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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to the specification is not consistent with itself or with Applicant’s remarks. The drawing objection has been withdrawn in view of the specification objection below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. With respect to claim 8, Applicant’s amendment has introduced the new grounds of rejection presented below, and Applicant’s amendment has also raised new issue(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please see below.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Lawton does not meet amended claim 1. Applicant mischaracterizes Examiner’s rejection stating that Examiner cites mixing vessel 22 as corresponding to the claimed “main duct”. Instead, Examiner cited “see at least Figure 1, main duct depicted by arrows extending down into #22 and beneath out of #22” as the main duct. Additionally, Applicant argues that #34 and #34 do not include transverse walls. In view that Figure 1 clearly depicts #22 as a distinct element, as supported by Examiner’s rejection of the “main duct” as leading into and out of #22, #34 and #36 can be understood to each have a transverse wall about their respective openings to define the upper and lower boundaries of #22. Such boundaries would be transverse to the neutral fiber.
Applicant states that the combination of Lawton and Ellsworth fails to meet amended claim 9. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Ellsworth explicitly states that holes for a mixing chamber may be the same or different sizes. This is an indication that the same or different size holes are art-recognized equivalents, thus there is no hindsight reasoning for the combination. To the extent that Applicant is attempting to argue that Examiner’s reliance on KSR fails to establish motivation to combine, Examiner notes that Ellsworth teaches that hole size variation is a suitable and known provision for a mixing chamber. Examiner has additionally provided a predictable benefit of allowing for variable injection of fluid for mixing in different zones. Examiner reminds Applicant that a person of ordinary skill in the art designing a mixing chamber would presumably have a university degree in engineering and would understand that varying the hole size would allow for variable injection for mixing in different zones.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are based on claims 1 or 9. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained below, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 30 June 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because not all changes to the claims have been indicated by proper markings. Please see, for example, claim 8. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 21 March 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the foreign references and search report are absent from the file.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs 19 and 24 were not consistently amended with each other, within each other, and with respect to Applicant’s arguments. Is 10 the aircraft or the aircraft power unit?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the connection device comprising”, “the connection device comprising:”, and “the connection device further comprising”. It appears that these limitations should be condensed. Applicant may also wish to review the dependent claims to see whether “the connection device further comprises” might be more appropriate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s understanding of “neutral fiber” as “By "neutral fiber" is meant a line passing through the center of gravity of the normal sections of the main tubular wall” as depicted in Applicant’s figures is acknowledged.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples include “presenting a neutral fiber”, “is comprising”, “presents [xxx]”.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the sum of the cross-sectional areas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears to be in error for the previously recited “a sum of cross-sectional areas”.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “comprises an auxiliary tubular wall defining an internal passage […]”. Is this the same or different from the auxiliary tubular wall of claim 1? It appears that it is the same. Applicant should ensure that added claims agree with the limitations earlier presented or newly included in the independent 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawton (US 3,409,274: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Lawton shows an aircraft fluid mixing system configured to mix a first fluid and a second fluid to form a resulting fluid (see at least Abstract: the system meets all the structural limitations of the claim and is thus capable of use in an aircraft), the system comprising:
a main duct comprising a main tubular wall and presenting a neutral fiber (see at least Figure 1, main duct depicted by arrows extending down into #22 and beneath out of #22: tubular wall is required to connect to inlet #34 and outlet #36 of #22 and neutral fiber as center line of the main duct is inherent to the system as disclosed), the main tubular wall comprising an upstream section defining an internal passage for circulation of the first fluid and a downstream section defining an internal passage for circulation of the resulting fluid (see at least column 2, lines 43-47);
an auxiliary duct comprising an auxiliary tubular wall defining an internal passage for circulation of the second fluid (see at least Figure 1, line #20); and
a connection device fluidically connecting the main duct and the auxiliary duct (see at least mixing vessel #22/#22’);
the connection device comprising an internal peripheral wall (see at least wall #40) defining a plurality of injection openings (see at least openings #44) for injecting the second fluid in the main duct between the upstream section and the downstream section (see at least column 2, lines 63-69),
each injection opening being arranged so that the second fluid is injected through said injection opening according to an injection vector, the injection vector being directed toward the neutral fiber (see at least column 2, line 69 through column 3, line 7),
the connection device comprising:
an upstream transverse wall and a downstream transverse wall orthogonal to the neutral fiber of the main duct (see at least top wall of inlet #34 and bottom wall of #36),
the connection device further comprising an external peripheral wall connecting the upstream and downstream transverse walls (see at least body wall #30),
the upstream transverse wall, the downstream transverse wall, the external peripheral wall and the internal peripheral wall together delimiting an intermediate space for circulation of the second fluid from the auxiliary duct toward the main duct (see at least space within #22/#22’),
the external peripheral wall surrounding the internal peripheral wall such that the intermediate space is radially delimited by the external peripheral wall and the internal peripheral wall (see at least space within #22/#22’ is delimited by #30 and #40 such that it exists therebetween).
Regarding claim 2, Lawton further shows wherein each injection vector extends in a plane perpendicular to the neutral fiber (see at least column 2, line 69 through column 3, line 7: the holes #44 may inject perpendicularly).
Regarding claim 3, Lawton further shows wherein the connection device is comprising a portion for connection to the main duct (see at least inlet #34) and a portion for connection to the auxiliary duct (see at least inlet #38), the portion for connection to the main duct being interposed between the upstream section and the downstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least inlet #34 is between the portion of the main duct supplying the first fluid and the portion receiving the mixed fluid).
Regarding claim 4, Lawton further shows wherein the internal peripheral wall of the connection device is comprising:
an upstream annular connection region for connection to the upstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least at interface of inlet #34 and wall #40);
a downstream annular connection region for connection to the downstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least at interface of outlet #36 and wall #40); and
an intermediate annular region interposed between the upstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall and the downstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least area within and outside of wall #40);
the upstream section of the main tubular wall comprising a downstream annular connection region for connection to the upstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least column 2, lines 43-47),
the downstream section of the main tubular wall comprising an upstream annular connection region for connection to the downstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least column 2, lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 5, Lawton further shows wherein:
a normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume delimited by the upstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least at interface of inlet #34 and wall #40);
a normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume delimited by the downstream annular connection region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least at interface of outlet #36 and wall #40);
a normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume delimited by the intermediate annular region of the internal peripheral wall (see at least area within and outside of wall #40);
a normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume delimited by the downstream annular connection region of the upstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least @inlet #34); and
a normal cross-sectional areas of a hollow tubular volume delimited by the upstream annular connection region of the downstream section of the main tubular wall (see at least @outlet #36);
are equal or together have a continuously differentiable evolution along the neutral fiber (the areas are both substantially equal in areas and differentiable in other regions with respect to and along the neutral fiber; see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lawton further shows wherein:
the connection device defines a fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid, in fluidic communication with the auxiliary duct (see at least inlet #38); and
the internal peripheral wall comprises an internal face (see at least inside face of wall #40) and an external face (see at least outside face of wall #40), each injection opening extending from an external orifice delimited by the external face to an internal orifice delimited by the internal face (see at least column 2, lines 63-69).
Regarding claim 17, Lawton further shows wherein the upstream transverse wall or the downstream transverse wall includes an opening defining an outlet of the auxiliary duct (see at least column 2, lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 18, Lawton further shows wherein the connection device comprises a portion for connection to the main duct (see at least inlet #34) and a portion for connection to the auxiliary duct (see at least inlet #38), the portion for connection to the auxiliary duct being arranged laterally relative to the portion for connection to the main duct in a plane perpendicular to the neutral fiber (see at least inlet #38 is perpendicular to inlet #34).
Regarding claim 19, Lawton further shows wherein the auxiliary duct comprises an auxiliary tubular wall defining an internal passage for circulation of the second fluid (see at least Figure 1, line #20), the auxiliary tubular wall extending traverse to a plane perpendicular to the neutral fiber so the second fluid exits the auxiliary duct and flows toward the downstream transverse wall or the upstream transverse wall before passing through the plurality of injection openings (see at least Figures 1 and 3, #20 has a portion extending transverse to the plane perpendicular to the neutral fiber such that the fluid flows through inlet #38 toward the wall of #34 and/or #36 prior to flowing through the injection openings).
Regarding claim 20, Lawton further shows wherein the upstream section of the main duct extends away from upstream transverse wall in a first direction and the downstream section of the main duct extends away from the downstream transverse wall in a second direction opposite of the first direction (see at least Figure 1, main duct depicted by arrows extending down into #22 and beneath out of #22).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawton (US 3,409,274: previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Lawton shows an aircraft (see at least Applicant’s disclosure paragraph [0015] and Figure 1: in view that the structure of Lawton corresponds with Applicant’s aircraft, Lawton is considered to meet “aircraft”) comprising:
the system according to claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above);
a first source of the first fluid (see at least pump #12);
a second source of the second fluid (see at least region downstream of heat exchanger #16);
at least one volume for receiving the resulting fluid (see at least pump #28); and
the upstream section of the main duct being fluidically connected to the first source (see at least column 2, lines 43-47), the auxiliary duct being fluidically connected to the second source (see at least column 2, lines 43-47), the downstream section of the main duct being fluidically connected to the at least one resulting fluid receiving volume (see at least column 2, lines 30-34),
the system being configured to distribute the resulting fluid into the at least one resulting fluid receiving volume (see at least column 2, lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 15, Lawton further shows wherein:
the first fluid presents a first temperature (see at least column 3, lines 50-69);
the second fluid presents a second temperature different from the first temperature (see at least column 3, lines 50-69); and
the resulting fluid presents a third temperature a value of which lies between the first and second temperatures (see at least column 3, lines 50-69).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton (US 3,409,274: previously cited).
Lawton discloses all the elements of claim 7, upon which claim 8 depends (see rejection(s) above).
Regarding claim 8, Lawton does not disclose wherein a sum of the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the internal face of the internal peripheral wall is greater than 1.5 times a cross-sectional area of the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid.
However, sum of cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the internal face of the internal peripheral wall in relation to the cross-sectional area of the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid is a results effective variable, as recognized by Lawton (see at least column 3, lines 8-16).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with wherein a sum of the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the internal face of the internal peripheral wall is greater than 1.5 times a cross-sectional area of the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton (US 3,409,274: previously cited) in view of Ellsworth et al. (US 2016/0376009: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 9, Lawton shows an aircraft fluid mixing system configured to mix a first fluid and a second fluid to form a resulting fluid (see at least Abstract: the system meets all the structural limitations of the claim and is thus capable of use in an aircraft), the system comprising:
a main duct comprising a main tubular wall and presenting a neutral fiber (see at least Figure 1, main duct depicted by arrows extending down into #22 and beneath out of #22: tubular wall is required to connect to inlet #34 and outlet #36 of #22 and neutral fiber as center line of the main duct is inherent to the system as disclosed), the main tubular wall comprising an upstream section defining an internal passage for circulation of the first fluid and a downstream section defining an internal passage for circulation of the resulting fluid (see at least column 2, lines 43-47);
an auxiliary duct comprising an auxiliary tubular wall defining an internal passage for circulation of the second fluid (see at least Figure 1, line #20); and
a connection device fluidically connecting the main duct and the auxiliary duct (see at least mixing vessel #22/#22’);
the connection device comprising an internal peripheral wall (see at least wall #40) defining a plurality of injection openings (see at least openings #44) for injecting the second fluid in the main duct between the upstream section and the downstream section (see at least column 2, lines 63-69),
each injection opening being arranged so that the second fluid is injected through said injection opening according to an injection vector, the injection vector being directed toward the neutral fiber (see at least column 2, line 69 through column 3, line 7),
the connection device defines a fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid, in fluidic communication with the auxiliary duct (see at least inlet #38); and
the internal peripheral wall comprises an internal face (see at least inside face of wall #40) and an external face (see at least outside face of wall #40), each injection opening extending from an external orifice delimited by the external face to an internal orifice delimited by the internal face (see at least column 2, lines 63-69)
Lawton further discloses wherein the internal peripheral wall defines at least one first group of the injection openings and at least one second group of the injection openings (see at least column 2, lines 67-69: for example, second row and first row),
the at least one first group of injection openings being arranged closer to the fluid inlet orifice for the second fluid relative to the at least one second group of injection openings see at least column 2, lines 67-69: for example, second row is closer to #38 than the first row).
Lawton does not disclose cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one first group of injection openings being smaller than the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one second group of injection openings.
However, there are only a finite number of options available to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of openings in a mixing system. In this regard, it is noted that Ellsworth et al. teaches cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one first group of injection openings being smaller than the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one second group of injection openings (see at least paragraph [0048]: the holes may have different sizes, thus a first group may be smaller than a second group).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one first group of injection openings being smaller than the cross-sectional areas of the internal orifices of the injection openings of the at least one second group of injection openings, since, as taught by Ellsworth et al., such provision is a suitable and known provision for arranging openings in a mixing system (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for variable injection of fluid for mixing in different zones.
Regarding claim 10, Lawton further discloses wherein the injection openings are circular holes delimited by the internal peripheral wall (see at least column 2, lines 63-69).
Regarding claims 11-12, Lawton does not disclose wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 1 mm and 10 mm; wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 3 mm and 5 mm.
It would, however, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lawton to have wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 1 mm and 10 mm, preferably between 3 mm and 5 mm; wherein the circular holes present a diameter of between 3 mm and 5 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the system of Lawton would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameters are “for example” (see paragraph [0066]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dean et al. (US 2,035,538: previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Lawton does not disclose wherein the internal peripheral wall comprises fins delimiting the injection openings.
However, providing a mixing system wherein the internal peripheral wall comprises fins delimiting an injection opening was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Dean et al. (see at least page 1, column 2, lines 17-22).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with wherein the internal peripheral wall comprises fins delimiting the injection openings, since, as evidenced by Dean et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for the induction of directional motion to promote mixing.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ellsworth et al. (US 2016/0376009: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 16, Lawton does not disclose wherein the first fluid, the second fluid and the resulting fluid are air: however, see MPEP 2115: “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)”: thus Lawton alone meets the claim.
To the extent that Applicant may consider the fluid structurally limiting, a point Examiner does not concede, Ellsworth et al. teaches another mixing system/aircraft wherein the first fluid, the second fluid and the resulting fluid are air (see at least main air source and trim air source; paragraphs [0047]; [0050]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lawton with wherein the first fluid, the second fluid and the resulting fluid are air, since, as taught by Ellsworth et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art, and since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights