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 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.
Claims 31, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Zhou (U.S. Publication 2015/0131405).
Regarding claim 31, Zhou teaches a solvent mixing system (figure 1) comprising: a mixing tee (item 78) comprising at least two solvent input ports (openings receiving materials from items 76 and 80) and a solvent output port in fluid communication with one another (outlet of item 78 feeding into item 82) and configured to eliminate stratification of at least two solvent flow streams (the mixing tee item 78 is considered capable of eliminating stratification based on the flowrate of material and the speed at which they are pumped via pump items 70 and 72); a mixing device (receptacle item 12 with mixing zone 11 going from items 20 to the outlet feeding into item 30) in comprising a mixing device input port (item 20) and a mixing device output port (opening in item 12 that feeds to item 30), wherein the mixing device input port is in fluid communication with the solvent output port of the mixing tee (item 20 is in fluid communication with item 78 via item 78); and a blending mixer in fluid communication with the mixing device output port (item 33 which receives material from the outlet of item 12), wherein the blending mixer is a single inlet mixer (item 33 has a single inlet) and comprises: a mixer input port in fluid communication with the mixing device output port (input port is considered the topmost portion of item 33 that receives material from item 12); a mixing chamber (inner volume of item 33); and a mixer output port in fluid communication with the mixing chamber (outlet of item 33 that feeds to item 31).
Regarding claim 34, Zhou teaches wherein the mixing device comprises a centrifugal mixing path configured to impart a centrifugal force to a combined solvent flow stream received from the mixing tee (the spiral shape of item 12 imparts a centrifugal force on the fluids being mixed).
Regarding claim 35, Zhou teaches wherein the centrifugal mixing path is contoured and shaped to impart a centrifugal force to a high velocity solvent mixture passing between the mixing path inlet and the mixing path outlet at a velocity between about 150 to 17,000 inch/min (the flow rate is considered intended use of the mixer, paragraph 21 teaches picking a flow rate and therefore the mixing apparatus is considered capable of operating at a flow velocity of 150-17,000 inch/min via pump items 70 and 72).
Regarding claim 37, Zhou teaches wherein the mixing chamber is a bead packed mixing chamber (items 24 coated by item 25 are considered beads packed into item 12).
Regarding claim 39, Zhou teaches wherein the blending mixer can operate in a range between 0.5 cycles/minute to 80 cycles/min (the cycles/minute are a function of the flow rate which is considered intended use, paragraph 21 teaches picking a flow rate and therefore the mixing apparatus is considered capable of operating between .5 cycles/minute and 80 cycles/minute).
Regarding claim 40, Zhou teaches a method for mixing solvent streams (figure 1, paragraph 11 teaches mixing two fluids, paragraph 25 teaches a ratio of two solvents) comprising: directing at least two solvent flow streams to a low volume mixing tee (paragraph 25 teaches two solves, item 78 is considered reading on a low volume mixing tee); mixing the at least two solvent flow streams within the low volume mixing tee to create a combined solvent stream (the solvent stream is considered the stream of fluid feeding into item 82); guiding the combined solvent stream through a mixing device (solvent stream passes through item 12); and further mixing the combined solvent stream using a blending mixer located downstream of the mixing device (the solvent stream passes through and is further mixed in item 33).
Regarding claim 43, Zhou teaches wherein the mixing device comprises a centrifugal mixing path configured to impart a centrifugal force to a combined solvent flow stream received from the mixing tee (the spiral shape of item 12 imparts a centrifugal force on the fluids being mixed).
Regarding claim 46, Zhou teaches wherein the blending mixer is a single inlet mixer (item 33 has a single inlet) and comprises: a mixer input port in fluid communication with the mixing device output port (input port is considered the topmost portion of item 33 that receives material from item 12); a mixing chamber (inner volume of item 33); and a mixer output port in fluid communication with the mixing chamber (outlet of item 33 that feeds to item 31).
Regarding claim 47, Zhou teaches wherein the mixing chamber is a bead packed mixing chamber (items 24 coated by item 25 are considered beads packed into item 12).
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 32, 33, 36, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (U.S. Publication 2015/0131405).
Regarding claim 32, Zhou is silent to the specific size of the mixing tee. Regarding claim 32, absent any unexpected results, 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 size of the mixing tee in order to obtain the desired amount of mixed product 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 33, Zhou is silent to the specific diameter of the mixing tee. Regarding claim 33, absent any unexpected results, 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 size of the mixing tee in order to obtain the desired amount of mixed product 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 36, Zhou is silent to the specific diameter of the mixing tee. Regarding claim 36, absent any unexpected results, 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 size of the mixing tee in order to obtain the desired amount of mixed product 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 41, Zhou is silent to the specific size of the mixing tee. Regarding claim 41, absent any unexpected results, 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 size of the mixing tee in order to obtain the desired amount of mixed product 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 42, Zhou is silent to the specific diameter of the mixing tee. Regarding claim 42, absent any unexpected results, 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 size of the mixing tee in order to obtain the desired amount of mixed product 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 44, Zhou teaches choosing a flow rate (paragraph 21 teaches picking a flow rate, the centrifugal force is a function of the flow velocity). Regarding claim 44, Zhou is silent to the specific flow velocity. Regarding claim 44, absent any unexpected results, 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 flow speed to obtain the desired degree of mixing since it has been held that 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 45, Zhou is silent to the specific diameter of the mixing path. Regarding claim 45, absent any unexpected results, 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 size of the mixing path in order to obtain the desired amount of mixed product 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 49, Zhou teaches choosing a flow rate (paragraph 21 teaches picking a flow rate, the cycles are a function of the flow rate). Regarding claim 49, Zhou is silent to the specific cycles/time. Regarding claim 49, absent any unexpected results, 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 flow speed to obtain the desired degree of mixing since it has been held that 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 31 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 31 is broader regarding the mixing path, blending mixer and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 32 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 32 the difference of the size of the mixing tee is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 33 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 33 the difference of the size of the mixing tee is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 34 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 34, the difference being the broader blending mixer language is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 35 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 35, the flow rate range is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 36 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 36, the size of the mixing path is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 37 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 37, the bead packed mixing chamber is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 38 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 38, the diffusion bonded chamber is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 39 is rejected for being nonstatutory double patenting of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,059,659 to Almeida. Claim 39, the cycles/minute range is not considered patentably distinct and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
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