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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ui (KR102315097B1, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, a high shear mixing device (shown in figures 7 and 11) comprising a first screw kneader (kneader proximate item 11) and a second screw kneader (kneader proximate item 21); a first rotation driving mechanism configured to rotate the first screw kneader (item 10b, the helical shape is considered reading on a screw kneader) and a second rotation driving mechanism configured to rotate the second screw kneader (item 20b, the helical shape is considered reading on a screw kneader), a revolution driving mechanism (item 40) including the first rotation driving mechanism and the second rotation driving mechanism rotatably installed therein (item 40 houses both item 10b and item 20b via item 50), a driving mechanism body including the revolution driving mechanism installed therein (item 30); and a mixing tank (page 5 of the machine translation, second paragraph container), wherein each of the first screw kneader and the second screw kneader comprises a shaft having one end respectively connected to the first rotation mechanism and the second rotation driving mechanism (item 10a and item 20b); and three or more blades having one end fixed to the shaft (kneaders proximate items 11 and 21 have three blades, the three blade configuration is best seen in figures 4b and figure 5) and having a helically curved body along the longitudinal direction of the shaft (see helically curved body shape of each blade), and wherein the first and second screw kneaders rotate in opposite directions with their blades overlapping each other (figure 7 shows the overlapping configuration between kneaders proximate items 11 and 21, page 12 of the machine translation, second paragraph teaches the opposite rotating configuration).
Regarding claim 2, Ui teaches wherein the first and second screw kneaders rotate by the first and second rotation driving mechanisms and revolve by the revolution driving mechanism at the same time (items 30 and 40 rotate to rotate kneaders proximate items 11 and 21).
Regarding claim 3, Ui teaches wherein all the blades provided in the first screw kneader and the second screw kneader are open-type blades comprising a through hole formed in a center portion except an outer periphery of a surface in a rotation direction (see openings items 11a and 21a).
Regarding claim 6, Ui teaches wherein the first screw kneader and the second screw kneader each have three blades (see figure 5 which shows three blades for each kneader).
Regarding claim 8, Ui teaches wherein each of the through holes formed in the blades is formed to extend to an outer peripheral surface of the shaft (items 11a and 12b extend to an outer peripheral surface of items 10a and 20b via items 11 and 21).
Regarding claim 9, Ui teaches wherein the shaft between the through holes is removed such that all of the through holes formed in the blades communicate with each other (there is no shaft extending between items 11a and 12b).
Regarding claim 11, Ui teaches wherein the high shear mixing device is used for micro-fiberization of a fiberizable polymer by high shear mixing a mixture for preparing a dry electrode containing the fiberizable polymer as a binder (the materials being worked upon are considered intended use, and the stirring device shown in figures 7 and 11 are considered capable of mixing a fiberizable polymer).
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 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ui (KR102315097B1 cited in the IDS mailed 1/10/2024, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 4, Ui is silent to the closed shape configuration. Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the shape to be a closed kneader in order to increase the 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 5, Ui teaches all the blades provided in the first screw kneader are open-type blades comprising a through hole formed in a center portion except for an outer periphery of a surface in a rotation direction (item 11a which is in the center of each of the blades of the screw kneader). Regarding claim 5, Ui is silent to the closed shape configuration of the second set of blades in the second screw kneader. Regarding claim 5, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the shape to be a closed kneader in order to obtain 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 7, Ui teaches an open type blade (see opening items 11a and 21a). Regarding claim 7, Ui is silent to the closed shape configuration. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the shape to be a closed kneader in order to obtain 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 10, Ui is silent to the distance between the blades. Regarding claim 10, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the blades in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Ui teaches wherein each of the through holes formed in the blades is formed to extend to an outer peripheral surface of the shaft (items 11a and 12b extend to an outer peripheral surface of items 10a and 20b via items 11 and 21).
Regarding claim 13, Ui teaches wherein each of the through holes formed in the blades is formed to extend to an outer peripheral surface of the shaft (items 11a and 12b extend to an outer peripheral surface of items 10a and 20b via items 11 and 21).
Regarding claim 14, Ui teaches wherein the shaft between the through holes is removed such that all of the through holes formed in the blades communicate with each other (there is no shaft extending between items 11a allowing for material to pass through openings in blades).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Claire 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights