DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 7-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-6 remain canceled from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 June 2026 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 § 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 7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta (U.S. Patent 10,179,826).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta discloses a mixing apparatus 300 comprising:
a material supply line 314 that supplies two or more kinds of materials including a liquid;
a mixing tank 315 that accommodates the two or more kinds of materials that have been supplied through the material supply line;
a stirring device 316 that stirs a mixed solution of the two or more kinds of materials inside the mixing tank, the stirring device including a stirring blade 317 disposed within the mixing tank; and
a transportation line 344 that is connected to the mixing tank and transports the mixed
solution inside the mixing tank to an outside of the mixing tank,
wherein the mixing apparatus is configured to maintain a liquid level height of the mixed solution inside the mixing tank at a level falling within a predetermined range by controlling at least one of a supply amount of the two or more kinds of materials to be supplied into the mixing tank through the material supply line and a transportation amount of the mixed solution to be transported to the outside of the mixing tank through the transportation line (Col. 16 ln 6-23); and
the predetermined range of the liquid level height of the mixed solution is determined based on a height in a vertical position of the stirring blade within the mixing tank (as disclosed in Col. 16 ln 6-23, “Catalyst preparation and delivery system 300 may further comprise a level indicator 319 configured to assess the fluid level within enhanced precontactor 315 and send a signal to flow control device 362A, whereby flow of diluent may be increased, decreased, or maintained as necessary to maintain a desired fluid level within enhanced precontactor 315”. The mixing component 316 comprises paddles 317 to assist in the mixing of the fluid within the precontactor. The determined level must be determined with respect to the paddles, as for one to position the level without respect to the paddles could result in a mixing component that is incapable of mixing should the level be positioned below the lowest of the paddles.) (FIG. 3; Col. 13 ln 27-67, Col. 15 ln 27-56, Col. 16 ln 6-23).
Regarding claim 9, Gupta discloses the transportation line is connected to a lower discharge port (315 at 344, FIG. 3) formed in a lower portion of the mixing tank, and
the transportation line has a return line 346C that returns the mixed solution discharged from
the lower discharge port back into the mixing tank from an upper side of the mixing tank (FIG. 3; Col. 13 ln 27-67).
Regarding claim 10, Gupta discloses the mixing apparatus is configured to maintain the liquid level height of the mixed solution inside the mixing tank at a level falling within a predetermined range by controlling at least one of the supply amount of the two or more kinds of materials to be supplied to the mixing tank through the material supply line, a return amount of the mixed solution to be returned to the mixing tank through the return line, and the transportation amount of the mixed solution to be transported from the mixing tank to another apparatus through the transportation line (FIG. 3; Col. 16 ln 6-23).
Regarding claim 11, Gupta discloses the material supply line has a first opening (315 at 314, FIG. 3) for discharging the two or more kinds of materials into the mixing tank on the upper side of the mixing tank,
the return line has a second opening (315 at 346C above 372, FIG. 3) for discharging the mixed solution into the mixing tank on the upper side of the mixing tank, and
when a transverse cross-section of the mixing tank is divided into six regions at intervals of 60 degrees with a central axis of the mixing tank as a reference, and a first virtual region to a sixth virtual region adjacent to one another in clockwise order are specified, the mixing apparatus is configured such that the two or more kinds of materials are discharged through the first opening onto a liquid level of the mixed solution present in at least one of the first virtual region and the second virtual region, the mixed solution that have been returned through the second opening is discharged onto a liquid level of the mixed solution present in at least one of the fourth virtual region and the fifth virtual region, and discharge of the two or more kinds of materials through the first opening and discharge of the mixed solution through the second opening is undone onto a liquid level of the mixed solution present in the third virtual region and the sixth virtual region (The first and second openings appear to be 180 degrees apart (see FIG. 3), thus meeting the limitation of being in the proper virtual region, as regions 1 and 2 are respectively 180 degrees apart from regions 4 and 5; and all of the regions have the same liquid level, therefore the entry of fluid into 315 is within regions 3 and 6) (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Gupta discloses a production method of a mixed solution, comprising:
supplying two or more kinds of materials including a liquid through a material supply
line 314 to a mixing tank 315 connected to the material supply line and a transportation line 344;
stirring a mixed solution of the two or more kinds of materials inside the mixing tank by a stirring device 316 including a stirring blade 317 disposed within the mixing tank;
transporting the mixed solution to an outside of the mixing tank through the transportation line; and
maintaining a height of a liquid level of the mixed solution inside the mixing tank at a level falling within a predetermined range by controlling at least one of a supply amount of the two or more kinds of materials to be supplied into the mixing tank through the material supply line and a transportation amount of the mixed solution to be transported to the outside of the mixing tank through the transportation line,
wherein the predetermined range of the liquid level height of the mixed solution is determined based on a height in a vertical position of the stirring blade within the mixing tank (as disclosed in Col. 16 ln 6-23, “Catalyst preparation and delivery system 300 may further comprise a level indicator 319 configured to assess the fluid level within enhanced precontactor 315 and send a signal to flow control device 362A, whereby flow of diluent may be increased, decreased, or maintained as necessary to maintain a desired fluid level within enhanced precontactor 315”. The mixing component 316 comprises paddles 317 to assist in the mixing of the fluid within the precontactor. The determined level must be determined with respect to the paddles, as for one to position the level without respect to the paddles could result in a mixing component that is incapable of mixing should the level be positioned below the lowest of the paddles.) (FIG. 3; Col. 13 ln 27-67, Col. 15 ln 27-56, Col. 16 ln 6-23).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta.
Regarding claim 8, Gupta discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7.
Gupta further discloses the stirring device includes:
a shaft portion (Seen in FIG. 3, connecting 316 ad 317) rotatable inside the mixing tank; and
one or a plurality of stirring blades 317 joined to the shaft portion, the stirring blade rotating inside the mixing tank in association with rotation of the shaft portion (FIG. 3, Col. 13 ln 27-67).
Gupta is silent regarding when a height along a vertical direction from a lowermost position of a bottom portion of the mixing tank to an upper end of the stirring blade at an uppermost position is H1, the mixing apparatus is configured to maintain the liquid level height such that the liquid level height becomes equal to or less than 1.21 H1 and equal to or more than a height of a lower end of the stirring blade at the uppermost position.
However, it is observed that the relative height of the liquid with respect to the stirring blade is a result effective variable because the height of the liquid impacts the manner with which the liquid reacts inside of the tank. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manage the height of the liquid at a desired height compared to the stirring blade, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gupta by maintaining the liquid level within the tank at equal to or less than 1.21 H1 and equal to or more than a height of a lower end of the stirring blade at the uppermost position, for the purpose of discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 12, Gupta, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8.
Gupta further discloses the transportation line is connected to a lower discharge port (315 at 344, FIG. 3) formed in a lower portion of the mixing tank, and
the transportation line has a return line 346C that returns the mixed solution discharged from
the lower discharge port back into the mixing tank from an upper side of the mixing tank (FIG. 3; Col. 13 ln 27-67).
Regarding claim 14, Gupta discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8.
Gupta further discloses mixing two or more kinds of material (Col. 14 ln 1-44).
Gupta is silent regarding the specific materials including an ethylenically unsaturated monomer and a neutralizing agent for the ethylenically unsaturated monomer.
However, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding the materials including an ethylenically unsaturated monomer and a neutralizing agent for the ethylenically unsaturated monomer, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language. MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 14 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the materials including an ethylenically unsaturated monomer and a neutralizing agent for the ethylenically unsaturated monomer limitations, the invention as disclosed by Gupta is deemed fully capable of performing such function. Gupta comprises multiple fluids being mixed in a chamber, the fluids are capable of being an ethylenically unsaturated monomer and a neutralizing agent for the ethylenically unsaturated monomer. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by Gupta put forth in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the height of the blades within the mixing tank is not a result effective variable, and therefore the analysis regarding the height of the blades being at least partially responsible for the liquid level. As stated above, the mixing component 316 comprises paddles 317 to assist in the mixing of the fluid within the precontactor. The determined level must be determined with respect to the paddles, as for one to position the level without respect to the paddles could result in a mixing component that is incapable of mixing should the level be positioned below the lowest of the paddles. Furthermore, the desired fluid level is determined with consideration to the height of the lowest of the paddles as the depth of the lowest of the paddles, and the other paddles, is directly responsible for the level of mixing occurring in the tank. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a paddle intended to mix a fluid will mix said fluid differently when positioned at different depths of the fluid. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the height of the stirring blades when determining the desired fluid level. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights