DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first axis being disposed between 0 and 30 degrees from the horizontal recited in claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Although claims 21, 29, and 30 are not currently in the same dependency chain, given that some amendments to claim dependency may be made (see rejections under 112(b) below), the Examiner notes that these claims appear to conflict with one another. Claim 21 recites a first axis along which a structure slides vertically up and down. Claim 29 recites a second axis along which a structure slides vertically up and down. Claim 30 indicates that the first and second axis are orthogonal to each other, which would appear to conflict with the claims stating that both axes are vertical. The Examiner encourages the Applicant to carefully review the claims if dependencies are amended to ensure that claims do not conflict with one another.
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 18-32 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 18 recites “an elongated drive shaft (362) removably coupled with the drive motor assembly by an adjustable arm assembly (302)” in lines 13-14. This would appear to imply that the adjustable arm assembly is positioned between the drive shaft and the drive motor assembly and connects these two structures. This does not appear to be the case in the drawings, which show the drive motor assembly connected to the docking station by the adjustable arm assembly (figure 7, 10, and 11) and the drive motor assembly directly connected to the elongated drive shaft with no intervening structure (figure 9). The Examiner suggests that claim 1 be amended to recite “a drive motor assembly mounted to the stand by an adjustable arm assembly” in line 9 and that the limitation “by an adjustable arm assembly” be deleted from lines 13-14. This would clarify the connections between the three structures.
Claims 22, 23, 24, 26, and 30 recite “the first axis.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. The first axis is introduced in claim 21, but claim 22 depends from claim 20. Amending claim 22 to depend from claim 21 would overcome these rejections.
Claim 27 recites “the pin” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The pin is introduced in claim 25, but claim 27 depends from claim 23.
Claims 32 recites “the second axis.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second axis is introduced in claim 29, but claim 32 depends from claim 28 via claim 31. Amending claim 31 to depend from claim 29 would overcome these rejections.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected because it depends from one or more indefinite claims.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 indicates that the first axis is disposed at an angle between 0 and 30 degrees relative to the horizontal. This fails to include the limitations of claim 22, from which claim 23 depends, which states that the axis is orthogonal (i.e. 90 degrees) from the horizontal. 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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US PGPub 2011/0013474, hereinafter Ludwig) in view of Styles (US 5356214, hereinafter Styles) and Freude et al. (US PGPub 2005/0213428, hereinafter Freude).
Regarding claim 18, Ludwig discloses a fluid mixing system comprising:
a cart (figure 13) comprising:
a frame (stand 92);
a container station (tank 88) supported on the cart, the container station comprising:
a collapsible bag bounding a compartment (tank 88), the collapsible bag (figure 7, container 4) being at least partially received within the container station; and
an elongated drive shaft (shaft 6) removably coupled with the drive motor assembly (via coupling 15) and removably coupled with a mixing element (impellers 10) located within the compartment of the collapsible bag, the drive motor assembly being configured to rotate the drive shaft (paragraph 0004).
Ludwig is silent to a plurality of wheels mounted to the frame. Freude teaches a fluid mixing system including a cart with a frame (figure 1, undercarriage 20) and a plurality of wheels (see figure 1A) mounted to a frame. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Ludwig with the wheels of Freude for the purpose of allowing the tank to be mobile.
Ludwig discloses the use of an agitator apparatus with the tank, which would be considered a docking station, having a drive motor assembly (paragraph 0004), but does not explicitly disclose the docking station as recited. Styles teaches a docking station comprising a stand (figure 1, frame members 68 and 70), a drive motor (motor 23), and an adjustable arm assembly (linkages 42, 44, 46, and 48). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Ludwig with the docking station of Styles for the purpose of driving the impellers to mix material within the tank. It is noted that Ludwig already contemplates the use of some sort of agitation station having a motor, and so one of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that the similar station of Styles could be used with very little modification.
Ludwig and Styles do not explicitly disclose a locking assembly as recited. Freude teaches a fluid mixing system including a cart and a docking station (figure 1) including a locking assembly (portion 28) secured to the stand, the locking assembly coupled to the cart so that the cart is releasably secured to the docking station (paragraph 0018). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the combination of Ludwig and Styles with a locking assembly for the purpose of maintaining the tank in the proper position during mixing.
Regarding claim 19, Ludwig is silent to an arm assembly. Styles is relied upon, as above, to teach the arm assembly, and further to teach the arm assembly being configured to adjust a position of the drive motor assembly and thereby adjust a position of the drive shaft (see figures 2 and 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Ludwig with the docking station of Styles for the purpose of driving the impellers to mix material within the tank, and it would have further been obvious to have provided adjustable arm assemblies to accommodate tanks of various sizes.
Regarding claim 20, Ludwig is silent to an arm assembly. Styles is relied upon, as above, to teach the arm assembly, and further to teach the arm assembly comprising a first housing (figure 1, frame members 68 and 70) having a first support (linkages 42, 44, 46, and 48), the first housing being rigidly secured to the stand (see figures 2 and 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Ludwig with the docking station of Styles for the purpose of driving the impellers to mix material within the tank, and it would have further been obvious to have provided adjustable arm assemblies to accommodate tanks of various sizes.
Claims 21-24 and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US PGPub 2011/0013474, hereinafter Ludwig) in view of Styles (US 5356214, hereinafter Styles) and Freude et al. (US PGPub 2005/0213428, hereinafter Freude), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Grassi (US PGPub 2003/0076737, hereinafter Grassi).
Regarding claim 21, Ludwig in view of Styles is silent to the first support sliding vertically up and down as recited. Grassi teaches a mixing system (figure 1) including a lifting assembly that has a first housing (frame members 20a-20d) and a first support (members 22a-22d), wherein the first housing is rigidly secured to a stand (members 12) and the first housing and the first support are orientated such that the first support can slide vertically up and down along a first axis (paragraph 0029). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the vertical sliding support of Grassi for the pivoting supports of Styles because such a simple substitution would have provided only the predictable result of allowing the height of the apparatus to be adjustable, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 22, Ludwig in view of Styles is silent to the first axis as recited. Grassi is relied upon, as above, to teach a first axis, and further to teach the first axis can extend orthogonally to a horizontal surface on which the docking station is disposed (see figure 1, first axis, i.e. that of the members 20a-d and 22a-d, is vertical). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the vertical sliding support of Grassi for the pivoting supports of Styles because such a simple substitution would have provided only the predictable result of allowing the height of the apparatus to be adjustable, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 23, Ludwig in view of Styles is silent to the first axis as recited. Grassi is relied upon, as above, to teach a first axis. It is noted that the position of the axis with respect to the horizontal is based on the positioning of the device and has no effect on its structure. The combination of Ludwig, Styles, and Grossi could easily be placed such that the axis of Grossi was between 0 and 30 degrees relative to the horizontal, meeting the claim. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the vertical sliding support of Grassi for the pivoting supports of Styles because such a simple substitution would have provided only the predictable result of allowing the height of the apparatus to be adjustable, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Further, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited angle, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the axis angle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of the prior art with the angle recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 24, Ludwig in view of Styles is silent to the first support as recited. Grossi is relied upon, as above, to teach the first support, and further to teach the first support is configured to selectively lock the first housing at different locations along the first axis (via pins 28a-d; paragraph 0029). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the vertical sliding support of Grassi for the pivoting supports of Styles because such a simple substitution would have provided only the predictable result of allowing the height of the apparatus to be adjustable, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 27, Ludwig in view of Styles is silent to the first support as recited. Grossi is relied upon, as above, to teach the first support, and further to teach the first support is configured to be locked in place when the pin is received in a corresponding hole in the first support (via pins 28a-d; paragraph 0029). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the vertical sliding support of Grassi for the pivoting supports of Styles because such a simple substitution would have provided only the predictable result of allowing the height of the apparatus to be adjustable, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US PGPub 2011/0013474, hereinafter Ludwig) in view of Styles (US 5356214, hereinafter Styles), Freude et al. (US PGPub 2005/0213428, hereinafter Freude), and Grassi (US PGPub 2003/0076737, hereinafter Grassi), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Jaeger (GB 724317, hereinafter Jaeger).
Regarding claim 25, Ludwig in view of Styles is silent to the first support sliding vertically up and down as recited. Grassi is relied upon, as above, to teach a sliding first support, and further to teach a plurality of holes (holes 24 and 26) at spaced apart locations and a pin (pins 28a-d) mounted to the first housing. Grassi is silent to a spring-loaded locking pin. Jaeger teaches a spring-loaded locking pin (page 2, lines 5-22). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the vertical sliding support of Grassi for the pivoting supports of Styles because such a simple substitution would have provided only the predictable result of allowing the height of the apparatus to be adjustable, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra. It would have further been obvious to have used a spring-loaded locking pin, as in Jaeger, for the purpose of maintaining a connection between the pin and the device to avoid losing the pins.
Regarding claim 26, Ludwig in view of Styles is silent to the first support as recited. Grossi is relied upon, as above, to teach the first support, and further to teach the first support is configured to be slidable along the first axis when the pin is pulled out of a corresponding hole in the first support (via pins 28a-d; paragraph 0029). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the vertical sliding support of Grassi for the pivoting supports of Styles because such a simple substitution would have provided only the predictable result of allowing the height of the apparatus to be adjustable, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-32 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 28 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites additional housing and supports configured to slide along axes not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art generally discloses mixing devices having container and mixing motor stands.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774