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
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/22/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 16 are amended; claims 3, 4, 15, and 17 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 09/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Sakata fails to disclose a static mixer that is tubular shaped and has an integrated gasket at a first end.
However, as seen in Figure 3 and as more clearly pointed out in the annotated figure below, Sakata discloses a static mixer that is tubular shaped (51 is a tube) and has an integrated gasket at a first end. The gasket is used with the static mixer and therefore is seen as being integrated.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from Sakata.
Applicant alleges that Sakata does not disclose the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular fins.
However, this is taught as a 103 in combination with Finnerty.
Applicant alleges that Finnerty fails to teach a separate static mixer.
However, the rejection is Sakata in view of Finnerty. Sakata teaches the separate static mixer, Finnerty is used to modify the inner shape of the static mixer.
Applicant alleges that there is no motivation to combine Sakata and Finnerty because Sakata already discloses mixing blade 52 and that an integrated helical structure would be more difficult to manufacture.
However, the motivation remains to be easier to manufacture, as the protruding fins are less complicated in design. As seen in Sakata Figure 2, the mixing blade is a complicated twisting 3D design, whereas Figure 1D of Finnerty shows a simpler triangular design.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-14, 16, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (U.S. 2005/0218054) in view of Finnerty et al. (U.S. 2015/0024297).
Regarding claim 1, Sakata discloses a device for introducing and entraining a second fluid into a first fluid comprising: a Venturi device 40 (see paragraphs 0014 and 0114); an output tube 59 (see paragraph 0122); a static mixer 51, 52, 53 (see paragraph 0122); wherein the static mixer (51, 52, 53) is shaped and dimensioned to slide and fit into the output tube (59) and the output tube (59) with the inserted static mixer (51, 52, 53) is removably attached to an output end of the Venturi device 40 (see paragraph 0122; see Figure 3); and wherein the static mixer comprises a tubular component (51) having an integrated gasket (see Figure 3) at a first end.
Sakata fails to disclose wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component.
Finnerty teaches a venturi mixer comprising a static mixer (10”) wherein a tubular component (16”) comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins (20”) extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component (16”) and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component 16” (see paragraph 0125; see Figure 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Sakata to provide wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component, as taught by Finnerty. Doing so would be easier to manufacture, as the protruding fins are less complicated in design.
Regarding claim 5, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the integrated gasket (see Figure 3) of the static mixer (51, 52, 53) is shaped and dimensioned to fit into a groove formed on an output end of the Venturi device 40 (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the integrated gasket (see Figure 3) comprises rubber formed over a rigid core edge of the first end of the tubular component 51 (see Figure 3).
Regarding the limitation “over-molds” please note per MPEP 2113, “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”.
Regarding claims 7-9, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, and the combination further teaches wherein each fin (20”) has a triangular shape having three sides (see paragraph 0069) and is twisted (see Figure 1D).
The combination fails to teach each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis, because Applicant has not disclosed that having each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis, provides an advantage, is used for any particular purpose, or solves any stated problem, beyond providing a gentle mixing motion (further regarding this, gentle is relative and therefore not seen as providing a meaningful reason). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Sakata’s valve, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the shape taught by Sakata or the claimed shape because both shape would perform the same function of mixing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Sakata to provide each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Sakata.
Regarding claim 10, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to teach wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer, because Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer, provides an advantage, is used for any particular purpose, or solves any stated problem, beyond providing seamless lead-in transition. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Sakata’s valve, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the transition taught by Sakata or the claimed transition because both transitions would perform the same function of transitioning the fluid to the tubular component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Sakata to provide wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Sakata.
Regarding claim 11, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the static mixer (51, 52, 53) comprises one of polymer materials, plastic materials, ceramic, composite, stainless steel, cast steel, non-corrosive metal or alloy, or semi-rigid plastic (see paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 12, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the rubber comprises soft compliant material.
Regarding claim 13, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the first and second fluids comprise a liquid or a gas (see abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the first and second fluids comprise one of wine, cider, tea, coffee, probiotic liquids, water, air, oxygen, gasoline, food additives or small berries (see abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Sakata discloses method for introducing and entraining a second fluid into a first fluid comprising: providing a Venturi device 40 (see paragraph 0014 and 0114); providing a static mixer (51, 52, 53) and an output tube 59 (see paragraph 0122); wherein the static mixer (51, 52, 53) comprises a tubular component (51) having an integrated gasket at a first end (see Figure 3); sliding the static mixer (51, 52, 53) into the output tube (59), inserting and removably attaching the output tube (59) with the inserted static mixer (51, 52, 53) to an output end of the Venturi device 40 (see paragraph 0122); introducing the first fluid into a converging component of the Venturi device 40; drawing the second fluid into the Venturi component (40), and mixing the second fluid with the first fluid in an inner section of the Venturi device (40) thereby forming a mixed fluid (see paragraphs 0114-0116); flowing the mixed fluid through a diverging component of the Venturi device (40) and exiting the mixed fluid through the static mixer (51, 52, 53) into the output tube 59 (see paragraph 0122).
Sakata fails to disclose wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component.
Finnerty teaches a venturi mixer comprising a static mixer (10”) wherein a tubular component (16”) comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins (20”) extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component (16”) and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component 16” (see paragraph 0125; see Figure 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Sakata to provide wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component, as taught by Finnerty. Doing so would be easier to manufacture, as the protruding fins are less complicated in design.
Regarding claim 18, Sakata as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the first and second fluids comprise one of wine, cider, tea, coffee, probiotic liquids, water, air, oxygen, gasoline, food additives or small berries (see abstract).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-14, 16, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (U.S. 2020/0108360) in view of Finnerty.
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses a device for introducing and entraining a second fluid into a first fluid comprising: a Venturi device 200 (see paragraph 0049); an output tube 290 (see paragraph 0049); a static mixer 260 (see paragraph 0049); wherein the static mixer (260) is shaped and dimensioned to slide and fit into the output tube (290) and the output tube (290) with the inserted static mixer (260) is removably attached to an output end (210) of the Venturi device 200 (see paragraph 0049; see Figure 28); and wherein the static mixer (260) comprises a tubular component (260) having an integrated gasket (240b) at a first end (see paragraph 0049; see Figure 26).
Schneider fails to disclose wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component.
Finnerty teaches a venturi mixer comprising a static mixer (10”) wherein a tubular component (16”) comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins (20”) extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component (16”) and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component 16” (see paragraph 0125; see Figure 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schneider to provide wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component, as taught by Finnerty. Doing so would create a more gradual mixing.
Regarding claim 2, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches a clamp (295) and the output tube (290) with the inserted static mixer (260) is removably attached to the output end (210) of the venturi device (200) with the clamp 295 (see paragraph 0049; see Figure 28).
Regarding claim 5, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the integrated gasket (240b) of the static mixer (260) is shaped and dimensioned to fit into a groove formed on an output end (210) of the Venturi device 200 (see Figure 26).
Regarding claim 6, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the integrated gasket (240b) comprises rubber formed over a rigid core edge of the first end of the tubular component 260 (see Figure 260).
Regarding the limitation “over-molds” please note per MPEP 2113, “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”.
Regarding claims 7-9, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, and the combination further teaches wherein each fin (20”) has a triangular shape having three sides (see paragraph 0069) and is twisted (see Figure 1D).
The combination fails to teach each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis, because Applicant has not disclosed that having each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis, provides an advantage, is used for any particular purpose, or solves any stated problem, beyond providing a gentle mixing motion (further regarding this, gentle is relative and therefore not seen as providing a meaningful reason). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Schneider’s valve, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the shape taught by Schneider or the claimed shape because both shape would perform the same function of mixing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schneider to provide each fin having a first side surface attached to the inner surface of the tubular component, a second side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and a third side surface connecting the first and second side surfaces; wherein the second and third side surfaces are curved and slopped; wherein the fins form a 45 degree "twist" relative to the central axis, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Schneider.
Regarding claim 10, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to teach wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer, because Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer, provides an advantage, is used for any particular purpose, or solves any stated problem, beyond providing seamless lead-in transition. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Schneider’s valve, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the transition taught by Schneider or the claimed transition because both transitions would perform the same function of transitioning the fluid to the tubular component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schneider to provide wherein the inner side of the first end of the tubular component has a 45 degree chamfer that provides nearly seamless lead-in transition of the first and second fluids into the static mixer, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Schneider.
Regarding claim 11, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the static mixer (260) comprises one of polymer materials, plastic materials, ceramic, composite, stainless steel, cast steel, non-corrosive metal or alloy, or semi-rigid plastic (see paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 12, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the rubber comprises soft compliant material.
Regarding claim 13, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the first and second fluids comprise a liquid or a gas (see paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 14, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the first and second fluids comprise one of wine, cider, tea, coffee, probiotic liquids, water, air, oxygen, gasoline, food additives or small berries (see paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 16, Schneider discloses a method for introducing and entraining a second fluid into a first fluid comprising: providing a Venturi device 200 (see paragraph 0049); providing a static mixer (260) and an output tube 290 (see paragraph 0049); wherein the static mixer (260) comprises a tubular component having an integrated gasket (240b) at a first end (see paragraph 0049); sliding the static mixer (260) into the output tube (290), inserting and removably attaching the output tube (290) with the inserted static mixer (260) to an output end of the Venturi device 200 (see paragraph 0049); introducing the first fluid into a converging component of the Venturi device 200; drawing the second fluid into the Venturi component (200), and mixing the second fluid with the first fluid in an inner section of the Venturi device (200) thereby forming a mixed fluid (see Figure 21); flowing the mixed fluid through a diverging component (230) of the Venturi device (200) and exiting the mixed fluid through the static mixer (260) into the output tube 290 (see Figure 21).
Schneider fails to disclose wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component.
Finnerty teaches a venturi mixer comprising a static mixer (10”) wherein a tubular component (16”) comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins (20”) extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component (16”) and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component 16” (see paragraph 0125; see Figure 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schneider to provide wherein the tubular component comprises an open center and triangular shaped fins extending radially from an inner surface of the tubular component and twisting around a central axis of the tubular component, as taught by Finnerty. Doing so would create a more gradual mixing.
Regarding claim 18, Schneider as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the first and second fluids comprise one of wine, cider, tea, coffee, probiotic liquids, water, air, oxygen, gasoline, food additives or small berries (see paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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 supervisors, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881.. 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753