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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard et al. (US PGPub 2011/0182134, hereinafter Pollard) in view of Gockel et al. (US PGPub 2017/0211449, hereinafter Gockel) and Ito et al. (US PGPub 2009/0115096, hereinafter Ito) and optionally in view of Guenter (DE 1208294, hereinafter Guenter).
Regarding claim 1, Pollard discloses a static mixer assembly comprising:
a first tube (figure 1, conductor 24) extending along an axis;
a second tube (flow mixer 10) positioned within the first tube; and
an inlet tube (injector 26) with a first end positioned outside the first tube and a second end positioned within the second tube (see figure 1).
Pollard is silent to the primary and secondary baffles as recited. Gockel teaches a static mixer (figure 3) comprising a first tube (outer bushing 11) extending along an axis; a plurality of primary baffles (outer portions of fins 18) extending from the first tube; a second tube (inner bushing 12) positioned within the first tube; a plurality of secondary baffles (inner portions of fins 18) extending from the second tube. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the first and second tube of Gockel with the baffles for the tubes of Pollard without baffles because such a substitution would have provided only the predictable result of mixing fluids within the tubes, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Pollard does not explicitly disclose the inlet tube having an end outside the first tube, although it stands to reason that such a first end would exist to move material from outside the tube to the inside of the tube. Ito teaches a static mixing apparatus (figure 2) including an inlet tube (tube 65) that has a first end positioned outside the first tube (see figure 2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the inlet tube of Pollard with such a first end for the purpose of moving material from outside the tube to the inside of the tube.
If it is determined that Pollard does not disclose a second end of the inlet tube being within the second tube, Guenter teaches a static mixing assembly having first and second tubes and an inlet tube having a second end positioned inside the second tube (see figure 1). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the device of Pollard with the tube position of Guenter to allow the inlet material feed to take advantage of lower pressure in the narrower passage to pull material in. The obviousness of the position of the second end of the inlet tube in view of Guenter applies to all rejections below, even if it is not specifically stated in every rejection.
Regarding claim 2, the first tube, second tube, and inlet tube of the combination above would be fully capable of carrying the materials listed and of mixing them as recited. It is noted that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Pollard discloses the second tube includes an inlet portion that is funnel-shaped and positioned within the first tube (see figure 1). As can be seen in the figure, at least some portion of mixer 10 of Pollard narrows to form a funnel portion within the conductor 24.
Regarding claim 4, Pollard discloses the second end of the inlet tube is positioned in the inlet portion of the second tube (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Pollard is silent to a support assembly as recited. Gockel teaches a support assembly (figure 3 outer portions of fins 18) connected to the first tube (outer bushing 11) and configured to support the second tube (inner bushing 12) within the first tube. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the first and second tube of Gockel with the baffles for the tubes of Pollard without baffles because such a substitution would have provided only the predictable result of mixing fluids within the tubes, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 7, Pollard discloses the inlet tube aligned with the axis (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited ratios, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the length ratio of the first and second tubes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Pollard with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 16, Pollard discloses the first tube (figure 1, conductor 24) having a first circular cross-section (see figure 1), but is silent to the second circular cross section of the second tube. Gockel teaches a static mixer (figure 3) having first and second tubes wherein the first tube includes a first circular cross- section and the second tube includes a second circular cross-section (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the first and second tube of Gockel with the baffles for the tubes of Pollard without baffles because such a substitution would have provided only the predictable result of mixing fluids within the tubes, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 17, the brine and the acid are materials worked upon by the device. As noted above, the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the combination of Pollard, Gockel, and Ito would be fully capable of working upon the materials recited, and thus the claim is met.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard et al. (US PGPub 2011/0182134, hereinafter Pollard) in view of Gockel et al. (US PGPub 2017/0211449, hereinafter Gockel) and Ito et al. (US PGPub 2009/0115096, hereinafter Ito) and optionally in view of Guenter (DE 1208294, hereinafter Guenter), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White (US PGPub 2021/0229050, hereinafter White).
Regarding claim 9, Pollard is silent to the inlet tube having an axis that intersects the axis at an angle. White teaches a static mixer assembly (figure 3) including an inlet tube (inlet 40) that extends along an inlet axis that intersects the axis at an inlet angle (see figure 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the inlet tube of Pollard with the angle of White for the purpose of providing additional turbulence to mix the material, as depicted by flow lines in figure 3 of White.
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited angle, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra.
With respect to the limitation of the angle of the inlet tube, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Pollard with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard et al. (US PGPub 2011/0182134, hereinafter Pollard) in view of Gockel et al. (US PGPub 2017/0211449, hereinafter Gockel) and Ito et al. (US PGPub 2009/0115096, hereinafter Ito) and optionally in view of Guenter (DE 1208294, hereinafter Guenter), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bedard et al. (US PGPub 2014/0058161, hereinafter Bedard).
Regarding claim 15, Pollard is silent to the recited materials. Bedard teaches a mixing device having features that comprise high-nickel alloys and tantalum. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have use the materials of Bedard because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11-14 are 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.
Claims 18-22 are allowed.
Claim 6 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a configuration of the inlet tube not reasonably disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 11 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a tab within the second tube not reasonably disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 18 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites method steps involving brine and acid within a first and second tubes not reasonably disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses static mixing devices having injection tubes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights