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 Objections Claims 4 and 17 are objected to. Claim 4 is objected to. Regarding claim 4, in the third line of the claim, it is suggested that “groove” be amended to “grooves” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim. Claim 17 is objected to. The claim recites a second and third channel but does not recite a first channel. It is suggested that either a first channel be claimed, or the claim dependency be adjusted to make it clear that a first channel is part of the claim in order to enhance the clarity of the claim. 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. Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) for being anticipated by Eisenwerk (DE673014C cited in IDS mailed 3/17/2025, a machine translation is provided). Regarding claim 1, Eisenwerk teaches a pulping device (figures 1-5, the material being worked upon is considered intended use), comprising: a housing (page 1 of machine translation, claims paragraph, housing item f) defining a cavity (space in outlet c is considered reading on a cavity); a drive shaft (elongated shaft item d); an impeller assembly, disposed in the cavity, is configured to be driven to rotate by the drive shaft (disc item a is considered reading on an impeller); wherein a bottom surface of the impeller assembly is disposed opposite to an end surface of the housing (surface of a proximate item c is opposite end of item f away from item a); and one of the bottom surface of the impeller assembly or the end surface of the housing is provided with an annular protrusion (see figure 4 annular protrusion proximate elevation item e), the other one of the bottom surface of the impeller assembly or the end surface of the housing defines an annular groove matching the annular protrusion (annular groove proximate item i matching the annular protrusion proximate item e), and an interference-proof clearance is defined between an outer wall of the annular protrusion and an inner wall of the annular groove (the space between item e and I is considered an interference proof clearance). Regarding claim 3, Eisenwerk teaches wherein a cross section of the annular protrusion is rectangular (see figure 4 shape proximate item e) and a cross section of the annular groove is rectangular (see figure 4 shape proximate item i). Regarding claim 4, Eisenwerk teaches wherein the annular protrusion is implemented as a plurality of annular protrusions (see figure 4 multiple protrusions proximate item e), the annular groove is implemented as a plurality of annular groove (see multiple grooves proximate item i), the plurality of annular protrusions are coaxial and spaced apart from one another, and the plurality of annular grooves correspond to the plurality of annular protrusions and are coaxial and spaced apart from one another (grooves and protrusions proximate items e and i are coaxial and spaced apart from one another). Regarding claim 5, Eisenwerk teaches wherein the cross sections of the plurality of annular protrusions are in the shape of a rectangle (see figure 4 shape proximate item e), and the cross section of the plurality of grooves are in the shape of a rectangle (see figure 4 shape proximate item i). Regarding claim 8, Eisenwerk teaches wherein the impeller assembly comprises a mixing impeller (disc a is considered reading on the impeller), one of a bottom surface of the mixing impeller or the end surface of the housing is provided with the annular protrusion (see protrusions e which extend from the bottom surface of item a), and the other one of the bottom surface of the mixing impeller or the end surface of the housing defines the annular groove matching the annular protrusion (items I matching items e). Regarding claim 9, Eisenwerk teaches wherein the housing is provided with a support plate, one of the bottom surface of the mixing impeller or an upper surface of the support plate is provided with the annular protrusion (bottom surface of impeller item a proximate item e comprises annular protrusions), and the other one of the bottom surface of the mixing impeller or the upper surface of the support plate defines the annular groove matching the annular protrusion (item i is considered reading on a support plate with matching annular grooves). Regarding claim 13, Eisenwerk teaches wherein the housing is provided with a support plate, one of the bottom surface of the mixing impeller or an upper surface of the support plate is provided with the annular protrusion (bottom surface of impeller item a proximate item e comprises annular protrusions), and the other one of the bottom surface of the mixing impeller or the upper surface of the support plate defines the annular groove matching the annular protrusion (item i is considered reading on a support plate with matching annular grooves). Regarding claim 15, Eisenwerk teaches wherein the impeller assembly defines a first flow channel, the first flow channel extends through the bottom surface of the impeller assembly and a side surface of the impeller assembly, and the first flow channel communicates with the cavity (channel proximate item b proximate bottom item d). Regarding claim 17, Eisenwerk teaches wherein a second flow channel is defined between the drive shaft and the support plate (see channel proximate item b), and a third flow channel is defined below the support plate (see channel proximate item c flowing out of the mixer). 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 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being unpatentable over Eisenwerk (DE673014C cited in IDS mailed 3/17/2025, a machine translation is provided). Regarding claim 2, Eisenwerk is silent to the size of the clearance. Regarding claim 2, absent any unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the size of the gap based on the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 16, Eisenwerk teaches wherein the first flow channel has an opening on the bottom surface of the impeller assembly (see where channel b feeds into item c which is considered a bottom surface of item a). Regarding claim 16, Eisenwerk is silent to the specific size of the apparatus. Regarding claim 16, absent any unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the size of the gap based on the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 are objected to but would be allowable if written in independent form. Regarding claim 6, while U.S. Publication 2009/0098266 to Briz teaches protrusions varying in height (see figure 8), the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the successive radii, heights, and depths. Regarding claim 7, while U.S. Publication 2009/0098266 to Briz teaches protrusions varying in height (see figure 8), the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the successive radii, heights, and depths. Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the mixing impeller, guide impeller, with the protrusion and groove configuration. Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a pulping device with the combination of the housing, drive shaft, protrusion/groove assembly with the liquid inlet at a bottom side of the housing, liquid outlet in a middle side of the housing, and a feed inlet on top of the pulping device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7628 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Walter Griffin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1447 . 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