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 15 is 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.
Regarding Claim 15 it is unclear where the connecting line starts and ends on the respective stirring members. The lines could start and stop from anywhere along the stirring members and would therefore create different angles depending on the line. Further clarifications is requested.
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 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badiei (US20200132573A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Badiei teaches the following:
A fluid (sample) vial with one or more internal stirring features (blending tube with a tube body being used for accommodating a sample)(para 42 and Fig. 3B, below)
PNG
media_image1.png
712
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The vial comprises a plurality of internal features (second stirring member) 321-326 that project into an internal space of the vial and a mixing feature 330 (first stirring member) in a terminal end of the vial (para 42 and Fig. 3B, below)(a first stirring member and a second stirring member, which are arranged on an inner wall of the tube body)
Badiei further teaches while the internal features are substantially symmetrical, it is not required and the shape of the internal features need not be trapezoidal and the internal features in any one vial need not have the same shape (para 43).
Badiei does not explicitly teach the width-to-thickness ratio of the first stirring member to be greater than a width-to-thickness ratio of the second stirring member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the first stirring member to have a width-to-thickness ratio to be greater than a width-to-thickness ratio of the second stirring member as it would have been a result of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Given Badiei teaches the internal features can be different shapes and sizes, one of ordinary skill would be able to choose different ratios from the finite number of options for the stirring members to provide an optimal mixing tube absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding Claim 2, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). While Badiei does not specifically teach the width-to-thickness ratio of the first stirring member is greater than 3, absent evidence showing the criticality of the ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the ratio of greater than 3 from the finite number of options to provide optimal mixing absent clear evidence otherwise. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 3, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). While Badiei does not specifically teach the first stirring member having a width between 3.5 mm and 5 mm and a thickness between 1 mm to 1.2 mm, absent evidence showing the criticality of the range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose those ranges from the finite number of options to provide optimal mixing absent clear evidence otherwise. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 4, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). While Badiei does not specifically teach the width-to-thickness ratio of the second stirring member is less than 1.5, absent evidence showing the criticality of the ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the ratio of less than 1.5 from the finite number of options to provide optimal mixing. See MPEP 2144.05(II) absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding Claim 5, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). While Badiei does not specifically teach the second stirring member having a width between 1.6 mm and 1.9 mm and a thickness between 1.2 mm to 1.4 mm, absent evidence showing the criticality of the ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose those ranges from the finite number of options to provide optimal mixing absent clear evidence otherwise. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 6, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). While Badiei does not specifically teach the height of first stirring member is 5 mm to 100 mm, absent evidence showing the criticality of the range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the range from the finite number of options to provide optimal mixing absent clear evidence otherwise. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 7, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). While Badiei does not specifically teach the height of second stirring member is 10 mm to 100 mm, absent evidence showing the criticality of the range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the range from the finite number of options to provide optimal mixing absent clear evidence otherwise. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
PNG
media_image2.png
687
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Badiei further teaches a gap formed between the first stirring member and the inner wall of the tube body in a width direction (see Fig. 3B, below).
Regarding Claim 9, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8 (see above). While Badiei does not specifically teach the gap to have a length no greater than 10 mm, absent evidence showing the criticality of the range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the range from the finite number of options to provide optimal mixing absent clear evidence otherwise. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
PNG
media_image3.png
712
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Badiei further teaches the inner wall of the tube body comprises an inner side wall and an inner bottom wall hermetically connected to one end of the inner side wall with the first stirring member (330) arranged on the inner bottom wall and the second stirring member arranged on the inner side wall (see Fig. 3B, below).
Regarding Claim 11, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 10 (see above). Badiei further teaches the inner bottom wall to be a flat face (see Fig. 3B, above).
Regarding Claim 13, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Badiei further teaches two of the second stirring members (see Fig. 3B, above). While Badiei does not teach two of the first stirring members (330), it would have been obvious to duplicate member 330 and provide a second first stirring member to the device of Badiei. It has been held prima facie obvious as a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, absent evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 14, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 (see above). Badiei further teaches the internal features are shown as being substantially symmetrical (para 43) (the two first stirring members and the two second stirring member are symmetrically arranged with respect to a central axis of the tube body).
Regarding Claim 15, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 14 (see above). While Badiei does not explicitly teach a 90 degree angle between the lines drawn between the first stirring members and the second stirring members, a rearrangements of parts, absent evidence of unexpected results, has been held prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 16, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Badiei further teaches the first stirring member and the second stirring member are circumferentially arranged along the inner wall of the tube body (see Fig. 3B, above).
Regarding Claim 17, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Badiei further teaches the first stirring member comprises a first end and a second end, the first end being connected to the inner wall of the tube body, and the second end extending towards the center of the tube body
PNG
media_image4.png
712
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see Fig. 3B, below).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badiei (US20200132573A1) in view of Ren (CN211988663U).
Regarding Claim 12, Badiei teaches all of the limitations of Claim 10 (see above). Badiei does not teach the inner bottom wall to be provided with a bulged portion protruding towards the inside of the tube body.
Ren teaches a spiral tube reaction tank with reaction tubes (para 7). Ren further teaches protrusions (bulges) on the inner wall of the reaction tube (para 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Badiei with a protrusion or bulge on the inner bottom wall according to the teaching by Ren. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would increase the uneven flow (mixing) of the material (para 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/J.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799