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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long and uses reference numbers. 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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “inlet 8033a” should read --inlet--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Multner et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0109877).
Regarding claim 1, Multner et al. discloses a slurry stirring device (abstract; figure 1), comprising:
an elongated housing defining a vertical centerline and a stirring chamber (container 5);
a slurry inlet configured to receive the slurry (device 25; [0034]), a slurry recirculation inlet configured for fluid coupling to a closed slurry recirculation flow loop (recirculation line 32 with inlet at top of 32, not labeled; [0033]), and a slurry recirculation outlet configured for fluid coupling to the slurry recirculation flow loop (recirculation line 32 with outlet at bottom of 32, not labeled; [0033]); and
a rotatable blade mechanism configured to maintain the slurry in an agitated mixed condition in the stirring chamber (stirring elements 10 and 15 on drivable shafts 1 and 2; [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding the preamble and the limitations which are directed to a manner of operated disclosed slurry stirring device and the structures that are described as being for a slurry material, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. 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.” Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
Regarding claim 2, Multner et al. discloses further comprising a motor operably coupled to the blade mechanism and configured to rotate the blade mechanism (figure 1, top of container 5, not labeled; [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Multner et al. discloses wherein the blade mechanism comprises at least a first blade assembly including a first drive shaft operably coupled to the motor and a first set of blades fixedly coupled thereto (figure 1, shaft 2 and stirring elements 15; [003]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Multner et al. discloses wherein the first drive shaft is vertically oriented and the first set of blades is disposed in a bottom portion of the slurry chamber (figure 1, shaft 2; bottom stirring element 15).
Regarding claim 14, Multner et al. discloses further comprising a water inlet configured to add water to the slurry to dilute the slurry (figure 1, devices 28 or 29 or 30; [0038]-[0040]). It is noted that the material or article worked upon does not further limit an apparatus claims and devices 28, 29 and 30 are capable of adding water.
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) 5-7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multner et al. in view of Beramini (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0008945).
Regarding 5, Multner et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Multner et al. further discloses a second blade assembly including a vertically oriented second drive shaft operably coupled to the motor and a second set of blades fixedly coupled thereto (figure 1, shaft 1 and stirring element 10; [0030]-[0033]). However, Multner et al. does not disclose the second set of blades disposed in a bottom portion of the slurry chamber.
Beramini teaches another stirrer device for fluid products (title). Beramini teaches a second blade assembly including a vertically oriented second drive shaft operably coupled to the motor and a second set of blades fixedly coupled thereto and disposed in a bottom portion of the slurry chamber (figure 2, stirrer elements 14 and shaft 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the second set of blades in a bottom portion of the chamber of Multner et al. as taught by Beramini. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach stirring devices for fluid products. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the second set of blades disposed in a bottom portion of the slurry chamber so as to scrape the bottom of the tank in order to remove possible sedimentations of materials (Beramini [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Multner et al. in view of Beramini discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Multner et al. discloses two separate motors for driving each shaft (figure 1), rather than wherein the first and second drive shafts are operably coupled to the motor by a gear train.
Beramini teaches another stirrer device for fluid products (title). Beramini teaches wherein the first and second drive shafts are operably coupled to the motor by a gear train (figures 2 and 3, toothed wheels 17, 18 and motor 19; [0070]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the motor, shaft connection of Multner et al. to include the gear train as taught by Beramini. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach stirring devices for fluid products. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a single motor with a gear train coupled to the first and second drive shafts ensures that the angle of stagger between the two stirrer units remains constant, preventing any interference between the stirrer elements (Beramini [0075]), and because a single motor operation requires less parts resulting in reduced cost and a reduction in the possibility of failure of operation.
Regarding claim 7, Multner et al. in view of Beramini discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The combination of references as modified further discloses wherein the first blade assembly rotates in a first rotational direction and the second blade assembly rotates in a second rotational direction (Multner et al. [0030]-[0032]; Beramini figure 2, shafts 15, wheels 17, 18 and motor 19; [0070]-[0076]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Multner et al. in view of Beramini discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Multner et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the stirring chamber has a figure eight shape in transverse cross section forming a first section and a second section separated by a narrowed throat area of the stirring chamber; and wherein the first blade assembly is disposed in the first section of the stirring chamber and the second blade assembly is disposed in the second section of the stirring chamber.
Beramini teaches wherein the stirring chamber has a figure eight shape in transverse cross section forming a first section and a second section separated by a narrowed throat area of the stirring chamber (figure 1, tank 11, cylinders 23; [0045]); and wherein the first blade assembly is disposed in the first section of the stirring chamber and the second blade assembly is disposed in the second section of the stirring chamber (figure 1, stirrer unit 13; [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the stirring chamber of Multner et al. to have a figure eight shape forming two sections, each having a blade assembly as taught by Beramini. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach stirring devices for fluid products. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it allows for a larger volume of product to be mixed while the narrows throat area creates a shared overlapping zone that ensures all areas are mixed (Beramini [0021]-[0025]; [0050]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multner et al. in view of Beramini as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Noguchi et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0345236).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Multner et al. in view of Beramini discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the combination of references as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the slurry recirculation inlet is configured to introduce slurry from the slurry recirculation flow loop tangentially to an interior sidewall of the stirring chamber; and wherein the slurry recirculation inlet is further configured to introduce the slurry into the stirring chamber in a same direction as the second rotational direction of the second blade assembly.
Noguchi et al. teaches another circulating stirring device (abstract). Noguchi et al. teaches wherein the slurry recirculation inlet is configured to introduce slurry from the slurry recirculation flow loop tangentially to an interior sidewall of the stirring chamber (figure 1, bypass 13; [0034]; [0039]; [0042]); and wherein the slurry recirculation inlet is further configured to introduce the slurry into the stirring chamber in a same direction as the second rotational direction of the second blade assembly (figures 1, 2C and 6A, see arrows indicating stirring rotation and bypass flow inlet; [0039]; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the recirculation inlet of Multner et al. to introduce the slurry tangential to an interior sidewall in the same direction as the rotational direction of the blade assembly as taught by Noguchi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach circulating stirring devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it maximizes the velocity of the slurry recirculated into the chamber for better homogenization of the mixture (Noguchi et al. [0039]; [0042]).
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multner et al. in view of Corrado (U.S. Patent No. 7,695,616).
Regarding claim 13, Multner et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Multner et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the stirring device further comprises an overflow port fluidly coupled to a top end of the stirring chamber and a waste outlet port fluidly coupled to a bottom of the stirring chamber.
Corrado teaches another mixing apparatus with recirculation line for mixing solids in liquids (abstract; figure 1). Corrado teaches an overflow port fluidly coupled to a top end of the stirring chamber (figures 1 and 3, TP) and a waste outlet port fluidly coupled to a bottom of the stirring chamber (figures 1 and 3, emptying valve; column 5, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the overflow port and waste outlet port on the stirring chamber of Multner et al. as taught by Corrado. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach circulating stirring devices for solids in liquids. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an overflow port because in the case of malfunctioning, the solution will not reach the cover or lid and overflow from the container (Corrado column 4, lines 59-64); and provide a waste outlet port for emptying off the solution completely from the container at the end of use of the device or during the operations for washing of the container (Corrado column 5, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 15, Multner et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Multner et al. does not explicitly disclose a level sensor configured to measure a level of slurry in the stirring chamber, wherein a rotational speed of the stirring blade mechanism is controlled and adjusted based on the level of slurry in the stirring chamber measured by the level sensor.
Corrado teaches a level sensor configured to measure a level of slurry in the stirring chamber (figures 1 and 3, float 23a with sensor; columns 3-4, lines 66-9), wherein a rotational speed of the stirring blade mechanism is controlled and adjusted based on the level of slurry in the stirring chamber measured by the level sensor (columns 3-4, lines 66-9 (rotational speed adjusts to zero based on float being in lowered position)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the level sensor on the stirring chamber of Multner et al. as taught by Corrado. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach circulating stirring devices for solids in liquids. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a level sensor because it maintains the solution between a minimum level and a maximum level so that the stirring blade does not operate when there is too little solution in the container and so that the amount of material supplied can be controlled to maintain the solution between the minimum and maximum level according to the level sensor (Corrado columns 3-4, lines 66-48).
Regarding claim 16, Multner et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Multner et al. further discloses wherein the housing of the stirring device has a segmented construction comprising a top section (figure 1, “Zone E”), a mid section (figure 1, “Zone I”) and a bottom section (figure 1, “Zone III”). However, Multner et al. does not explicitly disclose a removable top cover.
Corrado teaches a removable top cover (figures 1-3, loading chamber 9; cover or lid 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the top cover of Multner et al. to be removable, as taught by Corrado in order to more easily access the interior of the housing for removal or addition of materials.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multner et al. in view of Noguchi et al.
Regarding claims 17-20, Multner et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Multner et al. further discloses wherein the slurry inlet is positioned to introduce slurry into an upper portion of the stirring chamber, wherein the slurry inlet is formed through a top section of the housing and obliquely angled to the vertical centerline of the housing to deliver slurry at a similar angle inwards into the stirring chamber (device 25; [0034]). However, Multner et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the slurry recirculation inlet and the slurry recirculation outlet are positioned to introduce and extract the slurry from a lower portion of the stirring chamber; and wherein the slurry recirculation inlet and the slurry recirculation outlet are configured to introduce and extract slurry from the stirring chamber respectively in a direction transverse to the vertical centerline of the housing; and wherein the slurry recirculation inlet is configured to introduce slurry from the slurry recirculation flow loop tangentially along a sidewalls of the stirring chamber to reduce air entrainment in the slurry.
Noguchi et al. teaches another circulating stirring device (abstract). Noguchi et al. teaches wherein the slurry recirculation inlet and the slurry recirculation outlet are positioned to introduce and extract the slurry from a lower portion of the stirring chamber; and wherein the slurry recirculation inlet and the slurry recirculation outlet are configured to introduce and extract slurry from the stirring chamber respectively in a direction transverse to the vertical centerline of the housing; and wherein the slurry recirculation inlet is configured to introduce slurry from the slurry recirculation flow loop tangentially along a sidewalls of the stirring chamber to reduce air entrainment in the slurry (figures 1, 2C and 6A, bypass 13; [0034]; [0039]; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the recirculation inlet of Multner et al. to introduce the slurry in a lower portion, transverse to the vertical centerline of the housing and tangential to an interior sidewall as taught by Noguchi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach circulating stirring devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it maximizes the velocity of the slurry recirculated into the chamber for better homogenization of the mixture (Noguchi et al. [0039]; [0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
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
