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 § 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenthal (US 2,904,407). Rosenthal discloses an agitator comprising an agitation tank (7) capable of accommodating a fluid to be processed containing particles; and a shear blade capable of dispersing the particles contained in the fluid to be processed accommodated in the agitation tank, wherein the shear blade includes a base portion (31) rotating around a predetermined axis and a plurality of blade members (32) provided at an edge of the base portion, and when the shear blade is viewed in an axial direction, the plurality of blade members extend along an outer peripheral edge of the base portion and each have a tip facing a downstream side in an intended rotation direction of the base portion (see Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 21-29).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knudsen (US 2,464,588). Knudsen discloses an agitator comprising an agitation tank (10 and/or 12) capable of accommodating a fluid to be processed containing particles; and a shear blade capable of dispersing the particles contained in the fluid to be processed accommodated in the agitation tank, wherein the shear blade includes a base portion (31) rotating around a predetermined axis and a plurality of blade members (32) provided at an edge of the base portion, and when the shear blade is viewed in an axial direction, the plurality of blade members extend along an outer peripheral edge of the base portion and each have a tip facing a downstream side in an intended rotation direction of the base portion (see Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 21-29).
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, as held in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), 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, 3-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinaga (US 2018/0178176) alone or in view of Knudsen (US 2,464,588).
Regarding claim 1, Morinaga discloses an agitator comprising an agitation tank (2) that accommodates a fluid to be processed containing particles; a flow blade (3) that agitates the fluid to be processed accommodated in the agitation tank; and a shear blade (4) disposed inside the flow blade at a bottom of the agitation tank (see Fig. 1) to disperse the particles, wherein the shear blade includes a base portion (41) rotating around a predetermined axis and a plurality of blade members (42) provided at an edge of the base portion, and when the shear blade is viewed in an axial direction, the plurality of blade members extend along an outer peripheral edge of the base portion (see Figs. 1 and 3). Morinaga additionally states at [0034] that the blade members “can be provided to be inclined relative to a tangential direction of the outer peripheral edge of the circular disk part 41”. It is not stated if the blades are inclined in the direction of intended rotation, but the direction of rotation is a matter of use. It is noted that Fig. 5 shows blades incline in the direction of rotation. As further evidence, Knudsen is cited for teaching blade members (32) having tips facing the direction of rotation (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have faced the tips of the blade member in the downstream direction as taught by Moringa to achieve a particular flow pattern and improve mixing (see col. 4, lines 8-49).
Regarding claim 3, a shear blade drive shaft (43) is connected to the shear blade and extends downward, wherein each of the blades is formed of a rectangular flat plate, a side of each of the blade members extending in the up- down direction is parallel to the shear blade drive shaft, and a side of each of the blade members extending in a horizontal direction is parallel to the main surfaces of the base portion (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase in [0034]: "inclined relative to a tangential direction of the outer peripheral edge of the circular disk" would have directed one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have discovered an optimal or workable range corresponding to the claimed value, especially considering an angle of about 45 degrees is depicted for another blade in Fig. 5. Also, Knudsen recognizes this angle as a parameter for optimization (see col. 4, lines 8-49).
Regarding claim 5, the base portion has a disk shape (see [0034]), and is disposed in the agitation tank such that a center of the disk overlaps the predetermined axis (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the base portion includes a flow path through which the fluid to be processed flows from a bottom side to a top side of the agitation tank (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Knudsen further teaches that the tip is located outside the outer peripheral edge of the base portion (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, each of the blades is a flat plate including a main surface facing the downstream side in the rotation direction of the base portion, is fixed to the base portion in the vicinity of a center in an up-down direction (see Fig. 3), and extends upward from a main surface on an upper side of the base portion and downward from a main surface on a bottom side of the base portion (see Fig. 3), and the fluid to be processed containing the particles micronized by the shear blade flows upward (see Fig. 3). The phrase in [0034]: "inclined relative to a tangential direction of the outer peripheral edge of the circular disk" would have directed one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have discovered an optimal or workable range corresponding to the claimed range, especially considering an angle of about 45 degrees is depicted for another blade in Fig. 5. Also, Knudsen recognizes this angle as a parameter for optimization (see col. 4, lines 8-49).
Response to Arguments
No claim is rejected under section 112 as currently amended.
All relative motion between a solid surface and a fluid involves shear. A fluid flowing in a pipe necessarily involves shear. An impeller moving through a fluid necessarily involves shear.
Direction of rotation during an intended operation is a matter of use and is not a structural feature.
Lennon is not relied upon in rejecting the claims as currently amended.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights