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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 19, it is interpreted that “a wide range of Reynold’s number till 400000” is claiming a range up to or equal to 400000.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “The static mixer” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 19 depends. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 7, which claims a static mixer. However, correction/clarification is required.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zahoransky (U.S. Patent 6,776,600).
Regarding claim 1, Zahoransky teaches fluid mixing device (Figure 9 shows the mixing device, figure 8 shows the mixing device in a static mixer) comprising: a central blade having a twisted spiral structure (see one of the two middle blades item 451 that have a twisted spiral shape); and a plurality of peripheral blades (see adjacent blade items 451), each having the twisted spiral structure and abuts the central blade (the adjacent blade items 451 have twisted spiral structures and abut the middle blade item 451), wherein the twisted spiral structure of the central blade is formed in a clockwise or an anti-clockwise direction along a longitudinal axis (see column 11 lines 2-5 which shows one plate with either a left or right handed orientation, which is considered reading on either clockwise or anti-clockwise direction) and the twisted spiral structure of each of the plurality of peripheral blades is formed in an opposite direction with respect to the central blade along the longitudinal axis (see column 11 lines 2-5 which shows adjacent screw shaped plates having different opposite orientations than adjacent places).
Regarding claim 2, Zahoransky teaches wherein the plurality of peripheral blades receives a first fluid stream (while the material is considered intended use, figure 9 shows a melt line item 150 that feeds to the fluid mixing device), the central blade receives a second fluid stream along with the first fluid stream (while the material is considered intended use, figure 9 shows an additive line 200).
Regarding claim 3, Zahoransky teaches wherein the central blade divides the second fluid stream and the first fluid stream into sub streams and directs the divided sub streams outwardly (one of the central blade items 451 divides the stream via each side of the blade shape and the twisted shape pushed material outwardly), and the plurality of peripheral blades directs the first fluid stream towards the longitudinal axis resulting in an interaction of the first fluid stream with the divided sub streams thereby creating a swirling motion within the first fluid stream and the divided sub streams (each of items 451 have a twisted shape that is considered capable of inducing a swirling motion, the streams being divided by each side of the plate 451).
Regarding claim 4, Zahoransky teaches wherein the central blade has a pointed profile on a front end adapted to divide the second fluid stream into the sub streams (see corners at edge 453 one of the middle items 451) and a curved profile along a length of the central blade (see curved, twisted portion of one of the middle items 451).
Regarding claim 5, Zahoransky teaches wherein each of the plurality of peripheral blades intersects at least one longitudinal side of the central blade at a predetermined minor angle, the predetermined minor angle is in a range from 45 degrees to 90 degrees (column 6 lines 41-45 teaches an angle of 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Zahoransky teaches a static mixer assembly (figure 8) having an inner bore for mixing a first fluid stream and a second fluid stream (bore extending proximate items 150, 102, item 301, and portion of bore 302, the fluids are considered intended use however Zahoransky teaches both a melt 101 and additive line 200) comprising: an upstream end adapted to allow ingress of the first fluid stream therethrough (upstream end proximate item 150); a downstream end opposite to the upstream end (portion of bore downstream of item 302), the downstream end adapted to allow egress of a mixture of the first fluid stream and a second fluid stream therethrough (the mixture flows in the bore downstream of item 302); and an angular conduit disposed in the inner bore and downstream to the upstream end (item 201 is considered reading on a conduit, is angled towards the central axis of the bore and downstream of item 150), and adapted to provide the second fluid stream into the inner bore (item 201 provides additive from item 200); and a fluid mixing device installed inside the inner bore, downstream to the angular conduit and upstream to the downstream end, comprising: a central blade having a twisted spiral structure (see one of the two middle blades item 451 that have a twisted spiral shape); and a plurality of peripheral blades (see adjacent blade items 451), each having the twisted spiral structure and abuts the central blade (the adjacent blade items 451 have twisted spiral structures and abut the middle blade item 451), wherein the twisted spiral structure of the central blade is formed in a clockwise or an anti-clockwise direction along a longitudinal axis (see column 11 lines 2-5 which shows one plate with either a left or right handed orientation, which is considered reading on either clockwise or anti-clockwise direction) and the twisted spiral structure of each of the plurality of peripheral blades is formed in an opposite direction with respect to the central blade along the longitudinal axis (see column 11 lines 2-5 which shows adjacent screw shaped plates having different opposite orientations than adjacent places).
Regarding claim 8, Zahoransky teaches wherein the plurality of peripheral blades receives a first fluid stream (while the material is considered intended use, figure 9 shows a melt line item 150 that feeds to the fluid mixing device), the central blade receives a second fluid stream along with the first fluid stream (while the material is considered intended use, figure 9 shows an additive line 200).
Regarding claim 9, Zahoransky teaches wherein the central blade divides the second fluid stream and the first fluid stream into sub streams and directs the divided sub streams outwardly (one of the central blade items 451 divides the stream via each side of the blade shape and the twisted shape pushed material outwardly), and the plurality of peripheral blades directs the first fluid stream towards the longitudinal axis resulting in an interaction of the first fluid stream with the divided sub streams thereby creating a swirling motion within the first fluid stream and the divided sub streams (each of items 451 have a twisted shape that is considered capable of inducing a swirling motion, the streams being divided by each side of the plate 451).
Regarding claim 10, Zahoransky teaches wherein the central blade has a pointed profile on a front end adapted to divide the second fluid stream into the sub streams (see corners at edge 453 one of the middle items 451) and a curved profile along a length of the central blade (see curved, twisted portion of one of the middle items 451).
Regarding claim 11, Zahoransky teaches wherein each of the plurality of peripheral blades intersects at least one longitudinal side of the central blade at a predetermined minor angle, the predetermined minor angle is in a range from 45 degrees to 90 degrees (column 6 lines 41-45 teaches an angle of 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 15, Zahoransky teaches wherein the angular conduit having an L-shaped profile (see l shape from item 200 to item 201) comprises an inlet adapted to ingress the second fluid stream (lowest most portion of item 200 which receives the additive) and an outlet adapted to egress the second fluid stream (end opening of item 201 feeding into bore proximate item 102).
Regarding claim 17, Zahoransky teaches wherein the angular conduit is adapted to supply the second fluid stream coaxial to the longitudinal axis (item 201 feeds an additive coaxial to the longitudinal axis of the bore).
Regarding claim 19, Zahoransky teaches wherein the static mixer is for fluids and for a wide range of Reynold’s numbers till 400000 (the mixer in figure 8 is considered capable of working on fluids with a Reynolds number below 400000).
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 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahoransky (U.S. Patent 6,776,600).
Regarding claim 6, Zahoransky is silent to wherein a pitch of the central blade and each of the plurality of peripheral blades is in a range from one to five times a length of the central blade. Regarding claim 6, 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 length of the blade in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Zahoransky is silent to wherein a pitch of the central blade and each of the plurality of peripheral blades is in a range from one to five times a length of the central blade. Regarding claim 12, 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 length of the blade in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Zahoransky is silent to the size of the blades and bore. 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 size of the blades and bore in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, Zahoransky is silent to the size of the blades and bore. Regarding claim 14, 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 size of the blades and bore in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, Zahoransky is silent to the size of static mixer. Regarding claim 16, 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 size of the static mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, Zahoransky is silent to the size of static mixer. Regarding claim 18, 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 size of the static mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights