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 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (B) for being indefinite since it is not clear if the claim requires both the external and internal sensor, of which, only one is required in claim 19, from which claim 20 depends. 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, 4, 6, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Siddiqi (US Publication 2001/0007312).
Regarding claim 1, Siddiqi teaches an external electromagnetic mixing system (figure 12), comprising: a plurality of electromagnets (magnets items 126, paragraph 37 teaches electromagnets) spaced externally around a production tank (one of item 125 is considered reading on a production tank, items 126 is externally spaced apart from item 124), wherein the production tank contains a liquid (paragraph 7 teaches a liquid medium) and a ferromagnetic and/or ferrimagnetic solid (paragraph 52 teaches a ferro-magnetic substance which is considered reading on a ferro-magnetic solid), and wherein the plurality of electromagnets are configured to move the ferromagnetic and/or ferrimagnetic solid within the liquid (paragraph 83 teaches moving the magnets up and down to mix the magnetic particles within the cavity of item 124).
Regarding claim 2, Siddiqui teaches wherein the plurality of electromagnets are communicatively coupled to a controller (paragraph 109 teaches using a computer and a programmable controller-driver to control the magnetic assembly vertical movement).
Regarding claim 4, Siddiqui teaches further comprising an internal sensor and/or an external sensor (paragraph 79 teaches position sensors which are considered reading on external sensors).
Regarding claim 6, Siddiqui teaches wherein the plurality of electromagnets are each coupled to an arm of a stand (item 125 is considered reading on an arm which is on item 122 which is considered reading on a stand).
Regarding claim 7, Siddiqui teaches wherein the plurality of electromagnets are not physically coupled to the production tank (items 126 are not coupled to item 124).
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui (US Publication 2001/0007312).
Regarding claim 3, Siddiqui is silent to the electromagnetic housing configuration. Regarding claim 3, 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 shape of the assembly housing the magnets in order to prevent damage to the magnets 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 5, Siddiqui teaches metallic iron (paragraph 52 iron-based oxides). Regarding claim 5, Siddiqui is silent to the liquid material. Regarding claim 5, 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 try choosing the desired material being mixed based on the specific desired final product.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobecki (U.S. Publication 2024/0286095 relying on the filling date) in view of Lee (KR20150138757 cited in the IDS mailed 8/13/2024, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 8, Sobecki teaches a method of mixing a ferromagnetic and/or ferromagnetic solid (paragraph 49 teaches ferromagnetic particles item 106 which are considered reading on a ferromagnetic solid), comprising: adding a liquid (item 104 fluid, paragraph 28 teaches water which is considered reading on a liquid) and the ferromagnetic and/or ferrimagnetic solid to a production tank (paragraph 50 teaches a fluid tank, with top wall item 126, bottom wall 130, and side wall 128, which is considered reading on a production tank); positioning electromagnets of an external electromagnetic mixing apparatus externally around the production tank (items 120 are electromagnetics positioned around the tank); energizing a first electromagnet for a threshold time (paragraph 53 teaches using one or more of the magnetic coils to aggregate or cluster the plurality of particles); in response to the threshold time elapsing, de-energizing the first electromagnet and energizing a different electromagnet (paragraph 54 teaches after aggregating the cluster of particles, levitating or raising the particles, which would inherently require a different magnet of the plurality of magnets being energized, paragraph 56 teaches sequential operation of the magnetic fields); and using the material for a battery (paragraph 3). Regarding claim 8, Sobecki is silent to transferring a solution from the production tank to a redox flow battery system. Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches a stirring device including a magnetic stirrer (page 7 second paragraph of the machine translation) transferring a solution from the production tank to a redox flow battery system (page 7 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches agitating the electrolytic solution using the agitator, and page 7 paragraph 7 teaches a redox flow battery which is considered reading on a redox flow battery system). Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic mixer method of Sobecki delivery with the redox flow battery of Lee to obtain the desired final product of the mixing operation.
Regarding claim 9, Sobecki teaches wherein a duration of the threshold time determines a mixing speed (paragraph 56 teaches a duration of the different electromagnetic fields which would inherently determine a mixing speed).
Regarding claim 11, Sobecki is silent to the specific amount of mixing demanded. Regarding claim 11, 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 amount of mixing to obtain the desired product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Sobecki teaches the different electromagnet is a neighboring electromagnet to the first electromagnet (figure 5 shows an item 120 wrapped around the vessel, and a separate adjacent coil item 120 not wrapped around the vessel).
Regarding claim 14, Sobecki is silent to the specific solution. 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 try choosing the desired material being mixed based on the specific desired final product.
Regarding claim 15, Sobecki teaches a system (figure 5), comprising: a plurality of electromagnets (items 120) spaced externally around a production tank (items 120 are spaced around the tank with top wall item 126, bottom wall 130, and side wall 128); a power source electrically coupled to the plurality of electromagnets (electromagnets items 120 would inherently require a power source in order to function); a controller coupled to the power source (item 118 which would inherently require a power source in order to function), including executable instructions stored on non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the controller to: energize a first electromagnet for a threshold time (paragraph 53 teaches using one or more of the magnetic coils to aggregate or cluster the plurality of particles which would inherently operate over a period of time considered reading on a threshold time), and in response to the threshold time elapsing, de-energize the first electromagnet and energize a neighboring electromagnet (paragraph 54 teaches after aggregating the cluster of particles, levitating or raising the particles, which would inherently require a different magnet of the plurality of magnets being energized, paragraph 56 teaches sequential operation of the magnetic fields). Regarding claim 15, Sobecki is silent to a redox flow battery system configured to receive a contents of the production tank. Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a magnetic mixer (page 7 second paragraph of the machine translation) redox flow battery system configured to receive a contents of the production tank (page 7 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches agitating the electrolytic solution using the agitator, and page 7 paragraph 7 teaches a redox flow battery which is considered reading on a redox flow battery system). Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic mixer of Sobecki delivery with the redox flow battery of Lee to obtain the desired final product of the mixing operation.
Regarding claim 16, Sobecki teaches using iron (paragraph 30). Regarding claim 16, Sobecki is silent to the specific materials. 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 try choosing the desired material being mixed based on the specific desired final product.
Regarding claim 17, Sobecki teaches various magnetic fields which would inherently have different strength to perform the various movements of particles (see paragraph 53). Regarding claim 17, Sobecki is silent to the specific magnetic field strength. Regarding claim 17 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 strength of the electromagnets in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Sobecki teaches wherein the system is configured to mix the contents of the production tank while the production tank and the plurality of electromagnets remain stationary (figure 5 vessel with top wall 126, bottom wall 130, and side wall 128 along with magnets items 120 are stationary).
Claim 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobecki (U.S. Publication 2024/0286095 relying on the filling date) in view of Lee (KR20150138757 cited in the IDS mailed 8/13/2024, a machine translation is provided) in further view of Lautenschlager (US20190134583A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lautenschlager teaches wherein a duration of the threshold time is adjusted in response to a signal from an external sensor and/or an internal sensor (paragraph 30 teaches an internal thermal sensor, paragraph 31 teaches the sample temperatures should not be overshot or undershot which is considered adjusting the threshold time based on the temperature sensor). Regarding claim 10, 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 mixer of Sobecki in view of Lee with the temperature sensor configuration of Lautenschlager in order to obtain the desired agitated product.
Regarding claim 12, Sobecki is silent to the specific amount of mixing demanded and a sensor. Regarding claim 11, Lautenschlager teaches a temperature sensor (paragraph 30 teaches an internal thermal sensor). Regarding claim 12, 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 mixer of Sobecki in view of Lee with the temperature sensor configuration of Lautenschlager in order to obtain the desired agitated product. 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 amount of mixing to obtain the desired product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, Sobecki is silent to an external or internal sensor. Regarding claim 19, Lautenschlager teaches a temperature sensor (paragraph 30 teaches an internal thermal sensor). Regarding claim 12, 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 mixer of Sobecki in view of Lee with the temperature sensor configuration of Lautenschlager in order to obtain the desired agitated product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if the 112 (b) rejection is overcome and both the external and internal sensors are required. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the system with the plurality of electromagnetics around a production tank, the redox flow battery system, power source, controller configuration, an external sensor being one of an eddy current sensor or back electromagnetic force sensor, and an internal sensor being one of a temperature sensor or a conductivity sensor.
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