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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to. It is suggested that (GAD) and (GAS) be included in the claim since they are referred to in the last line of the claim in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since, in the second line of the claim, “the jacket surface” is not previously referred to in the claim. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear what “preferably-at least partially- closed” requires in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 depend on claim 1 and do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) antecedent basis or indefinite rejections above. Therefore claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis and being indefinite.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear what “the height” is referring to in the claim.
Claims 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 depend on claim 3 and do not overcome the indefinite rejection of claim 3. Therefore claims 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the wheel body” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Claim 4 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “preferably three pieces” is required by the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the wheel body” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 4 depends.
Claims 6 and 7, depend on claim 1 and do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) antecedent basis rejection above. Therefore claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “notches are not previously referred to in the claim or any preceding claim from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite. Claim 7 initially depends on claim 4 but then optionally depends on claim 6 and it is not clear what is required by the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis. The continuous clear height is not previously referred to in the claim. Additionally, claim 8 is rejected for being indefinite since it is not clear what is meant by continuous clear height. Additionally, claim 8 is rejected for being indefinite since is not clear what is required by “ideally by at least the factor of 2.2, preferably by at least the factor of 4 and, in the optimal case, by at least the factor of 6.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite. The claim recites “preferably at least 15% more preferably at least 25%” and it is not clear either what percentage is required or what the percentages are referring to.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if the sentence starting with “Note” is part of the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the teeth” and “the spokes” are not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear what is required of “preferably- at least partially- closed” requires. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis. Regarding claim 12, “the teeth of the first toothed ring” are not previously referred to in the claim. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since in the last two lines of the claim, it is not clear which set of teeth “the teeth are carried by a rim ring” are referring to. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the spokes are not previously referred to in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear what “this region” is referring to in the claim. Claim 13 is additionally rejected for being indefinite since it is not clear what “preferably-at least partially- closed” requires. Claim 13 is additionally rejected for being indefinite since is not clear what “to rotate at a speed of more than 18 mis and ideally up to 20 m/s in the region of its outer circumference” requires.
Claim 14, which depends on claim 13, does not overcome the claim 13 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) and therefore claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite. It is not clear what “the clear continuous height” requires. Additionally, it is not clear what “ideally by at least the factor of 2.2, preferably by at least the factor of 4 and, in the optimal case, by at least the factor of 6” requires in the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if the sentence starting with “Note” is part of the 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 1, 2, 3, 5, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lombardi (EP0576447B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lombardi teaches a dispersing unit for dispersing a feed material in a dispersant (figures 3 and 4 are considered showing a dispersing unit) comprising a stationary dispersing basket (stator disk item 20), the jacket surface (surface item 24 is considered a jacket surface) of which has outlet openings (items 25 openings), and the one front side of which is preferably - at least partially - closed and into which a shaft stub of a drive shaft protrudes (item 15 shaft protrudes into item 20, the top side of item 20 is considered at least partially closed), wherein, within the dispersing basket the shaft stub carries a dispersing disk (item 15 shaft carries item 16 rotor disk which is considered reading on a dispersing disk); which rotates during operation and thus sucks feed material-laden dispersant into the region between the dispersing disk and the closed front side of the dispersing basket and predominantly conveys it out of this region again via the outlet openings in the jacket surface of the dispersing basket (material feeds out from item 25 when item 15 rotates), characterized in that the dispersing basket is open on its front side facing away from the drive shaft (openings items 25 are facing away from item 15), and the clear radial distance between the outer circumference of the dispersing disk and the inner circumferential surface of the dispersing basket is so large that a gap is formed, via which a more than only insignificant portion of the dispersant conveyed into the dispersing basket can flow out of the dispersing basket again (see page 13, lines 1-5 which teaches annular reaction regions formed between the stator in the rotor, dispersant being conveyed is considered intended use of the dispersing unit).
Regarding claim 2, Lombardi teaches characterized in that the dispersing tube has a dip tube in which the driven drive shaft can rotate (portion of item 20 that extends upwards surrounding item 15), wherein the dip tube carries the dispersing basket (the portion of item 20 surrounding item 15 is considered carrying the lower portion of item 20).
Regarding claim 3, Lombardi teaches a dispersing unit for dispersing a feed material in a dispersant (figures 3 and 4) comprising a dip tube (portion of item 20 extending upward surrounding item 15) in which a motor driven shaft can rotate (item 15 shaft) wherein the dip tube carries a stationary dispersing basket (item 20 extending upwards is considered carrying the bottom portion of item 20) the jacket surface of which has outlet openings (material feeds out from item 25 when item 15 rotates) the front side of which facing the dip tube is closed and into which a shaft stub of the drive shaft protrudes (item 20 surface extending upward surrounding item 15 is closed), wherein the shaft stub carries a dispersing disk (item 15 carries 16) characterized in the dispersing basket is opening in its front side facing away from the dip tube (openings 25 face away from the portion of item 20 surrounding item 15) that the height is significantly larger than the height of the dispersing disk (the height of item 20 is significantly larger than item 16), and the dispersing disk consists of a wheel body which carries teeth on its outer circumference (top surface of item 16 is considered reading on a wheel body, see figure 4 multiple item 17 flanges which are considered reading on teeth and on the item 16’s outer circumference).
Regarding claim 5, Lombardi teaches characterized in that the wheel body comprises a plate-like wheel disk comprising notches (item 16 top surface is shaped as a wheel disk, and has notches in between items 17) which provide for the passage of dispersant which is laden with feed material (the material is considered intended use, material is considered capable of passing between items 17).
Regarding claim 16, Lombardi teaches characterized in that the wheel body comprises a plate-like wheel disk comprising notches (item 16 top surface is shaped as a wheel disk, and has notches in between items 17) which provide for the passage of dispersant which is laden with feed material (the material is considered intended use, material is considered capable of passing between items 17).
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 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi (EP0576447B1).
Regarding claim 8, Lombardi is silent to the specific heights. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the shape of the dispersing unit openings in order to obtain the desired flow of material 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 9, Lombardi is silent to the sizes of the gaps. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the openings in order to obtain the desired flow of material 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, Lombardi teaches a cylindrical shape for its closed front side (see outer wall of item 20 which is a cylinder shape). Regarding claim 10, Lombardi is silent to the shape being conical or parabolic. Regarding claim 10, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the basket 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 13, Lombardi teaches a dispersing system comprising a dispersing unit for dispersing a feed material in a dispersant (figures 3 and 4), having a stationary dispersing basket (item 20), the jacket surface of which has an outlet openings (item 25), at least partially closed (top portion of item 20 is closed), and into which a stub shaft of the drive shaft protrudes (item 15), wherein within the dispersing basket the stub shaft carries a dispersing disk (item 16), which rotates during operation and thus sucks feed material laden dispersant into the region between the dispersing disk and the closed front side of the dispersing basket (material feeds out from item 25 when item 15 rotates), and predominantly conveys it out of this region again via the outlet openings in the jacket surface (items 25 openings) characterized in that the dispersing basket is open on its front side facing away from the drive shaft (items 25 faces away from the drive shaft item 15), and the clear radial distance between the outer circumference between the outer circumference of the dispersing disk (see gap formed between items 20 and 16) and the inner circumferential surface of the dispersing basket is so large that a gap is formed, via which a more than only insignificant portion of the dispersant conveyed into the dispersing basket can flow out of the dispersing basket again (this is a function of the material being worked upon and the gap between items 16 and 20 is considered capable of performing this function with a material of a specific viscosity), and choosing a speed between 500 rpm to 10,000 rpm (page 7 line 20). Regarding claim 13, Lombardi is silent to the specific rotational speed at the outer circumference. Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speed of the stirrer in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Lombardi teaches a dispersing container (item 11). Lombardi is silent to the size of the dispersing container. Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the container to mix the desired volume of material 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 17, Lombardi is silent to the specific heights. Regarding claim 17, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the shape of the openings in order to obtain the desired flow of material 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 18, Lombardi teaches a cylindrical shape for its closed front side (see outer wall of item 20 which is a cylinder shape). Regarding claim 18, Lombardi is silent to the shape being conical or parabolic. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the basket 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a wheel body having spokes in the region of the radially outer end of which teeth are attached.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a rim ring, toothed ring, with teeth are connected to the spokes of the dispersing disk spokes.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a rim ring, toothed ring, with teeth are connected to the spokes of the dispersing disk spokes.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a wheel body having spokes in the region of the radially outer end of which teeth are attached.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a rim ring, toothed ring, with teeth are connected to the spokes of the dispersing disk spokes.
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