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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 5, 8, and 12 are amended. Claims 16 and 17 are newly added. Claim 15 remains withdrawn. Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 10/07/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the Applicant’s amendments, the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
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 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galaka et al. (US PGPub 2017/0239629, hereinafter Galaka) in view of Toppinen et al. (US PGPub 2022/0008873, hereinafter Toppinen).
Regarding claim 1, Galaka discloses a mixing device for the production of nanoparticles from the mixing of at least two fluids (intended use, the device of Galaka would be fully capable of this function), wherein the mixing device comprises:
a mixing chamber (figure 1, base 2 and housing 1) comprising a base (base 2) and at least one wall (housing 1), two inlet conduits (inlets 6 and 7) configured to feed a fluid into the mixing chamber, each inlet conduit (3, 4) the inlet conduits spaced from each other and with the inlet openings oriented to supply fluid into the mixing chamber substantially tangentially to the inner surface of the wall (see figure 1, view A), and
an outlet conduit (tube 4) comprising an outlet opening (opening 8), the outlet conduit being configured to be arranged with the outlet opening (at the top of tube 4) located in the mixing chamber at a position higher than the position of the inlet openings (see figure 1).
Galaka is silent to a plurality of inlet openings as recited. Toppinen teaches a mixing device (figure 2b) having two inlet conduits (inlets 206 and 207), each conduit comprising a plurality of inlet openings (openings 216), the inlet portions being arranged inside the mixing chamber (see figure 2b), spaced from each other and with the inlet openings oriented to supply fluid into the mixing chamber substantially tangentially to the inner surface of the wall (see figure 2b). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Galaka with the inlet openings of Toppinen for the purpose of reducing concentration of the added fluids at the side wall of the mixing chamber (Toppinen: paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 2, Galaka discloses at least a portion of the outlet conduit (figure 1, tube 4) is arranged along a longitudinal axis of the mixing chamber (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Galaka discloses the distance from the outlet opening (figure 1, top of tube 4) of the outlet conduit to the base of the mixing chamber is adjustable (via washers 5, seen in figure 2). Because the washers of separate from and moveable on the tube, it would be possible to adjust the distance as recited.
Regarding claim 4, Galaka discloses an inlet conduit arranged at a location of the wake of the other inlet conduit (see figures 1 and 3). It is noted that Toppinen also teaches an inlet conduit arranged in the wake of another inlet conduit (see figure 2b). The obviousness of using the conduits of Toppinen in the device of Galaka has been established above.
Regarding claim 5, Galaka discloses the inner surface of the wall of the mixing chamber being shaped substantially as a surface of revolution, preferably shaped as a cylinder (figure 1, base 2 and housing 1).
Regarding claim 6, Galaka discloses the axis of rotation of the surface of revolution is the longitudinal axis of the mixing chamber (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Galaka is silent to the inlet openings. Toppinen is relied upon, as above, to teach inlet openings, and further to teach each opening having a spray nozzle (see figure 2b). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Galaka with the inlet openings of Toppinen for the purpose of reducing concentration of the added fluids at the side wall of the mixing chamber (Toppinen: paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 9, Galaka discloses a cover configured to couple to an upper portion of the mixing chamber (see figure 1, upper end of housing 1).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galaka et al. (US PGPub 2017/0239629, hereinafter Galaka) in view of Toppinen et al. (US PGPub 2022/0008873, hereinafter Toppinen), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiraishi et al. (US PGPub 2011/0171082, hereinafter Shiraishi).
Regarding claim 10, Galaka is silent to a flow meter. Shiraishi teaches a mixing device having fluid inlets conduits (figure 24, piping 27a and 27b) wherein at least one fluid inlet conduit comprises a flowmeter (flowmeters 23a and 23b). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Galaka with a flow meter for the purpose of ensuring a desired flow rate of material into the mixer.
Regarding claim 11, Galaka is silent to a collecting chamber. Shiraishi teaches a mixing device having a collecting chamber (figure 24, tank 26) in fluid communication with the outlet conduit of the mixing chamber (reactor 9). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Galaka with a collecting chamber for the purpose of storing product produced by the mixing device.
Regarding claim 12, Galaka is silent to a bent portion in the outlet conduit configured to provide fluid communication to the collecting chamber. Shiraishi teaches a mixing device having a collecting chamber (figure 24, tank 26) in fluid communication with the outlet conduit of the mixing chamber (reactor 9) with a bent portion therebetween (see conduit between tank 26 and reactor 9). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Galaka with a bent portion for the purpose of positioning the mixing device and collecting chamber in a convenient arrangement while still allowing for fluid communication therebetween.
Regarding claim 13, Galaka is silent to two reservoirs connected to the inlet conduits. Shiraishi teaches a mixing device having inlet conduits (figure 24, piping 27a and 27b) with two reservoirs (storage tanks 18a and 18b) connected thereto. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Galaka with reservoirs for the purpose of storing raw materials for mixing.
Regarding claim 14, Galaka is silent to a pumping means as recited. Shiraishi teaches a mixing device having inlet conduits (figure 24, piping 27a and 27b) that include pumping means (pumps 19a and 19b) to supply fluid to the mixing chamber. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Galaka with pumping means for the purpose of moving fluids to the mixing chamber for mixing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 16, and 17 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.
Claim 7 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a configuration of the plurality of inlet openings not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 16 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a specific configuration of the inner surface along which the inlets introduce fluid tangentially that is not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 17 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a specific configuration of the spray nozzles not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the inlets and conduits of Toppinen are not oriented to supply fluid tangentially to the inner surface of the wall of the mixing chamber (remarks, page 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite that the mixing chamber comprises “at least one wall” and thus do not preclude the mixing chamber having additional walls. Further, the wall of the mixing chamber recited in claim 1 is not required to be an outer wall bounding the mixing chamber, and thus the device of Toppinen supplying fluid tangentially to these walls as shown in figure 2b meets the claim as currently written.
Additionally, even if the claims recited an outer wall bounding the mixing chamber, the “intermediate walls” of Toppinen are merely a continuation of the walls bounding the mixing chamber, and thus are considered to be part of the outer wall of the mixing chamber. As shown in figure 2b, cited by the Applicant in their remarks, there is no separation between the outer wall of the chamber of Toppinen and the “intermediate walls” cited by the Applicant. For example, the wall adjacent inlet 206 is an extension of the wall bounding inlet 204, which is an outer wall of the mixing chamber. Thus, even if the inlets of Toppinen supply fluid tangential to an intermediate wall, this intermediate wall is part of the outer wall that bounds the mixing chamber, and this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights