DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle (U.S. Patent 4,606,648) in view of Lowell (U.S. Patent 9,302,233).
Regarding claim 1, Coyle teaches a stirring device (figure 4), comprising: a tank (item 110); a first stirring mechanism (shafts denoted by items 122, 123, and 124 and the impeller at the bottom end of the shaft), a first stirring shaft of the first stirring mechanism being located in a middle part of the tank (item 24 drive shaft which is located in the middle of item 10), and one end of the first stirring shaft being provided with a radial-flow stirring paddle located in the tank ( impeller proximate D101, individual impellers are considered reading on paddles); a second stirring mechanism (items 144 and 146), a second stirring shaft of the second stirring mechanism being located on one side of the first stirring shaft (items 144 and 146 are on one side of item 124), the second stirring shaft and the first stirring shaft being arranged in a radial direction of the tank (item 144 is radially outward from item 123 in item 110), and one end of the second stirring shaft being provided with an axial-flow stirring paddle located in the tank (item 32, individual impellers are considered reading on paddles ); and a flow blocking mechanism, located in the tank and arranged on a side wall of the tank, and configured to block movement of materials in the tank (baffles items 136 are considered reading on flow blocking mechanism, located on the side of item 110, and are considered capable of blocking movement of material in item 110) the flow blocking mechanism comprising a flow blocking plate (item 136 teaches a baffle plate), and the flow blocking plate comprising: a first flow blocking portion arranged on the side wall of tank in axial direction of the tank (item 136 is considered a first portion that is arranged on the side of item 110 and extends in an axial direction up and down along the tank). Regarding claim 1, Coyle is silent to and a second flow portion with a length direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the tank and a width direction parallel to the radial direction of the tank. Regarding claim 1, Lowell teaches a plate (item 52) with a second flow portion with a length direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the tank and a width direction parallel to the radial direction of the tank (item 64 extends along a length perpendicular to an axial direction of the tank, and in a direction parallel to the radial direction of the tank). Regarding claim 1 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 plate configuration of Coyle with the second portion configuration of Lowell in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Regarding claim 4, Coyle teaches wherein the flow blocking plate is fixedly connected to the side wall (items 136 are attached to the sidewall of item 110).
Regarding claim 5, Coyle teaches wherein the flow blocking plate is one of a plurality of flow blocking plates of the flow blocking mechanism (there are multiple items 136), and the plurality of flow blocking plates are arranged symmetrically with respect to the first stirring shaft (items 136 are arranged symmetrically with respect of a central axis that can be drawn through item 123).
Regarding claim 6, Coyle teaches wherein the axial-flow stirring paddle comprises: a propeller connected to one end of the second stirring shaft located in the tank (item 32 is at the bottom of the shaft), wherein an axial direction of the propeller is arranged parallel to an axial direction of the second stirring shaft (a vertical line can be drawn through item 32 from its top surface to bottom surface, and therefore considered having an axial direction parallel to the shaft 30), and the propeller is configured to drive the materials in the tank to move in the axial direction (the flow of material being worked upon is considered intended use, however see flow of arrows in figure 4, which shows both axial and radial movement).
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle (U.S. Patent 4,606,648) in view of Lowell (U.S. Patent 9,302,233) in further view of Sato (U.S. Publication 2004/0234677).
Regarding claim 7, Coyle is silent to a plurality of propellers on the second stirring mechanism arranged on the second stirring shaft at intervals in the axial direction of the second stirring shaft. Regarding claim 7, Sato teaches a plurality of propellers on the second stirring mechanism arranged on the second stirring shaft at intervals in the axial direction of the second stirring shaft (see second shaft proximate item 23 which shows two sets of dispersion blades distributed at intervales in the axial direction of the second shaft). Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the propeller configuration of Coyle in view of Lowell with the multiple propeller configuration of Sato in order to increase the degree of mixing.
Regarding claim 8, Coyle is silent to the anchor shape. Regarding claim 8, Sato teaches an anchor-type stirring paddle (figure 2(B) is considered reading on an anchor type stirring paddle), connected to one end of the first stirring shaft located in the tank (item 22 is connected to the bottom of item 221), and an axial direction of the anchor-type stirring paddle being arranged parallel to an axial direction of the first stirring shaft (a vertical line can be drawn from the top surface to the bottom surface of item 22 which is considered parallel to shaft 221), wherein the anchor-type stirring paddle is configured to drive the materials in the tank to move in the radial direction of the tank (the flow of material being worked upon is considered intended use, however rotation of item 222 would inherently push material radially outward). Regarding claim 8, 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 paddle of Coyle in view of Lowell with the anchor type stirring paddle of Sato in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Coyle is silent to the language of claim 10. Regarding claim 10, Sato teaches wherein the anchor type stirring paddle is arranged close to the bottom wall of the tank and is located between the propeller and the bottom wall in the axial direction of the tank (see location of item 221 relative to the bottom wall of the tank and position of item 221 relative to item 23). 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 paddle of Coyle in view of Lowell with the anchor type stirring paddle of Sato in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing
Coyle is silent to the language of claim 11. Regarding claim 11, Sato teaches a jacket arranged outside the tank and configured to accommodate a temperature regulator (paragraph 120 jacket item 213). Regarding claim 11, 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 agitator of Coyle in view of Lowell with the thermal jacket of Sato in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle (U.S. Patent 4,606,648) in view of Lowell (U.S. Patent 9,302,233) view further view of Sato (U.S. Publication 2004/0234677) in further view of Prillwitz (U.S. Patent 5,758,966).
Coyle is silent to the language of claim 9. Regarding claim 9, Sato teaches the anchor type stirring paddle (figure 2(B) is considered reading on an anchor type stirring paddle). Regarding claim 9, Prillwitz teaches a supporting member arranged on a bottom wall of the tank and configured to support one end of the first stirring shaft connected to the stirring paddle (anchor housing item 102). 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 shaft configuration of Coyle in view Lowell in further view of Sato with the anchor bearing of Prillwitz in order to better stabilize the shaft in the mixing container.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle (U.S. Patent 4,606,648) in view of Yang (U.S. Publication 2019/0374913).
Regarding claim 12, Coyle teaches a stirring device (figure 4), comprising: a tank (item 110); a first stirring mechanism (shafts denoted by items 122, 123, and 124 and the impeller at the bottom end of the shaft), a first stirring shaft of the first stirring mechanism being located in a middle part of the tank (item 24 drive shaft which is located in the middle of item 10), and one end of the first stirring shaft being provided with a radial-flow stirring paddle located in the tank ( impeller proximate D101, individual impellers are considered reading on paddles); a second stirring mechanism (items 144 and 146), a second stirring shaft of the second stirring mechanism being located on one side of the first stirring shaft (items 144 and 146 are on one side of item 124), the second stirring shaft and the first stirring shaft being arranged in a radial direction of the tank (item 144 is radially outward from item 123 in item 110), and one end of the second stirring shaft being provided with an axial-flow stirring paddle located in the tank (item 32, individual impellers are considered reading on paddles ); and a flow blocking mechanism, located in the tank and arranged on a side wall of the tank, and configured to block movement of materials in the tank (baffles items 136 are considered reading on flow blocking mechanism, located on the side of item 110, and are considered capable of blocking movement of material in item 110) wherein the flow blocking mechanism comprises a flow blocking plate arranged on the side wall in an axial direction of the tank (item 136 teaches a baffle plate, which extends in an axial direction and is located on the side of item 110). Regarding claim 12, Coyle is silent to the flow blocking plate being provided with a through hole. Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches a flow blocking plate being provided with a through hole (see figure 6, paragraph 30 baffle 41 with punch hole 4’). Regarding claim 12, 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 plate of Coyle with the through hole configuration of Yang in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Response to Arguments
The cancelation of claims 2 and 3 is acknowledged.
The remarks regarding the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) are considered persuasive in light of the amendment to claim 1. A new ground of rejection is provided, necessitated by the amendment, since the claim has been amended to include the two portions of the flow blocking plate.
The remarks regarding the remaining claims are based off the claim 1 remarks, and the remaining claims are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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