OFFICE ACTION This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application: Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774 . Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center ( EBC ) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300. 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)). Information Disclosure Statement Note the attached PTO-1449 form(s) submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 13 NOV 2023. Specification The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The Abstract of the Disclosure is objected to because: a. the extraneous text " (To be published with Fig. 2) " at the end of the abstract should be deleted. b. the recitation of "Disclosed in” in line 1 is an improper implied phrase. c. the inclusion of legal phraseology such as "means" in line 2 of the abstract is improper. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606.01). The title should mention the portable sleeve and rotatable stirrers in the drum. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention . If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz , 893 F.2d 319, 1 3 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent c laims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b). Claim s 1, 6, and 7 use a phrase including the word “means” in conjunction with a structural element - e.g., “ support”, “guide rod”, etc. (i.e., “by means of a support ” or “by means of the guide rod” ) . It is unclear whether these words convey function or structure. A limitation construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) must not recite the structure for performing the function. Since no clear function is specified by these phrases, it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the element, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See Ex parte Klumb , 159 USPQ 694 (Bd. App. 1967). Many claims are indefinite since they recite a particular gear (e.g., “third gear”) without reciting a first or second gear, leading to confusion. Likewise with the recitation of “ a second stirring blade” without reciting a first stirring blade. Note claims 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11. 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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr ., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt , 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz , 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interpret s claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R . Sci. Int'l, Inc ., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California , 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejectio n of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier , 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli , 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112. 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, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOWDEN (US 2845254) that discloses a processing device including a base as seen in Figures 1-2 supporting a central sleeve 1 disposed between and coupled to end bodies 6, 7; a stirr ing assembly penetrating through interiors of the end bodies 6, 7 and the sleeve 1; the stirring assembly including stirring blades 20 located within the processor and disposed on rotating rods 11, 12 that are driven via a power drive and transmission mechanism 8, 9, 10, 21-23; a transmission belt (on belt sheave 23); a gear ring 10 on the sleeve 1 driven by the gearing 9; and arc shaped stirrers/deflectors 28. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOWDEN (US 2 726068 ) that discloses a processing device including a base as seen in Figures 1-2 (above 7) that supports a central sleeve 1 disposed between and coupled to end bodies 6, 7; a stirring assembly penetrating through interiors of the end bodies 6, 7 and the sleeve 1; the stirring assembly including stirring blades 20 located within the processor and disposed on rotating rods 11, 12 that are driven via a power drive and transmission mechanism 8, 9, 10, 21-23; a transmission belt (on belt sheave 23 - see the belt drive in Figure 4 ); a gear ring 10 on the sleeve 1 driven by the gearing 9; and arc shaped stirrers/deflectors 2 4 . Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BEAM (US 793816) that discloses a processing device including a base 13 as seen in at least Figures 1-2 supporting a central sleeve 7 disposed between and coupled to end bodies 9, 20 ; a stirring assembly penetrating through interiors of the end bodies 9, 20 and the sleeve 7 ; the stirring assembly including stirring blades 21 located within the processor and disposed on a rotating rod 5 that are driven via a power drive and transmission mechanism 16, 18a ; and a gear ring 14 on the sleeve 7 driven by the gearing. Claims 1, 2, 3 and 1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 732863 that discloses a processing device including a base as seen in Figure 1 that supports a central sleeve 1 disposed between and coupled to end bodies 12, 12 ; a stirring assembly penetrating through interiors of the end bodies 12, 12 and the sleeve 1; the stirring assembly including stirring blades 9 located within the processor and disposed on rotating rod 4 that is driven via a power drive and transmission mechanism 6 with gears 5; a transmission belt (on belt sheave - see the belt drive in Figure 1 ); and arc shaped blades 3. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1139 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM . 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 . New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “ that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution ” . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1700 . 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. /CHARLES COOLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774 DATED: 16 MAR 2016