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 § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the vibration unit”.
In claim 14, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the leg unit”.
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishigaki (US 2008/0197218):
Regarding claim 1, Ishigaki discloses a device comprising a pipe (2, 15 or 29) configured to allow a slurry containing an additive to flow therethrough; a conveyance mechanism (see [0031], [0034], [0041] ,[0051]) configured to flow the slurry through the pipe; a stirrer (4, 17, 31a or 31b) installed in the pipe and configured to stir the slurry flowing through the pipe; and an ultrasonic generator (13, 22, 24 or 30) installed in the pipe and configured to disperse the additive contained in the slurry by applying ultrasonic waves to the slurry flowing through the pipe.
Regarding claim 2, the ultrasonic generator comprises a vibration unit (13, 22, 24, 30 or a portion of one of these) configured to transmit vibration to the slurry flowing through the pipe to disperse the additive contained in the slurry, and wherein the vibration unit is completely inserted into the pipe (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, the ultrasonic generator comprises a driving unit configured to operate the vibration unit, and wherein the driving unit is disposed outside the pipe (see Figs. 1A, 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, the pipe is formed to extend with a constant inner diameter thereof, and wherein the inner diameter remains the same at a location where the stirrer and the ultrasonic generator are installed (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, the stirrer comprises a leg unit rotated in a state of being completely inserted into the pipe and configured to stir the slurry (see Figs. 1A-4).
Regarding claim 6, the leg unit of the stirrer surrounds the vibration unit (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, the leg unit comprises an inner circumferential surface configured to surround the vibration unit, being spaced apart from an outer circumferential surface of the vibration unit by a predetermined distance (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, the vibration unit or the leg unit comprises a scraper (8) provided on the outer circumferential surface thereof or the inner circumferential surface thereof, and wherein the scraper is configured to scrape the slurry remaining in a space defined between the outer circumferential surface of the vibration unit and the inner circumferential surface of the leg unit.
Regarding claim 10, the pipe is divided into an inlet pipe (a portion including 18) and an outlet pipe (a portion including 20), wherein the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe are connected to each other in a vertically offset state so as to partially overlap each other, and wherein the stirrer and the ultrasonic generator are installed at a location where the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe are connected to each other (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the outlet pipe is disposed above the inlet pipe (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the stirrer comprises a leg unit (4, 17, 31a or 31b; or a portion of one of these) rotated in a state of being completely inserted into the pipe and configured to stir the slurry, wherein the leg unit is built across the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe, and wherein the leg unit is connected to an actuator located outside the pipe through a rotation shaft (3 or 16).
Regarding claim 13, the ultrasonic generator is disposed on an inner side of the pipe located at the location where the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe are connected to each other (see Figs. 1A-4).
Regarding claim 14, the leg unit of the stirrer adjacent to the ultrasonic generator comprises a scraper provided on an outer circumferential surface thereof, and wherein the scraper is configured to scrape the slurry remaining in a space defined between the ultrasonic generator and the outer circumferential surface of the leg unit (see Figs. 1A and 1B).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigaki (US 2008/0197218). The device of Ishigaki was discussed above:
Regarding claim 8, a numerical value for the size of the device was not disclosed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have scaled the size of the device based upon the amount of material to be processed. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) concerning the obviousness of selecting a size.
Regarding claim 18, Ishigaki further discloses a sensor (see [0051] “granulometric meter” and controlling the ultrasonic generator in relation to this sensor information (see Table 1, including the footnotes of the table). It is not expressly stated that the sensor is in the pipe. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have installed the sensor in the pipe because the slurry being sensed is in the pipe.
Regarding claim 19, the controlling of treatment time in Table 1 would have suggested sensing residence time to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 20, controlling intensity or frequency is disclosed (see footnotes of Table 1).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigaki (US 2008/0197218) in view of Lehnert (US 3,902,850). The device of Ishigaki was discussed above:
Regarding claim 15, Ishigaki does not disclose a jacket. Lehnert teaches a cooling jacket (26). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a cooling jacket as taught by Lehnert to achieve a desired temperature.
Regarding claim 16, Lehnert further teach that the cooling jacket is formed on an outer circumferential surface of a pipe and extends along the pipe (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Lehnert further teaches the direction of flow of refrigerant in the jacket being the opposite of the direction of material in the pipe (see Fig. 2).
Conclusion
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