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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2023 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
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 3-12 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 3 recites the term “Teflon” in line 2. Because Teflon is a trade name and is used to identify or describe a particular material or product, claim 3 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(u). The Examiner suggests that the term “Teflon” be deleted from the claim because the term “polytetrafluoroethylene” in line 2 of the claim already describes the same product.
Claims 4-12 are rejected because they depend from indefinite claim 3.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yano et al. (US PGPub 2015/0224424, hereinafter Yano).
Regarding claim 1, Yano discloses a mixing vessel (figure 4), comprising: a first segment (lid member 47) having a first work function (paragraph 0073, “lid member 47 may be a member made of…a resin such as ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, PVC (polyvinyl chloride)”); and a second segment (outer tube portion 45) having a second work function that differs from the first work function (paragraph 0071, “outer tubular portion 45 is a tubular member having a bottom, made of a metal such as stainless steel”), wherein the mixing vessel is configured for mixing a powder having a third work function that is between the first and second work functions (the vessel shown in figure 4 would be fully capable of containing such a material, and thus mixing it, meeting the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Yano discloses the first segment (figure 4, lid member 47) being an insulator (paragraph 0073, “lid member 47 may be a member made of…a resin such as ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, PVC (polyvinyl chloride)”).
Regarding claim 3, Yano discloses the first segment comprises polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), nylon, polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon), or a combination thereof (paragraph 0073, “lid member 47 may be a member made of…a resin such as ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, PVC (polyvinyl chloride)”).
Regarding claim 4, Yano discloses the second segment (figure 4, outer tube portion 45) being a metal or an alloy (paragraph 0071, “outer tubular portion 45 is a tubular member having a bottom, made of a metal such as stainless steel”).
Regarding claim 5, Yano discloses the second segment comprises Aluminum, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0071, “outer tubular portion 45 is a tubular member having a bottom, made of a metal such as stainless steel”).
Regarding claim 6, Yano discloses a third segment (figure 4, plate member 43), wherein the third segment is the insulator, metal, or alloy different than the first segment and the second segment (paragraph 0069, “plate member 43 may be a member made of a metal such as an aluminum alloy or may be a member made of a resin such as ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, PVC (polyvinyl chloride), polycarbonate, and a reinforced resin such as glass fiber-reinforced resin and carbon fiber-reinforced resin”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 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 specific configuration of the mixing vessel not reasonably rendered obvious by the prior art. Although mixers having first and second arms as recited in claim 7 are known, the configuration of these arms in combination with the differing work functions and materials recited in claims 1-6 are not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 13, 15, and 17 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they recite methods of using the vessel of claim 1 that are not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
The remaining claims are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they depend from one or more claims containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses V-mixers having first and second arms.
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