and 21).
Regarding claim 13, Bubblewitz et al. discloses wherein at least one mixing chamber formed on the front side of the middle part, respectively, is further connected to at least one mixing chamber formed on the rear side of the middle part, respectively ([0057]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 14, Bubblewitz et al. discloses use of a mixing element according to claim 1 or a static mixer according to claim 12 for mixing at least two low- to high-viscosity components, in particular at least two low- to high-viscosity dental materials (abstract; figures; see rejections to claims 1 and 14 above; [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Bubblewitz et al. discloses Use according to claim 14, wherein a low to high viscosity component is introduced on the front side of the middle part and the other low to high viscosity component is introduced on the rear side of the middle part (reference #7 and 12a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774