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 8 is objected to. In the last line of the claim, it is suggested that “0,5” be amended to “0.5” 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “preferably in the range of 2 to 4 °” is required by the claim since the claim already recites a broader range. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “preferably at least 12 times” is required by the claim since the claim already recites at least 8 times. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “most preferably below 55%” or “preferably below 65%” are required by the claim since the claim already recites below 75%.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrell (US Patent 6,326,047).
Regarding claim 1, Farrell teaches a contrast agent mixer (Figures 2, 3, and 11a) for providing a foam type contrast agent (the materials being worked upon are considered intended use, however column 1 lines 54-56 teaches whipping/aeration which is considered capable of forming foam), the contrast agent mixer comprising a holding arrangement for supporting a mixing container (figure 3 is considered showing the mixer, item 200 cup is considered reading on the mixing container, cup housing item 16 is considered reading on the holding arrangement), a substantially homogenous circular mixer blade for mixing a contrast powder with a liquid in the mixing container (blade item 76 is considered substantially circular, the materials are considered intended use), a controller (column 6 lines 55-63 teaches a microprocessor which his considered reading on the controller) configured to control a rotational speed of the mixer blade to a wanted rotational speed (column 12 lines 64-67 teaches using the microprocessor to control the blade motor which his considered inherently controlling the rotational speed of the mixer blade to a desired value) and a vertical distance between the holding arrangement and the mixer blade (column 12 line 67 to column 13 line 3 teaches positioning the blade using the microprocessor).
Regarding claim 3, Farrell teaches wherein the mixer blade is arranged on a mixer shaft rotatable about a longitudinal axis of the mixer shaft (blade item 76 is arranged on mixer shaft item 66, and the blade 76 is rotatable around the longitudinal axis of item 66) by a first motor arrangement controlled by the controller (column 12 lines 64-67 teaches using the microprocessor to control the blade motor).
Regarding claim 4, Farell teaches wherein the mixer blade is movable by the second motor arrangement of the contrast agent to control the vertical distance between the holding arrangement and the mixer blade (column 7 lines 5-11 teaches a carriage motor, column 12 line 67 to column 13 line 3 teaches positioning the blade teaches using the carriage motor to move the blade vertical position, which changes the distance between item 76 and item 16), the second motor arrangement is controlled by the controller (column 12 line 67 to column 13 line 3 teaches positioning the blade using the microprocessor).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrell (US Patent 6,326,047).
Regarding claim 8, Farrell teaches angles on the mixer blade (see figure 11b angles formed by item 122). Regarding claim 8, Farrell is silent to the specific claimed angle values formed on a plane of the mixer blade. 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 of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the blade 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrell (US Patent 6,326,047) in view of Hogan (US 2010/0058773 A1).
Farrell is silent to the language of claim 2. Regarding claim 2, Hogan teaches wherein the holding arrangement is movable by a second motor arrangement of the contrast mixer (paragraph 134 teaches a cup lift mechanism) to control vertical distance between the holding arrangement and the mixing blade (paragraph items cup lift mechanism 155 and 355 and scraper body 159, 159a) the second motor arrangement is controlled by the controller (paragraph 24 which teaches two positions of the cup holder and the motor being linked to the controller). Regarding claim 2, 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 holding arrangement of Farrell with the cup lifting mechanism of Hogan in order to allow for an automated mixing operation.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrell (US Patent 6,326,047) in view of Noth (US Publication 2015/0296831).
Farell is silent to the language of claim 9. Regarding claim 9, Noth teaches further comprising a liquid container arranged to dispose the liquid into the mixing container (paragraph 79 teaches a liquid tank item 2 for providing liquid to container 8) and a valve arranged in a fluid pathway between the liquid container and the mixing container and controllable between an open position and a closed position by the controller (paragraph 80 teaches a valve for providing liquid which would inherently have to be between item 8 and item 2 in order for the valve to function, paragraph 82 teaches a control unit for controlling the operations of the components of the device). Regarding claim 9, 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 mixer of Farell with liquid tank dispensing configuration of Noth in order to allow for an automated mixing operation.
Farell is silent to the language of claim 11. Regarding claim 11, Farell teaches further comprising a powder container arranged to dispense the contrast powder into the mixing container (paragraph 88 teaches mixing powdered product which would inherently require a container prior to dispensing the powder to item 8). Regarding claim 11, 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 mixer of Farell with the powder configuration of Noth in order to obtain the desired final product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a contrast agent mixer with the combination of the mixer blade, controller configuration, mixer shaft, motor for rotating the mixer blade, and the magnetic clutch configuration.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a method for providing a per-oral negative contrast foam for an abdominal computer tomography with the controller of a contrast agent mixer.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the mixer system comprising the contrast agent mixer, a mixing container, a contrast powder, and liquid. Note that claim 18 requires the contrast powder and not considered intended use of the contrast agent mixer.
Claims 16 and 21 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable if the above 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection is overcome, since the claim depends on claim 12, which is indicated as allowable subject matter above.
Claim 21 would be allowable if the above 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection is overcome, since the claim depends on claim 18, which is indicated as allowable subject matter above.
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