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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2024 and 09/18/2025 were filed before the first office action. 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 § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rau (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0076761 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Rau teaches a modified tank (vessel, 12) for use in microgravity environments, the modified tank (12) comprising: a membrane (36; Paragraph [0003]) defining an interior (Fig. 1) and comprising an inlet (inlet, 32) leading to the interior (Fig. 1) and first and second outlets (outlet, 34 and drain fitting, 20), from the interior (Fig. 1); first and second filters (filter media element, 38) for the first and second outlets (Fig. 1), respectively; and an outlet wiping pair (wiper assembly, 44) comprising: a wiper (member, 46) in the interior (Fig. 1); and a wiping boss (linear actuator, 56 with operating rod, 48) at an exterior of the membrane (36), which is operably coupled to the wiper (44) whereby operation of the wiping boss causes the wiper to wipe at least one of the first and second filters (Paragraph [0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2 – 3 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0076761 A1) in view Johnson (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0114282 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Rau teaches the modified tank according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Rau does not explicitly teach wherein: the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior, the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior, the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior, and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases.
Johnson, however, teaches the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior (Paragraph [0023]), the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior (gas outlet stream; Paragraph [0023]), the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior (water outlet stream; Paragraph [0023]), and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases (Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior, the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior, the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior, and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases, as taught by Johnson, to provide a system that separates and/or clarifies the components of a mixed or multi-phase flow of fluids.
Regarding Claim 3, Rau, as modified, teaches the modified tank (vessel, 12), wherein: the wiper (46) is disposed between the first and second outlets (Fig. 1), and the wiper (46) comprises an elongate body with a wiping surface (Fig. 1).
Rau does not explicitly teach the wiper is rotatable into contact with the first and second filters; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further explicitly include the wiper is rotatable into contact with the first and second filters, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known geometric transformation on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 17, Rau teaches the modified tank according to claim 16, as discussed above.
Rau does not explicitly teach the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior, the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior, the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases,
Johnson, however, teaches the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior (Paragraph [0023]), the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior (gas outlet stream; Paragraph [0023]), the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior (water outlet stream; Paragraph [0023]), and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases (Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior, the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior, the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior, and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases, as taught by Johnson, to provide a system that separates and/or clarifies the components of a mixed or multi-phase flow of fluids.
Rau does not explicitly teach wherein the membrane is continuous between the wiper and the wiping boss; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the membrane is continuous between the wiper and the wiping boss, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18, Rau, as modified, teaches the modified tank (vessel, 12), wherein the outlet wiping pair (44) further comprises: a first mounting (Paragraph [0017]) by which the wiper (44) is mounted to the membrane to allow for movement of the wiper and to prevent translation of the wiper; and a second mounting by which the wiper boss (48) is mounted to the membrane to allow for translation of the wiper boss and to prevent translation of the wiper boss Paragraph [0017]; Fig. 1).
Rau does not explicitly teach rotation of the wiper member and the boss; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include rotation of the wiper member and the boss, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known geometric transformation on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 4 – 7, 16 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0076761 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Rau teaches the modified tank according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Rau does not explicitly teach wherein the membrane is continuous between the wiper and the wiping boss; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the membrane is continuous between the wiper and the wiping boss, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Rau teaches the modified tank according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Rau does not explicitly teach the outlet wiping pair is a magnetic outlet wiping pair and: the operation of the wiping boss comprises rotation of the wiping boss, and the wiping boss is magnetically coupled to the wiper whereby the rotation of the wiping boss is magnetically transmitted as rotational energy to the wiper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the outlet wiping pair is a magnetic outlet wiping pair and: the operation of the wiping boss comprises rotation of the wiping boss, and the wiping boss is magnetically coupled to the wiper whereby the rotation of the wiping boss is magnetically transmitted as rotational energy to the wiper, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 6, Rau, as modified, teaches the modified tank according to claim 5, as discussed above.
Rau does not explicitly teach the wiping boss is manually operated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the wiping boss is manually operated, as claimed, since it has been held that broadly providing a manual means to replace mechanical or automatic activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7, Rau, as modified, teaches the modified tank (vessel, 12), wherein the outlet wiping pair (44) further comprises: a first mounting (Paragraph [0017]) by which the wiper (44) is mounted to the membrane to allow for movement of the wiper and to prevent translation of the wiper; and a second mounting by which the wiper boss (48) is mounted to the membrane to allow for translation of the wiper boss and to prevent translation of the wiper boss Paragraph [0017]; Fig. 1).
Rau does not explicitly teach rotation of the wiper member and the boss; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include rotation of the wiper member and the boss, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known geometric transformation on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Rau teaches a modified tank (vessel, 12) for use in microgravity environments, the modified tank (12) comprising: a membrane (36; Paragraph [0003]) defining an interior (Fig. 1) and comprising an inlet (inlet, 32) leading to the interior (Fig. 1) and first and second outlets (outlet, 34 and drain fitting, 20), from the interior (Fig. 1); first and second filters (filter media element, 38) for the first and second outlets (Fig. 1), respectively; and at least one of: an outlet wiping pair (44) comprising a wiper (46) in the interior (Fig. 1) and a wiping boss (56 with 48) at an exterior of the membrane (36), which is coupled to the wiper (46) whereby manual translation of the wiping boss (48) causes the wiper (46) to wipe at least one of the first and second filters (Annotated Fig. 1); and a magnetic stirrer pair comprising a stirrer at the interior of the membrane and a stirring boss at the exterior of the membrane, which is magnetically coupled to the stirrer whereby manual rotation of the stirring boss causes the stirrer to stir the interior of the membrane.
Rau does not explicitly teach the wiping boss is manually operated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the wiping boss is manually operated, as claimed, since it has been held that broadly providing a manual means to replace mechanical or automatic activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Further, Rau does not explicitly teach a magnetic outlet wiping pair; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Rau to further include the outlet wiping pair is a magnetic outlet wiping pair and the wiping boss is magnetically coupled to the wiper whereby the rotation of the wiping boss is magnetically transmitted as rotational energy to the wiper, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20 and the limitations “the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior, the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior, the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases, and the membrane is continuous between the stirrer and the stirring boss, the stirrer is disposed between the inlet and the first and second outlets and the stirrer comprises an elongate body with radially outwardly extending baffles” and “and wherein the magnetic stirrer pair further comprises: a first mounting by which the stirrer is mounted to the membrane to allow for rotation of the stirrer and to prevent translation of the stirrer; and a second mounting by which the stirring boss is mounted to the membrane to allow for rotation of the stirring boss and to prevent translation of the stirring boss”; the limitations are directed toward a non-elected species, that being the stirrer of claim 16.
Claims 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottcher et al (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0040651 A1) in view Johnson (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0114282 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Bottcher teaches a modified tank (container, 3) for use in microgravity environments, the modified tank (3) comprising: a membrane defining an interior (Paragraph [0055]) ; and a stirrer pair comprising: a stirrer (stirring element, 7) at the interior of the membrane (Fig. 1) and a stirring boss (drive device, 100) at an exterior of the membrane (Fig. 3), which is operably coupled to the stirrer (7) whereby operation of the stirring boss causes the stirrer to stir the interior of the membrane (Paragraph [0079]).
Bottcher does not teach an inlet leading to the interior and first and second outlets from the interior.
Johnson, however, teaches an inlet leading to the interior (Paragraph [0023]) and first and second outlets from the interior (Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Bottcher to further include an inlet leading to the interior and first and second outlets from the interior, as taught by Johnson, to provide a system that separates and/or clarifies the components of a mixed or multi-phase flow of fluids.
Regarding Claim 9, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the modified tank according to claim 8, as discussed above.
Bottcher does not teach the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior, the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior, the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior, and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases.
Johnson, however, teaches the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior (Paragraph [0023]), the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior (gas outlet stream; Paragraph [0023]), the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior (water outlet stream; Paragraph [0023]), and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases (Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Bottcher to further include the inlet comprises a multi-phase inlet by which fluids in multiple phases proceed into the interior, the first outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a first single-phase fluid exits from the interior, the second outlet comprises a single-phase outlet by which a second single-phase fluid exits the interior, and the first and second single-phase fluids are of different phases, as taught by Johnson, to provide a system that separates and/or clarifies the components of a mixed or multi-phase flow of fluids.
Regarding Claim 10, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the modified tank (container, 3) wherein: the stirrer (7) comprises an elongate body (bearing rod, 9) with radially outwardly extending baffles (wing elements, 13; Fig. 1) .
Further, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the stirrer (7) and the inlets and outlets of Johnson but fails to explicitly teach the stirrer is disposed between the inlet and the first and second outlets. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Bottcher to further include the stirrer is disposed between the inlet and the first and second outlets, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 11, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the modified tank (container, 3) wherein the membrane (Paragraph [0079] – tank is formed as membrane) is continuous between the stirrer (7) and the stirring boss (100).
Regarding Claim 12, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the modified tank (container, 3) wherein the stirrer pair is a magnetic stirrer pair (Paragraph [0011]) and: the operation of the stirring boss (100) comprises rotation of the stirring boss (Paragraph [0011]), and the stirring boss is magnetically coupled to the stirrer (7) whereby the rotation of the stirring boss (100) is magnetically transmitted as rotational energy to the stirrer (7; Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 13, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the modified tank according to claim 12, as discussed above.
Bottcher does not explicitly teach the stirring boss is manually operated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Bottcher to further include the wiping boss is manually operated, as claimed, since it has been held that broadly providing a manual means to replace mechanical or automatic activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 14, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the modified tank (container, 3) wherein the stirrer pair (Fig. 1) further comprises: a first mounting (mounting device, 200) by which the stirrer (7) is mounted to the membrane to allow for rotation of the stirrer and to prevent translation of the stirrer (7; Fig. 1); and a second mounting (base body, 27; Fig. 1) by which the stirring boss (100) is mounted to the membrane to allow for rotation of the stirring boss and to prevent translation of the stirring boss (Fig. 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottcher et al (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0040651 A1) in view Johnson (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0114282 A1) and Ludwig et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0038222).
Regarding Claim 15, Bottcher, as modified, teaches the modified tank according to claim 8, as discussed above.
Bottcher does not teach the membrane is a floating dynamic tank disposed within a static tank, and the stirrer pair comprises: first magnetic elements disposed on the floating dynamic tank; and an exterior rotor disposed about the static tank and comprising second magnetic elements which are magnetically coupled to the first magnetic elements whereby rotation of the exterior rotor causes corresponding rotation of the floating dynamic tank.
Ludwig, however, teaches the membrane (flexible container, 2) is a floating dynamic tank disposed within a static tank (rigid holding device, 18), and the stirrer pair (mixing means, 7; Fig. 10) comprises: first magnetic elements (11a; Paragraph [0183]) disposed on the floating dynamic tank (2; Fig. 10); and an exterior rotor (motor means, 9; Fig. 12) disposed about the static tank (18; Fig. 12) and comprising second magnetic elements which are magnetically coupled to the first magnetic elements (11a) whereby rotation of the exterior rotor causes corresponding rotation of the floating dynamic tank (2; Paragraph [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of Bottcher to further include the membrane is a floating dynamic tank disposed within a static tank, and the stirrer pair comprises: first magnetic elements disposed on the floating dynamic tank; and an exterior rotor disposed about the static tank and comprising second magnetic elements which are magnetically coupled to the first magnetic elements whereby rotation of the exterior rotor causes corresponding rotation of the floating dynamic tank, as taught by ludwig, to provide a system that to prevents contaminants from entering inside during the entire batch process, including during the filling, the mixing and the draining of the tanks.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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 supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723