DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended. Claim 20 is newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reif et al. (US PGPub 2011/0058448, hereinafter Reif) in view of Puchalski (US 3132850, hereinafter Puchalski) and Lennon (US 3149888, hereinafter Lennon).
Regarding claim 1, Reif discloses a mixing assembly for use in a fluid mixing system, comprising:
a first rotational assembly (figure 1, at upper end of mixer shaft 3) comprising a first casing (encapsulation 6) and a first hub (upper end of shaft 3) rotatably mounted to the first casing, at least a portion of the first hub being encircled by the first casing (see figure 1);
a second rotational assembly (at lower end of mixer shaft 3) comprising a second casing (bearing 9) and a second hub (lower end of shaft 3) rotatably mounted to the second casing; wherein the second casing has a closed floor wall (see bearing 9 in figure 1);
an elongated member (body of shaft 3) having a first end coupled with the first hub and an opposing second end coupled with the second hub (see figure 1); and
one or more impellers (mixing elements 4 and 4’) being secured to the elongated member.
Reif is silent to the first hub being configured to rotate freely relative to the first casing, and the first hub having a passageway as recited. Puchalski teaches a mixing assembly (figures 1 and 2) including a first rotational assembly (figure 4) comprising a first hub (race member 30) and a first casing (plug 20) surrounding the first hub (see figure 4), the first hub configured to rotate freely relative to the first casing (via bearing balls 34), and the first hub having a passageway extending therethrough (passageway can be seen accommodating drive shaft 44 in figure 4). 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 rotational assembly of Puchalski for that of Reif because such a simple substitution would have produced only the predictable result of mounting the shaft to the container, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Reif is silent to the second hub’s rotation, engaging surface, opening, and locking engagement with the elongated member as recited. Lennon teaches a mixing assembly including first and second rotational assemblies (figure 1) wherein the second rotational assembly (figures 3 and 4) comprises a second casing (extension 32 and bearing 26) and a second hub (part 24) rotatably mounted to the second casing, the second hub configured to rotate freely relative to the second casing (column 1, lines 55-57, “part 24, carried by the lower end of the shaft section 16, and normally turning therewith”), and the second hub having an opening extending therethrough (see figure 4), and at least a portion of an interior surface of the opening having an engaging surface (surface within opening can be seen in contact with the shaft, thus considered an “engaging surface”), and wherein an elongated member is coupled at a second end in a locking engagement with the engaging surface of the second hub (column 1, lines 55-57, “part 24, carried by the lower end of the shaft section 16, and normally turning therewith”). As can be seen in the figure, a separate piece is bolted to the end of shaft 16 to hold part 24 in place. It is noted that this piece is clearly separate in the figures such that part 24 has an opening extending therethrough as recited. 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 second rotational assembly of Lennon for that of Reif because such a simple substitution would have produced only the predictable result of mounting the shaft to the container, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 2, Reif discloses the elongated member (figure 1, body of shaft 3) extends as a continuous unitary member between the first and second ends (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Reif discloses the elongated member (figure 1, body of shaft 3) having a substantially uniform transverse cross-section along its length between the first and second ends (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Reif discloses the elongated member being a rigid drive shaft (paragraph 0014, “mixer shaft 3 is set into a rotating motion by a drive 5”).
Regarding claim 10, Reif discloses a first bearing assembly (figure 1, bearing 8) disposed between the first hub (end of shaft 3) and the first casing (encapsulation 6).
Regarding claim 12, Reif discloses the first and second rotational assemblies being coupled to a first end of a container and second end of a container, respectively (figure 1, see positions of encapsulation 6 and bearing 9 with respect to container 1).
Regarding claim 13, Reif discloses the impeller (figure 1, mixing elements 4 and 4’) being configured to mix materials within the container (paragraph 0014, “mixing system” indicates that the system is capable of mixing the contents of the container). As to the recitation of a biological suspension, it has been held that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the mixing elements of Reif would be fully capable of mixing a biological suspension as recited.
Regarding claim 14, as noted above, the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. Nonetheless, the mixing elements of Reif would be fully capable of mixing cells or microorganisms suspended within a nutrient growth medium as recited.
Regarding claim 19, Reif discloses the fluid mixing system comprising a mixer, a reactor, or a fermenter (Title, “Mixing System” would indicate that it is a mixer).
Regarding claim 20, Reif discloses the second casing (figure 1, bearing 9) does not have an opening or aperture in the floor wall (see figure 1).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reif et al. (US PGPub 2011/0058448, hereinafter Reif) in view of Puchalski (US 3132850, hereinafter Puchalski) and Lennon (US 3149888, hereinafter Lennon), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bielozer (US PGPub 2004/0228209, hereinafter Bielozer) and Bartsch (US 5618107, hereinafter Bartsch).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Reif is silent to the elongated member being removable from the first and second hubs. Bielozer teaches a mixing assembly (figure 1) including a hub (figure 2, conversion device 16) and an elongated member (shaft 40) wherein the hub is rotatably mounted to a casing (threaded, or rotated, into flange 32) and the elongated member is removably coupled to the hub (see figures 3 and 4). Bartsch teaches a mixing assembly (figure 1) including a hub (bearing 50) mounted rotatably to a casing (housing 42) and removably mounted to an elongated member (shaft 22; see figure 5). 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 apparatus of Reif with a removable first and second hub, as in Bielozer and Bartsch, for the purpose of allowing for removal of the hubs for replacement without disassembling the drive shaft (Bartsch: column 3, lines 34-36).
Claims 7-9 and 15-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reif et al. (US PGPub 2011/0058448, hereinafter Reif) in view of Puchalski (US 3132850, hereinafter Puchalski) and Lennon (US 3149888, hereinafter Lennon), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (US 5941636, hereinafter Lu) and Ludwig et al. (US PGPub 2011/0013474, hereinafter Ludwig).
Regarding claims 7-9, Reif is silent to more than one impeller as recited. Lu teaches a mixing assembly (figure 5) having a shaft and impellers, wherein the device includes three impellers (blades 7) that are spaced apart from one another, meeting claims 7-9. 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 Reif with more than one impeller, as in Lu, for the purpose of increasing mixing power (Ludwig: paragraph 0064; “To increase the mixing power, each segment 54 can have an impeller 10”).
Regarding claim 15, Reif is silent to a hub and blades as recited. Lu teaches a mixing assembly having impellers wherein the impellers include a hub (figure 5, blade seats 6) and outwardly projecting blades (blades 7). Ludwig also teaches impellers including a hub (figure 4, sleeve 64) and blades (impeller 10). 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 blades of Reif with the hub and blade design of Lu or Ludwig because the simple substitution of one known blade configuration for another would have provided only the expected result of allowing the blades to mix material with in the container. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Reif is silent to blades and hubs as recited. Ludwig teaches a mixing assembly (figure 1) in which an impeller includes blades (figure 4, impeller 10) and hub (sleeve 64) that are integrally formed (see figures 1 and 4). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have made the hub and blades of integral construction for the purpose of increasing rigidity between the hub and blades during use.
Regarding claim 17, Reif is silent to blades and hubs as recited. Lu is relied upon, as above, to teach blades and hubs, and further to teach blades that are removable from the hub (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 blades of Reif with the hub and blade design of Lu because the simple substitution of one known blade configuration for another would have provided only the expected result of allowing the blades to mix material with in the container. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Claims 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reif et al. (US PGPub 2011/0058448, hereinafter Reif) in view of Puchalski (US 3132850, hereinafter Puchalski) and Lennon (US 3149888, hereinafter Lennon), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reif et al. (US PGPub 2011/0058447, hereinafter Reif ‘447).
Regarding claim 11, Reif is silent to a second bearing assembly as recited. Reif ‘447 teaches a mixing assembly (figure) including first (bearing 10) and second bearing assembly (bearing 11) disposed between a casing (base plate 12) and a hub (lower end of shaft 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 apparatus of Reif with a second bearing assembly, as in Reif ‘447, for the purpose of reducing wear on the hub or the casing during use of the device. It is noted that Lennon also discloses a bearing assembly as recited (see figures 3 and 4).
Claims 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reif et al. (US PGPub 2011/0058448, hereinafter Reif) in view of Puchalski (US 3132850, hereinafter Puchalski) and Lennon (US 3149888, hereinafter Lennon), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of West et al. (US PGPub 2006/0280028, hereinafter West).
Regarding claim 18, Reif is silent to a bag as claimed. West teaches a mixing system including a container that is a flexible bag comprised of one or more sheets of polymeric film (paragraph 0033). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have replaced the container of Reif with a bag, as in West, because West indicates that both hard-sided containers and bags are known containers for mixing systems similar to that of Reif (see figures 1 and 2 of West).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “the structural architecture of Lennon is materially inconsistent with the presently claimed configuration” (remarks, page 6), going on to argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to enclose the second casing with a casing floor as currently recited in claim 1 (remarks, page 7). However, this argument is not relevant to the current rejection. The Examiner has used Reif as the primary reference (note Reif discloses a casing with a closed floor without an opening or aperture as claimed) and has modified Reif with the hub of Lennon. The casing of Lennon is not part of the current rejection, nor is it being modified to remove an opening or aperture in its floor. The Examiner sees no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from including the hub of Lennon in the device of Reif because the casing of Lennon (a completely different structure) is allegedly incompatible with the device of Reif. As stated above, the casing of Lennon is not relevant to the rejection as written, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 on 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