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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the seals recited in claims 13, 29, and 31 and the hollow driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 29 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 29 is essentially a duplicate of claim 13, the differences being “at least one sea” and “respective running surface,” which are not considered structurally different. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the first driving mechanism” is not previously referred to in the claim. Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since they depend on claim 31 and do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of claim 31. 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 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimin (CN103977723A a machine translation is provided) Claim 13 Haimin teaches a mixer assembly (shown in figures 1, 2, 3 2), comprising: a first gearing mechanism (item 52) including a hollow driven shaft (item 3 which has a space inside for item 12 to pass through), an adapter shaft at least partially arranged in and rotationally fixed to the hollow driven shaft of the first gearing mechanism (item 11 is housed in item 3 and rotates via rotary joint 39, see machine translation page 4 last paragraph), a second gearing mechanism (item 42) including a hollow driven shaft (item 2), the adapter shaft protruding through the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (item 1 protrudes in item 2); and a first seal arranged on the driven shaft and including a seal lip in contact with a running surface of the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (mechanical seal dynamic ring 24). Regarding claim 13, Haimin is silent to the running surface being formed of a second material and a remaining portion of the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism being formed of a first material. Regarding claim 13, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 14, Haimin teaches wherein the first seal includes a shaft seal ring (page 4 of machine translation, fifth paragraph teaches the seal is a mechanical steal static ring). Regarding claim 16, Haimin teaches wherein an axial extent of the adapter shaft includes an axial extent of the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (item 11 has the same axial extend as item 2). Regarding claim 17, Haimin teaches wherein the adapter shaft is coaxially aligned with the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (item 11 is coaxially aligned with item 2). Regarding claim 18, Haimin is silent to the location of the seal. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the seal in order to prevent contamination since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 19. Regarding claim 19, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 20. Regarding claim 20, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language 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 filling date of the claimed invention to modify the materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 22. Regarding claim 22, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to second seal configuration of claim 23. Regarding claim 23, 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 duplicate the number of seals in order to prevent contamination 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. Regarding claim 24, Haimin teaches wherein a housing part of the first gearing mechanism is connected to an adapter flange that is connected to a housing part of the second gearing mechanism (frame item 1 is considered reading on a flange that connects both items 42 and 52). Haimin is silent to the language of claim 26. Regarding claim 26, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 27. Regarding claim 27, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 28. Regarding claim 28, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 29, Haimin teaches a mixer assembly (shown in figures 1, 2, 3 2), comprising: a first gearing mechanism (item 52) including a hollow driven shaft (item 3 which has a space inside for item 12 to pass through), an adapter shaft at least partially arranged in and rotationally fixed to the hollow driven shaft of the first gearing mechanism (item 11 is housed in item 3 and rotates via rotary joint 39, see machine translation page 4 last paragraph), a second gearing mechanism (item 42) including a hollow driven shaft (item 2), the adapter shaft protruding through the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (item 1 protrudes in item 2); and at least one seal arranged on the driven shaft and including a seal lip in contact with a respective running surface of the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (mechanical seal dynamic ring 24). Regarding claim 29, Haimin is silent to the running surface being formed of a second material and a remaining portion of the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism being formed of a first material. Regarding claim 29, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to second seal configuration of claim 30. Regarding claim 30, 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 duplicate the number of seals in order to prevent contamination 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. Claim 31 Haimin teaches a mixer assembly (shown in figures 1, 2, 3 2), comprising: a first gearing mechanism (item 52) including a hollow driven shaft (item 3 which has a space inside for item 12 to pass through), an adapter shaft at least partially arranged in and rotationally fixed to the hollow driven shaft of the first driving mechanism (item 11 is housed in item 3 and rotates via rotary joint 39, see machine translation page 4 last paragraph), a second gearing mechanism (item 42) including a hollow driven shaft (item 2), the adapter shaft protruding through the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (item 1 protrudes in item 2); and a first seal arranged on the driven shaft and including a seal lip in contact with a running surface of the driven shaft of the second gearing mechanism (mechanical seal dynamic ring 24). Regarding claim 31, Haimin is silent to the second seal configuration and the specific materials. Regarding claim 31, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of seals in order to prevent contamination 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. Regarding claim 31, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 32. Regarding claim 32, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 33. Regarding claim 33, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Haimin is silent to the language of claim 34. Regarding claim 34, 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 materials of the mixer assembly in order to achieve the desired durability of the mixer assembly since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15 and 25 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 15, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the mixer assembly with the two gearing mechanisms, two shafts, seal, wherein the adapter shaft is arranged as a solid shaft. Regarding claim 25, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the mixer assembly with the two gearing mechanisms, two shafts, seal, wherein the adapter flange includes a centering collar in the bore of the housing of the second gearing mechanism. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7628 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ANSHU BHATIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774