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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 4/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I and II share a common inventive concept and are technically closely interrelated because the apparatus features are adapted to carry out the claimed process and the introduction of air is specifically relevant. This is not found persuasive because with regard to apparatus claims versus method claims, in apparatus claims the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims and is not a major consideration when determining the patentability of said apparatus claims. In contrast, in method claims the materials on which a process is carried out must be accorded weight in determining the patentability of a process. Therefore, unlike the nonelected apparatus claims, patentable weight must be given to the claimed materials set forth in the elected method claims which significantly alters the search strategy and amplifies the searching required which leads to a burden on the PTO.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/17/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 10/20/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP22202720.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “processing a slurry”, and the claim also recites “in particular processing of construction materials” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the backflow line" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “flowback line” is previously recited in claim 1; if this is the same line, the nomenclature should be consistent.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the led back liquid or mixture" in 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation, “a backflow from the backflow line”. It is unclear whether “a backflow” is the same as “the led back liquid or mixture” as recited in claim 3 or the mixture from “the mixture is returned again…via a blowback line” as recited in claim 1. To the extent these are meant to be the same liquid or mixture, returning or being led back from the backflow line or flowback line, consistent nomenclature should be used. As such the claims are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the approximately drum-shaped mixing trough" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previously recited mixing trough has never been identified as being “approximately drum-shaped”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urmston (U.S. Patent No. 3,236,925).
Regarding claim 1, Urmston discloses a method for the colloidal processing of a slurry, in particular processing of construction materials, using a colloidal mixer (title; figure 1 and 1a), in which
at least one liquid is introduced into a mixing trough (figure 1, “water”; figure 1a, drums 1 and 2; column 3, lines 54-57; column 4, lines 47-53), at the lower region of which is arranged an outlet opening (figure 1a, bottom wall 3 with central aperture; column 4, lines 20-24) with a mixing device having a mixing rotor which is driven in rotation (impellers 7 and 8),
at least one pulverulent solid component is introduced into the mixing trough (figure 1, “cement”, “aggregate”; figure 1a, hopper 12 and 13; column 4, lines 51-53),
the at least one liquid is mixed with the at least one pulverulent solid component by means of the rotationally driven mixing rotor, is induced to flow, and is discharged from the mixing trough through the outlet opening (column 4, lines 53-74),
wherein the mixture is returned again for a certain time via a flowback line to an upper region of the mixing trough for further mixing (inlet 10), and
after reaching a desired mixing state, the mixture is discharged as a finished slurry from the outlet opening by means of a discharge line (valve 9 and delivery pipe 11),
wherein air is incorporated into the at least one liquid and/or the mixture in finely dispersed form in a targeted manner, wherein a relative density of the liquid, or of the mixture, is reduced (column 1, lines 14-16; column 1, lines 66-72; column 3, lines 65-67; column 4, lines 47-53).
Regarding claim 3, Urmston discloses wherein the backflow line comprises a port opening which is directed towards an inner side of the mixing trough, wherein the led back liquid or mixture impinges on the inner side (inlet 10; column 4, lines 53-68).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urmston.
Regarding claim 2, Urmston discloses all the limitations as set forth above, including wherein the relative density of the at least one liquid or mixture is reduced (column 1, lines 14-16); however does not disclose the specific volume of the liquid or mixture that is increased by supplying air. Urmston teaches the amount of additive and materials for manufacturing the aerate concrete determines the strength and stability of the concrete (column 1, lines 31-70). Therefore the concrete strength and stability is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the amount and thus volume of the liquid or mixture increased by supplying air. For that reason, the volume increase by air, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing. As such, without showing unexpected results, the volume increase percentage cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the volume increase percentage by air of the mixture in the method of Urmston to obtain the desired concrete stability and strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urmston in view of Maeta et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0039058).
Regarding claim 4-6, Urmston discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not disclose the blackflow to be perpendicular. Maeta et al. teaches another slurry recirculation mixer (abstract). Maeta et al. teaches wherein a backflow from the backflow line impinges approximately perpendicularly on the inner side of the mixing trough (figure 1, nozzle 30 outlet perpendicular to bottom surface wall 22); and a backflow from the backflow line is essentially divided into two partial flows when it impinges on the inner side of the mixing trough, which partial flows flow in opposite directions along the inner side of the approximately drum-shaped mixing trough ([0053]); and the two partial flows are generated with a flow velocity such that the partial flows meet, along with a formation of swirls, at a point of the mixing trough which is approximately opposite to the port opening ([0050]-[0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the angle of the backflow of Urmston to be perpendicular to divide two partial flows to form swirls, as taught by Maeta et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach slurry mixer with recirculation lines. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it allows the slurry to collide with the surface of the container to generate a turbulent flow so that the effect of stirring the slurry can be enhanced (Maeta et al. [0050]).
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
Prosecution Insights