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.
Claims 3-5 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 3 recites the limitation, “a blade of the screw” in line 2. It is unclear whether “a blade of the screw” as recited in claim 3 is the same or different blade as recited in claim 1, line 14. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 4 and 5 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,174,218).
Regarding claim 1, Oakes discloses a machine (figure 1, apparatus 100) comprising:
a base frame (figure 1, outer housing 101 and entire outer body of apparatus 100) provided with a kneading tube (figure 1, mixing chamber 111) and a dispersing cavity (figure 1, process chamber 140); wherein, the kneading tube is provided with a kneading cavity (figure 1, internal area of mixing chamber 111), a powder inlet (figure 1, opening 120), a slurry inlet (figure 1, opening 121), and a slurry outlet (figure 1, exit area to inlet region 143), and the powder inlet, the slurry inlet and the slurry outlet are all communicated with the kneading cavity (figure 1, #11, 12 and 17 all connected to 14; column 1, lines 50-64);
the dispersing cavity is provided with a dispersing zone inlet (figure 1, inlet region 143; column 3, lines 50-55) and a dispersing zone outlet (figure 1, outlet region 144), and is configured to accommodate a dispersing stator and a dispersing rotor interacting with the dispersing stator (figure 1, rotor 150, stator 160); and
a screw threaded through the kneading cavity and pivotally connected to the base frame (figure 1, common shaft 152);
wherein, a shank portion of the screw is threaded through and drivingly connected to the dispersing rotor (figure 1, common shaft 152; column 4, lines 20-21);
a part of the screw is accommodated in the kneading cavity (figure 1, top part of shaft 152 in mixing chamber 111; column 4, lines 20-21), and the other part of the other end of the screw is accommodated in the dispersing cavity (figure 1, bottom part of shaft 152 in process chamber 140; column 4, lines 20-21);
one end of the screw is provided with a blade (rotatable mixing blade 112), and the other end of the screw is provided with the dispersing rotor (figure 1, rotor 150; column 4, lines 20-21); and
wherein the screw is extended along a gravity direction (see figure 1, screw 113), and a top of the kneading tube is hollowed out to form the powder inlet (figure 1, top of mixing chamber 111, opening 120).
Regarding the limitations in claim 1 directed to the machine being for producing slurry and the inlets and outlets being for powder or slurry, it is noted that the material or article worked upon does not further limit an apparatus claim. See MPEP §2115. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The machine and inlets and outlets of Merle et al. are capable of being for the material recited.
Regarding claim 8, Merle et al. discloses wherein the screw is extended along a gravity direction (see figure 1, screw 113), and a top of the kneading tube is hollowed out to form the powder inlet (figure 1, opening 120).
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes (U.S. Patent No. 3,000,618) in view of Merle et al.
Regarding claim 1, Oakes discloses a machine (figure 1) comprising:
a base frame (figure 1, casing 14, sections 30 and 40 (entire outer body of figure 1)) provided with a kneading tube (figure 1, casing 14) and a dispersing cavity (figure 1, internal recesses 30A and 40A); wherein, the kneading tube is provided with a kneading cavity (figure 1, internal area of casing 14), a powder inlet (figure 1, conduit 11), a slurry inlet (conduit 12), and a slurry outlet (figure 1, slots 17; column 1, lines 59-64), and the powder inlet, the slurry inlet and the slurry outlet are all communicated with the kneading cavity (figure 1, #11, 12 and 17 all connected to 14; column 1, lines 50-64);
the dispersing cavity is provided with a dispersing zone inlet (column 1, lines 68-69) and a dispersing zone outlet (figure 1, discharge aperture 41), and is configured to accommodate a dispersing stator and a dispersing rotor interacting with the dispersing stator (figure 1, rotors 22 and 33 and stators 37, 38, 39); and
a screw threaded through the kneading cavity and pivotally connected to the base frame (Screw-type conveyer 15 with shaft not labeled, and extension of shaft 25 with sleeve 24);
wherein, a shank portion of the screw (figure 1, extension 25) is threaded through and drivingly connected to the dispersing rotor (sleeve 24; column 1, lines 69-72),
a part of the screw is accommodated in the kneading cavity (screw-type conveyor 15), and the other part of the other end of the screw is accommodated in the dispersing cavity (screw extension 25 is part of the screw 15 and includes sleeve 24 provided in the dispersing cavity);
one end of the screw is provided with a blade (screw threads of screw 15), and the other end of the screw is provided with the dispensing rotor (rotor 22; column 1, lines 68-72); and
a top of the kneading tube is hollowed out to form the powder inlet (feed opening 13 at top of kneading tube 14).
While Oakes discloses the kneading tube is angled downwards and the screw expands downward with the kneading tube (figure 1, frustoconical casing 14 and screw 15 and frustoconical rotor 22/26), to the extent that does not read on the screw extended along a gravity direction, it is well known in the art that screw mixers can extend horizontally or vertically, as evidenced by Merle et al. figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the direction of the screw to extend a long a gravity direction, as a matter of design choice, since it is well known in the art that mixers can extend either horizontally or vertically based on the desired rate of material passing through the casing.
Regarding the limitations in claim 1 directed to the machine being for producing slurry and the inlets and outlets being for powder or slurry, it is noted that the material or article worked upon does not further limit an apparatus claim. See MPEP §2115. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The machine and inlets and outlets of Oakes are capable of being for the material recited.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Merle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schumacher (U.S. Patent No. 4,960,328).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 6, Oakes in view of Merle et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Oakes discloses wherein a blade of the screw is provided with gaps (figure 1, see spaces between screw threads of screw 15), Oakes does not explicitly disclose a plurality of turbulence projections. Schumacher teaches another screw mixer (abstract; figure 10). Schumacher teaches wherein an inner wall of the kneading tube is provided with a plurality of turbulence projections which are arranged at intervals and surrounded around a periphery of the screw (figure 10, scraper fingers 1); and wherein a blade of the screw located in a portion surrounded by the turbulence projections is provided with gaps for avoiding the turbulence projections (figure 10, screw space 12 with scraper fingers 1 in gaps between screw 13); and wherein the turbulence projections are pins (figures 1-10 and 13, finger 1), and the pins are threaded from an outer wall of the kneading tube into the kneading cavity (figures 1 and 10, pin 1 with pipe thread 2; column 4, lines 22-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the plurality of turbulence projections of Schumacher threaded on an outer wall of the kneading tube of Oakes. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach screw mixers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the projections extending into the cavity between screw threads further enhances the desired mixing and breaking effect by providing a varied turbulence based on the number threaded into the outer wall and the threaded depth of the pins on the outer wall (Schumacher column 3, lines 37-55).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Merle et al. and Schumacher as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0093234).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Oakes in view of Merle et al. and Schumacher discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein a section of the screw located in the kneading cavity is formed by a plurality of unit tubes jointing together, and an outer wall of each unit tube is provided with the blade; and wherein an inner wall of each unit tube is provided with an axial positioning groove, and the screw is connected to a connecting rod which is threaded through a plurality of the axial positioning grooves. Kobayashi et al. teaches another screw mixer (abstract; figure 1). Kobayashi et al. teaches wherein a section of the screw located in the kneading cavity is formed by a plurality of unit tubes jointing together, and an outer wall of each unit tube is provided with the blade (figures 1-4, cylinder body 13; [0050]; [0059]); and wherein an inner wall of each unit tube is provided with an axial positioning groove (figures 3 and 4, groove 19), and the screw is connected to a connecting rod which is threaded through a plurality of the axial positioning grooves (figures 1-4, shaft 14; [0054]-[0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the screw of Oakes to before formed by a plurality of unit tubes connected by a connecting rod as taught by Kobayashi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach screw mixers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because by segmenting the screw, it is possible to change or adjust the specification of the screw and allows for easy service and maintenance of the screw for improved convenience (Kobayashi et al. [0060]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Merle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (U.S. Patent No. 5,800,055).
Regarding claim 7, Oakes in view of Merle et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose a cooling tank. Sato teaches another mixer with screw and rotor/stator (figure 3). Sato teaches wherein the base frame is provided with a cooling tank which is wrapped around the kneading tube (figure 3, cooling water passage 170) and provided with a cooling fluid inlet (figure 3, opening 171) and a cooling fluid outlet (figure 3, opening 172; columns 5-6, lines 66-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the cooling tank of Sato around the kneading tube of Oakes. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach mixers with screws and rotor/stators. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it cools the material in the kneading tube to prevent the temperature of the material from rising over a predetermined level (Sato columns 5-6, lines 66-29).
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merle et al. in view of Schumacher.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 6, Merle et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Merle et al. discloses wherein a blade of the screw is provided with gaps (figure 1, see spaces between screw threads of screw 113 or between blades 112 and 113), Merle et al. does not explicitly disclose a plurality of turbulence projections. Schumacher teaches another screw mixer (abstract; figure 10). Schumacher teaches wherein an inner wall of the kneading tube is provided with a plurality of turbulence projections which are arranged at intervals and surrounded around a periphery of the screw (figure 10, scraper fingers 1); and wherein a blade of the screw located in a portion surrounded by the turbulence projections is provided with gaps for avoiding the turbulence projections (figure 10, screw space 12 with scraper fingers 1 in gaps between screw 13); and wherein the turbulence projections are pins (figures 1-10 and 13, finger 1), and the pins are threaded from an outer wall of the kneading tube into the kneading cavity (figures 1 and 10, pin 1 with pipe thread 2; column 4, lines 22-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the plurality of turbulence projections of Schumacher threaded on an outer wall of the kneading tube of Merle et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach screw mixers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the projections extending into the cavity between screw threads further enhances the desired mixing and breaking effect by providing a varied turbulence based on the number threaded into the outer wall and the threaded depth of the pins on the outer wall (Schumacher column 3, lines 37-55).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merle et al. in view of Schumacher as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Merle et al. in view of Schumacher discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein a section of the screw located in the kneading cavity is formed by a plurality of unit tubes jointing together, and an outer wall of each unit tube is provided with the blade; and wherein an inner wall of each unit tube is provided with an axial positioning groove, and the screw is connected to a connecting rod which is threaded through a plurality of the axial positioning grooves. Kobayashi et al. teaches another screw mixer (abstract; figure 1). Kobayashi et al. teaches wherein a section of the screw located in the kneading cavity is formed by a plurality of unit tubes jointing together, and an outer wall of each unit tube is provided with the blade (figures 1-4, cylinder body 13; [0050]; [0059]); and wherein an inner wall of each unit tube is provided with an axial positioning groove (figures 3 and 4, groove 19), and the screw is connected to a connecting rod which is threaded through a plurality of the axial positioning grooves (figures 1-4, shaft 14; [0054]-[0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the screw of Merle et al. to before formed by a plurality of unit tubes connected by a connecting rod as taught by Kobayashi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach screw mixers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because by segmenting the screw, it is possible to change or adjust the specification of the screw and allows for easy service and maintenance of the screw for improved convenience (Kobayashi et al. [0060]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merle et al. in view of Sato.
Regarding claim 7, Merle et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose a cooling tank. Sato teaches another mixer with screw and rotor/stator (figure 3). Sato teaches wherein the base frame is provided with a cooling tank which is wrapped around the kneading tube (figure 3, cooling water passage 170) and provided with a cooling fluid inlet (figure 3, opening 171) and a cooling fluid outlet (figure 3, opening 172; columns 5-6, lines 66-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the cooling tank of Sato around the kneading tube of Merle et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach mixers with screws and rotor/stators. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it cools the material in the kneading tube to prevent the temperature of the material from rising over a predetermined level (Sato columns 5-6, lines 66-29).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 with respect to the Merle et al. reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Merle et al. does not disclose the limitations of claim 1 because Merle et al. does not disclose that part of the inducer screw 113 is accommodated in the mixing chamber 111 and part of the inducer screw 113 is accommodated in the process chamber. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. As Applicant points out, the mixing blade 112, the inducer screw 113 and the rotor 150 are all mounted on the same common shaft 152. Examiner was previously interpreting the entire screw 113 as the screw which includes the shaft; however, it is evident from Applicant’s arguments and the invention’s disclosure that a screw is really just a shaft. As such, common shaft 152 is now interpreted as being the screw which is accommodated in both the mixing chamber 11 and the processing chamber 140, which reads on the limitations of the claims. Applicant further argues the first opening 120 is on the batch container and so it cannot read on “a top of the kneading tube is a hollowed out to form the powder inlet”. This argument is unpersuasive. It can clearly be seen in figure 1 that the top of the mixing chamber 111 is open and hollowed out and the material flows into that hollowed out tube from opening 120. As to Applicant’s further arguments that Merle et al. is a multi-stage feeding path, those arguments are not persuasive, because they are directed to an intended use of the invention. Merle et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claims, as explained above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the location of the screw of Oakes have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Oakes screw is housed solely within the single cavity of the conveying casing 14 and the screw body does not extend into any kneading chamber or dispersion chamber because the rotor member 22 is detachably connected by means of screw threads 23 to a sleeve 24 also screwed onto the extension 25 of the screw 15. Applicant finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant argues because the rotor is screwed onto the extension 25, the screw cannot be in the dispersing cavity; however, claim 1 requires a shank portion of the screw is how the screw connects to the dispersing rotor. As explained above, in response to Applicant’s arguments of the Merle reference, it is evident from Applicant’s arguments and the invention’s disclosure that a screw is really just a shaft. As such, the shaft portion of screw 15 is now interpreted as being the screw. As Applicant points out, and as stated in column 1, lines 68-72, and shown in figure 1, the shaft of the screw 15 includes the extension 25 and the sleeve 24 which extends into the dispersion chamber to connect to the dispersing rotor; and therefore reads on the limitations of the claims. As to Applicant’s arguments regarding the direction of the screw, they are now moot in view of Merle, as explained above in the 103 rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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