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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “boreextending” should read --bore extending--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-15 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 13 recites the limitation, “a single-use device” in line 1. It is unclear whether “a single-use device” of claim 13 is the same or different as “a single-use device” as recited in claim 1, line 2 which is incorporated into claim 13. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 14 and 14 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “a mixing device” in line 1. It is unclear whether “a mixing device” of claim 13 is the same or different as “a mixing device” as recited in claim 1, line 1 which is incorporated into claim 13. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 14 and 14 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites all the limitations of claim 1 without further limiting the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 14 and 15 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(d) by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (U.S. Patent No. 11,084,007) in view of Galarza et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0367122).
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a mixing device for mixing at least two substances (title; abstract; mixing device 1), comprising:
a single-use device configured for single use (stirring element 100; column 4, lines 44-49); and
a reusable device configured for multiple use (drive device 200; column 4, lines 44-49),
the single-use device comprising an impeller (stirring element 100) having a rotor housing (base body 102) and a plurality of vanes to mix the substances (blade elements 104), and a cup to receive the rotor housing (wall recess 122), the impeller configured to rotate about a desired axis of rotation defining an axial direction (stirring element rotation axis RR), the impeller having an outer diameter which is a maximum extension of the impeller in a radial direction perpendicular to the axial direction (figures 2a, 3a and 4-6, distance from left end of 104 to right end of 104), a magnetically effective core disposed in the rotor housing (magnetized element 118), the cup configured in a dimensionally stable manner (wall recess 122; column 2, lines 35-45; columns 6-7, lines 63-6),
the reusable device comprising a stator (drive device 200), by which, in the operating state, the impeller is capable of being contactlessly magnetically driven to rotate about the desired axis of rotation and magnetically levitated with respect to the stator (columns 2-3, lines 50-5), the stator comprising a plurality of windings to generate an electromagnetic rotating field to drive and levitate the impeller (coils 208; columns 2-3, lines 50-5; columns 7-8, lines 41-65), and the stator having a stator housing (stator housing 202) with a recess configured to receive the cup with the rotor housing arranged therein, so that the cup is capable of being inserted into the recess (stator recess 204; column 7, lines 13-22).
However, Adams does not explicitly disclose a plurality of stabilizing elements disposed at the impeller to stabilize the impeller against tilting, each stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements arranged between two vanes of the plurality of vanes and extending from a radial inner edge to a radial outer edge with respect to the radial direction, and each of the radial outer edges having a distance from the desired axis of rotation which is smaller than half the outer diameter of the impeller.
Galarza et al. teaches another rotating magnetic impeller (abstract; figures 1-5; [0024]) comprising a plurality of stabilizing elements disposed at the impeller to stabilize the impeller against tilting, each stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements arranged between two vanes of the plurality of vanes and extending from a radial inner edge to a radial outer edge with respect to the radial direction, and each of the radial outer edges having a distance from the desired axis of rotation which is smaller than half the outer diameter of the impeller (impeller blades 34 with fins 40; [0030]; [0032]; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the fins/stabilizing elements of Galarza et al. on the impeller of Adams. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach rotating magnetic impellers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a fin/stabilizing element because the reduction in wobble helps protect a bag containing the impeller during processing and the addition of fins are particularly effective and produce the best improvement in impeller tilt and/or wobble leading to better torque, decreased mixing times and decreased costs (Galarza et al. [0025]-[0026]; [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses wherein each vane of the plurality of vanes is arranged with a radial distance from the desired axis of rotation with respect to the radial direction, the radial distance being different from zero (Adams figures 3a and 4-6, vanes 104 starts at a distance from axis RR), and the radial inner edge of each stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements has a distance from the desired axis of rotation which is greater than the radial distance (Galarza et al. fins 140, [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses wherein each vane of the plurality of vanes has a front side, a back side, an upper edge and a lower edge, the front side preceding the back side when the impeller rotates, for each vane of the plurality of vanes the lower edge and the upper edge delimit the vane with respect to the axial direction, the upper edge arranged at an end of the vane facing away from the rotor housing (Adams vanes 104; Galarza et al. impeller blades 134, [0030]), and for each vane of the plurality of vanes, a stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements is arranged on the front side or on the back side of the vane (Galarza et al. fins 140, [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses wherein each stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements enclose an angle different from 0° and from 180° with the front side or with the back side of a respective vane (Galarza et al. fins 140, angle alpha, [0032]; [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses wherein, for a respective vane, the stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements is arranged closer to the lower edge than to the upper edge (Galarza et al. [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses wherein each vane of the plurality of vanes is designed in a curved manner so that the front side or the back side is concaved (Adams column 5, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 9, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses wherein the rotor housing is cylindrical with an outer housing diameter, and with an upper end face and with a lower end face, which delimit the rotor housing with respect to the axial direction (Adams base body 102; column 5, lines 1-2), and on which the plurality of vanes are provided (Adams blade element 104; column 5, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Galarza et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of stabilizing elements are arranged on the rotor housing ([0026]), but does not specify on the upper end face of the rotor housing. It would have been an obvious design choice to rearrange the location of the fins/stabilizing elements to be on the upper end face of the rotor housing to aid in stability of the entire rotor housing, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. While Galarza et al. does not specify a distance of each radial outer edge from the desired axis of rotation is greater than half the housing diameter of the rotor housing, Galarza et al. teaches the fins/stabilizing elements may have various distances ([0026]; [0033]; [0038]), it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the length of the fins/stabilizing element to be greater than half the housing diameter of the rotor housing in order to increase the stability of the impellers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Galarza et al. further teaches wherein the upper end face or the lower end face of the rotor housing includes a chamfer which extends along an entire circumference of the end face (lower part 159) in order to retain and center the magnet and stabilize the hub to reduce wobble and decrease mixing times (Galarza et al. [0025]; [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses comprising at least one relief bore extending completely through the impeller in the axial direction (Adams base body passage hole 106).
Regarding claim 13, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses a single-use device (stirring element 100; column 4, lines 44-49) for a mixing device according to claim 1 (mixing device 1), wherein the single-use device comprises the impeller (stirring element 100) and the cup to receive the rotor housing (wall recess 122; column 2, lines 35-45; columns 6-7, lines 63-6).
Regarding claim 15, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses further comprising a flexible mixing container for the substances to be mixed (Adams container 3; column 4, lines 44-47), the mixing container is sealingly connected to the cup to form an entirety (Adams container wall 7 integral with wall recess 122; column 2, lines 41-45), and the impeller is arranged in the entirety (Adams impeller 100 as shown in figures to be entirely in wall recess 122).
Regarding claim 16, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adams as modified by Galarza et al. further discloses wherein each stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements enclose an angle in the range from 40° to 140° with the front side or with the back side of a respective vane (Galarza et al. fins 140, angle alpha, [0032]; [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Galarza et al. further teaches wherein the rotor housing is cylindrical with an outer housing diameter (hub 130), and with an upper end face (edge 149) and with a lower end face (bottom 159), which delimit the rotor housing with respect to the axial direction (lower part 159), a disk-shaped hub disk is arranged on the upper end face of the rotor housing (upper part 157), on which the plurality of vanes are provided (impeller blades 136 on upper part 157). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor housing and location of vanes of Adams to have the vanes on the disk-shaped hub of the rotor as taught by Galarza et al. in order to stabilize the rotor to reduce wobble and decrease mixing times (Galarza et al. [0025]; [0036]), and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 18, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Galarza et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of stabilizing elements are arranged on the hub disk (fins/stabilizing elements 140 are located on the impeller blades 136 which are on the hub disk , as explained in the rejection of claim 17 above), and a distance of each radial outer edge from the desired axis of rotation is greater than half the housing diameter of the rotor housing (fins 140; [0026]; [0032]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Galarza et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tien et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0046323).
Regarding claim 5, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of stabilizing elements are arranged symmetrically, such that for each vane of the plurality of vanes, on the front side of which the stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements is disposed, another stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements is disposed on the back side.
Tien et al. teaches another magnetic stirring device (title) wherein the plurality of stabilizing elements are arranged symmetrically, such that for each vane of the plurality of vanes, on the front side of which the stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements is disposed, another stabilizing element of the plurality of stabilizing elements is disposed on the back side (figure 7, stirring blades 118 with vanes being vertical plate and horizontal front and back plates being stabilizing elements on front side and back side of vanes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the number and location of the stabilizing elements on the vanes of Adams/Galarza et al. to be on the front and back sides as taught by Tien et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that all references teach magnetic stirring devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it provides complete symmetry to the vanes and impeller as a whole which permits placement of the stirring element in a container without regard to the position of the stirring element in the container and improves stability resulting in a high mixing speed in a stable condition without spin-out problems (Tien et al. [0084]-[0086]; [0164]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Galarza et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dushine et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,220,361).
Regarding claim 8, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not disclose wherein the plurality of stabilizing elements comprise ring segments which each ring segment extending from the front side of a respective vane of the plurality of vanes to the back side of an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes.
Dushine et al. teaches another magnetic stirrer (title) wherein the plurality of stabilizing elements comprise ring segments which each ring segment extending from the front side of a respective vane of the plurality of vanes to the back side of an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes (figures 5-6, outer ring 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the shape of the stabilizing elements of Adams/Galarza et al. to be ring segments as taught by Dushine et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that all references teach magnetic stirring devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it serves to both stabilize and rigidify the impeller, particularly the blades and to protect against breakage, warming and torsional deflection (Dushine et al. column 8, lines 56-59; column 15, lines 9-21).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Galarza et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Boettcher et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0216788).
Regarding claim 14, Adams in view of Galarza et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Adam as modified by Galarza et al further discloses a fixing device configured to retain the magnetically effective core in the cup, and the fixing device is configured to be removed by pulling (latching element 136 and latching hooks 138; column 6, lines 45-53; column 10, lines 19-43). While Adams discloses there are many different suitable fasteners (column 6, lines 45-53), Adams does not specify the fastening is configured to magnetically retain. As there are many different types of fixing devices, including gluing, welding, latching, bayonet, screw (as evidenced by Adams columns 6, lines 45-53), and including by magnetically fixing (as evidenced by Boettcher et al. [0106]-[0110]), since the instant specification is silent to unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to magnetically retain the core in the cup, as taught by Boettcher et al., as a modified fixing device of Adams, because selecting one of known designs for a fixing device would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said fixing device magnetically retaining the core to the cup would operate equally well as the fixing device disclosed by Adams.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 X 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
