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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 and 13 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 4, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11 and Species I, A, and 1 (Figs. 1-3) in the reply filed on December 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “clearance adjustment part” in claim 1 and “fixing member” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification the limitation “clearance adjustment part” has been interpreted to cover the structure “fixing member and differential screw” in paragraph 0027.
In light of the specification the limitation “fixing member” has been interpreted to cover the structure “lid portion with a through hole” in paragraph 0039.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4 and 8 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.
Claim 4 recites “a use state in which the disperser is used and the clearance distance is small.” The term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, it is unclear where the boundary lies between a “small” clearance distance and other clearance distances, rendering the scope of claim 4 uncertain. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether a given clearance distance satisfies the claimed “small” limitation.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “may accumulate” that introduces uncertainty because it is speculative and does not provide an objective criterion for determine when fluid accumulation is considered to occur. The claim does not define the conditions under which fluid accumulation would be assessed or the degree of accumulation that would fall within the scope of the claim. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty and the scope of claim 8 renders the claim indefinite.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomura (WO 2020/136923 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Enomura discloses a disperser, comprising: a cylindrical outer member (61) extending in a predetermined direction and having a tapered inner circumferential surface (63) as a part of an inner circumferential surface thereof (Fig. 5A);
an inner member (10) located radially inside the outer member (61) and having a tapered outer circumferential surface (11) as a part of an outer circumferential surface thereof (Fig. 5 A), the tapered outer circumferential surface (11) facing the tapered inner circumferential surface (63) of the outer member (61);
and a clearance adjustment part (“gap adjusting mechanism (not shown)”, Par. [0062]) that allows a clearance distance between the tapered inner circumferential surface and the tapered outer circumferential surface to be adjusted by moving the outer member and the inner member relative to each other in the predetermined direction (Fig. 5B and 5C and Par. [0062]); wherein
a flow path (represented by arrows in in space 81, Fig. 5A) is formed between the inner circumferential surface (63) of the outer member (61) and the outer circumferential surface (11) of the inner member (10), through which fluid flows from one side to an other side in the predetermined direction (flows from lower side to upper side as shown in Fig. 5A),
the flow path includes a dispersion region (processing space 81 shown in Fig. 5A) defined by the tapered inner circumferential surface (63) and the tapered outer circumferential surface (11), and
the tapered inner circumferential surface (63) and the tapered outer circumferential surface (11) are formed such that an angle therebetween in a cross section in the predetermined direction changes in a middle of the dispersion region (angle between surfaces 11 and 63 in a cross section changes by protruding portions 16 as shown in Fig. 5A) .
With regard to claim 3, the disperser of Enomura discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Enomura further discloses that the clearance adjustment part includes: a fixing member (76) that supports the inner member (10) to be slidable in the predetermined direction (inner member 10 slidably rotated by shaft 31, Fig. 5A) and is fixed to the outer member (61), and a differential screw (“The specific configuration of the gap adjusting mechanism is not particularly limited, and linear feeding means such as a screw feeding mechanism”, Par. [0062]) configured to slide the inner member (10) in the predetermined direction with respect to the fixing member (76).
With regard to claim 4, the disperser of Enomura discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Enomura further discloses that the clearance adjustment part (“gap adjusting mechanism (not shown)”, Par. [0062]) can be used to selectively place the disperser in any one of the following states without disassembling the outer member and the inner member: a contact state in which the tapered inner circumferential surface and the tapered outer circumferential surface are in contact with each other, a use state in which the disperser is used and the clearance distance is small, and a separate state in which the clearance distance is larger than in the use state (as shown in Fig. 5B-C and Par. [0062], the gap adjusting mechanism is capable of performing the recited contact state, the use state and separate state).
With regard to claim 8, the disperser of Enomura discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Enomura further discloses that the inner circumferential surface (63) of the outer member (61) and the outer circumferential surface (11) of the inner member (10) that define the flow path have no horizontal portion where the fluid flowing through the flow path may accumulate (as shown in Fig. 5 A, the space 81 does not have any horizontal portion that would allow fluid to accumulate).
With regard to claim 9, the disperser of Enomura discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Enomura further discloses that the inner circumferential surface (63) of the outer member (61) and the outer circumferential surface (11) of the inner member (10) that define the flow path are covered with a coating made of a corrosion-resistant material (“The inner wall 10 and the outer wall 61 can be configured by a single member or a combination of a plurality of members, and the materials thereof include various metals, ceramics such as silicon carbide (SiC), sintered metal, and abrasion resistance. It is possible to employ steel, sapphire, or other metal that has been hardened, or hard material that has been subjected to lining, coating, plating, or the like.”) .
With regard to claim 11, the disperser of Enomura discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Enomura further discloses that at least one of the outer member (61) and the inner member (10) has a jacket through which another fluid can flow to adjust temperature of the fluid flowing through the flow path (“temperature adjusting mechanism T is attached to the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical wall 63 of the outer wall 61 and fluid processing” and Fig. 5).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomura in view of Enomura et al. (JP 6762058 B1).
With regard to claim 10, the disperser of Enomura discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Enomura does not disclose that the coating is a fluoropolymer coating.
Enomura in the Japanese reference teaches the coating is a fluoropolymer coating (“polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) can be selected and used”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating material of Enomura, by employing the fluoropolymer coating as taught in the Japanese reference, since the modification is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752