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 .
Election/Restrictions
After further consideration, the restriction requirement is withdrawn since claims 11-13 depend on claim 1.
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, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hermans (EP3351796 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hermans teaches a mixing device comprising a chamber (paragraph 24 teaches a device, paragraph 73 teaches the type of device is a mixing device, paragraph 75 teaches a tube which is considered reading on a chamber) defining a circulation zone (paragraph 24 teaches a circulation zone), the circulation zone comprising at least a base liquid (paragraph 24 teaches a paramagnetic liquid) and a mixing fluid (paragraph 24 teaches a less paramagnetic liquid), the mixing fluid being less paramagnetic than the base liquid (paragraph 24 teaches one liquid being less paramagnetic than the other liquid), the mixing fluid comprising and/or consisting of at least one first fluid (paragraph 24 teaches a first fluid which is considered comprising at least one first fluid), the mixing device comprising at least one magnetic element generating a magnetic field in the circulation zone such that the mixing fluid flows within the base liquid (paragraph 24 teaches one element generating a magnetic field), the chamber comprising at least a first injection point of the first fluid in the circulation zone (paragraph 86 teaches introducing liquid into the circulating zone which would inherently require an injection point in order to feed material into the circulating zone), the first injection point opening into the base liquid or into the mixing fluid (paragraph 24 teaches introducing said less paramagnetic liquid into the circulating zone), the first fluid being immiscible with the base liquid (paragraph 50 teaches immiscible fluids can be used).
Regarding claim 6, Hermans teaches wherein the at least one magnetic element comprises a magnetic multipole (see paragraph 41 magnets with multipolar configuration) at least partially surrounding the chamber (see paragraph 44 which teaches rings, cylinders, coils, which are considered surrounding the chamber), the magnetic multipole being suitable for generating a magnetic field such that the magnetic field has a minimum value in the circulation zone at the center of said circulation zone (paragraph 124 zero magnetic field point at the center of the quadrupole).
Regarding claim 8, Hermans teaches wherein the base liquid is a ferrofluid (paragraph 83 teaches a ferrofluid).
Regarding claim 11, Hermans teaches a mixing method (paragraph 18 teaches a method for mixing fluids) providing the mixing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), injecting the at least first fluid into the circulation zone via at least one first injection point (paragraph 86 teaches introducing liquid into the circulating zone which would inherently require an injection point in order to feed material into the circulating zone), the first fluid being immiscible with the base liquid (paragraph 50 teaches immiscible fluids can be used).
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (EP3351796 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hermans teaches at least one first injection point (paragraph 86 teaches introducing liquid into the circulating zone which would inherently require an injection point in order to feed material into the circulating zone). Regarding claim 5, Hermans is silent to the contour shape. Regarding claim 5, Absent any unexpected results, 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 shape of the circulation zone in order to obtain the desired flow 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 7, Hermans teaches at least one magnetic element (paragraph 32 teaches magnets) and teaches various arrangements of the magnetic element (paragraph 44 teaches the magnets in various geometries). Regarding claim 7, Hermans is silent to the specific arrangement of the magnet being at the closed end of the chamber. Regarding claim 7, 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 location of the magnet in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (EP3351796 A1) in view of Kumaran (U.S. Publication 2015/0367344).
Regarding claim 2, Hermans teaches wherein the mixing fluid comprises and/or consists of at least one second fluid (paragraph 86 teaches at least one less paramagnetic liquid which is considered including a second fluid), the second mixing fluid opening into the base liquid (paragraph 86 teaches introducing the less paramagnetic liquid into the more paramagnetic liquid). Regarding claim 2, Hermans is silent to the chamber comprising a second injection point of the second fluid in the circulation zone. Regarding claim 2, Kumaran teaches two injection points into a circulation zone (figure 3 items 101a and 101b are two injection points which feed material into item 106, which is considered reading on a circulation zone). Regarding claim 2, 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 Hermans with the multiple inlets of Kumaran in order to obtain the desired fluid product. Both references are concerned with mixing fluids using magnetic fields and therefore considered in the same field of endeavor.
Hermans is silent to the language of claim 3. Regarding claim 3, Kumaran teaches wherein the first injection point and the second injection point are arranged on both sides of the chamber along a transverse direction of the chamber (items 101 a and 101b are on one side of the item 106). Regarding claim 3, 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 Hermans with the multiple inlets of Kumaran in order to obtain the desired fluid product. Both references are concerned with mixing fluids using magnetic fields and therefore considered in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, Hermans teaches using two fluids (paragraph 86 teaches at least one less paramagnetic liquid which is considered including a second fluid). Regarding claim 4, Hermans is silent to the relative paramagnetic properties of each fluid. Regarding claim 4, 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 fluids with the same paramagnetic characteristics in order to obtain the desired mixed product.
Regarding claim 9, Hermans teaches wherein the mixing fluid comprises and/or consists of at least one second fluid (paragraph 86 teaches at least one less paramagnetic liquid which is considered including a second fluid), the second mixing fluid opening into the base liquid (paragraph 86 teaches introducing the less paramagnetic liquid into the more paramagnetic liquid). Regarding claim 9, Hermans is silent to the chamber comprising a second injection point of the second fluid in the circulation zone and the contour shape. Regarding claim 9, Kumaran teaches two injection points into a circulation zone (figure 3 items 101a and 101b are two injection points which feed material into item 106, which is considered reading on a circulation zone). Regarding claim 9, 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 Hermans with the multiple inlets of Kumaran in order to obtain the desired fluid product. Both references are concerned with mixing fluids using magnetic fields and therefore considered in the same field of endeavor. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, 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 shape of the circulation zone in order to obtain the desired flow 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).
Hermans is silent to the language of claim 10. Regarding claim 10, Kumaran teaches wherein the second injection point is arranged at an end of the chamber, said end being an end of the chamber along a flow direction (items 101 a and 101b are on one end of the item 106 along a flow direction through item 106). 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 Hermans with the multiple inlets of Kumaran in order to obtain the desired fluid product. Both references are concerned with mixing fluids using magnetic fields and therefore considered in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 13, Hermans teaches wherein the mixing fluid comprises and/or consists of at least one second fluid (paragraph 86 teaches at least one less paramagnetic liquid which is considered including a second fluid), the second mixing fluid opening into the base liquid (paragraph 86 teaches introducing the less paramagnetic liquid into the more paramagnetic liquid). Regarding claim 13, Hermans is silent to the chamber comprising a second injection point of the second fluid in the circulation zone and the reaction configuration. Regarding claim 13, Kumaran teaches two injection points into a circulation zone (figure 3 items 101a and 101b are two injection points which feed material into item 106, which is considered reading on a circulation zone) and a polymerization reaction (paragraph 91 free radical vinyl polymerization). Regarding claim 13, 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 Hermans with the multiple inlets and materials of Kumaran in order to obtain the desired fluid product. Both references are concerned with mixing fluids using magnetic fields and therefore considered in the same field of endeavor.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (EP3351796 A1) in view of Aogaki (U.S. Publication 2007/0104624).
Regarding claim 12, Hermans is silent to a chemical reaction. Regarding claim 12, Aogaki teaches a microreactor for mixing (see paragraph 1) and an organic chemical reaction (see paragraph 2, the biochemical reaction is considered reading on an organic reaction). Regarding claim 12, 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 materials of Hermans with the biochemical materials of Aogaki in order to obtain the desired mixed product. Both references are concerned with mixing fluids using magnetic fields and therefore considered in the same field of endeavor.
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