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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 13 and 18 cite a frame. However, there is no clear and concise description of a frame. While Fig. 15b and pgpub [76] mention a linkage 540, which at best appears to be a rod or line, there is no description of a frame or even an enclosing frame-like structure. Dependent claims 15-17, 20 are also rejected by dependency on rejected claims 13, 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laroussi (US 8460283) in view of Blankenship (US 20080187676).
Regarding claim 13. Laroussi teaches in figs. 4a-6a an atmospheric pressure plasma system (plasma generator 500, det desc para. 36, summary of invention, his claim 1) comprising: a first plasma-generating chamber (the cavity inside one of the two nozzles 440/540/640, det desc para. 37) and a second plasma-generating chamber (the cavity inside the other one of the two nozzles 440/540/640, fig. 4-6) configured to generate a first atmospheric pressure plasma and a second atmospheric pressure plasma (fig. 4-6, showing the jets of atmospheric plasma 480/580 from both chambers; for interpretative purposes, the 1st, 2nd plasmas are considered the lower half of each jet), respectively; a first plasma outlet and a second plasma outlet (fig. 4-6, the nozzle pair of 440/540/640 each has an outlet fig. 4, or in fig. 4, 6 where the outlets merge into a triangular section) communicating with the first plasma- generating chamber and the second plasma-generating chamber, respectively (as disc, fig. 4-6, each one of the pair of nozzles and their chambers/cavities release/communicate the gas/plasma thru/with the outlets); plasma plumes extending from the first and second plasma outlets into an ambient environment (fig. 4-6 the said entire jets of plasma form plumes that exit both outlets and eventually into a larger, ambient area, fig. 4 or when they merge and finally exit into ambient space, fig 5, 6).
But does not teach comprises a multi-axis robotics system configured to direct the first plasma-generating chamber and the second plasma-generating chamber. However, Blankenship teaches in fig. 1 [6-11] an open air treatment system with plasma [6-11, 25-28] that has a multi-axis robotics system (robotic arm, fig. 1, operating in multi axis directions [6-11 21-30]) configured to direct the first plasma-generating chamber and the second plasma-generating chamber (it mounts a plasma sprayer, such as 42, 44, equivalent to Laroussi’s plasma generator/head having said two plasma chambers). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Laroussi to be able to be flexibly adjustable and utilized in a wide variety of industries, such as aerospace [1-5, 32-35] and be able to coat difficult to reach areas or objects with difficult geometries [32-35], enhancing the value and usefulness of the apparatus.
Regarding a gas supply configured to supply a gas to the first and second plasma-generating chambers (supplier of carrier gas, i.e. inlet 420/520/620, det desc para. 15, which is a pair of inlets flowing carrier gas to each of the two chambers in the nozzles; this is exactly the same configuration of the applicant’s fig. 15 showing the gas supply 508 as two separate units albeit labeled the same; additionally in Laroussi, each of the pair of inlets also supply both chambers/nozzles, since the gas flow from the inlets combine in 310/410/510 in figs. 3-5), the supplied gas is one of helium, nitrogen, and argon (det desc. Para 38, 79, his claim 2; the carrier gas is helium, argon and nitrogen).
Laroussi further teaches a particle injector (as disc, the nozzle/tube 422/522/622 which injects chemical molecules/particles) for injection of precursor particles into a gas stream (as disc, flows/injects into the merged/combined gas flow near the exit of 422/522/622 being heated by the adjacent upper half of the plasma plumes) preheated by the first plasma-generating chamber (fig. 4, 5 the upper half of the plasma jet is capable of heating the gas flow, which is a combined gas flow from a central tube and both of the plasma nozzles, near the central tube 422/522/622 before particles or other additives, such as gas/fluid/chemical molecules/particles, det des para 35, reach the substrate; the particles are not apparatus structure nor structurally limiting it but are intended use raw materials that can be exchanged depending on user preference, MPEP 2114),
wherein the first plasma outlet and the second plasma outlet are structurally arranged on a frame (fig. 4-6 showing the dual outlet plasma structure on the side of the box/enclosure-like frame x-section structure, eg fig. 4a, 5a) such that the first plasma outlet is offset from the second plasma outlet along a predetermined scanning axis (fig. 4-6 both outlets spaced apart along a vertical direction on which a substrate can be scanned/passed as part of an intended use processing, MPEP 2114), thereby exposing a region of a target substrate to the plasma plume of the first plasma outlet prior to the region receiving cold spray particles injected via the particle injector (this is intended use processing and has no apparatus structure limitations, MPEP 2114; an intended use may include manually applying plasma first to a region of a substrate before applying particles, such as first disabling or having no particles then enabling it as a subsequent process).
Regarding claim 15. Laroussi in view of Blankenship teaches the atmospheric pressure plasma system of claim 13, wherein each of the plasma outlets comprise a converging nozzle having a converging conical section (fig. 5-6 showing the converging/narrowing nozzle with conical cross-section shape forming the combined plasma outlet of 500/600, hence both nozzles share a common feature/structure of a converging nozzles/conical x-section).
Regarding claim 16. Laroussi in view of Blankenship teaches the atmospheric pressure plasma system of claim 13, wherein the gas supply comprises an air supply source (an injecting carrier gas supply or gas injector that supplies the carrier gas having particular gas compositions in para. 15, 16) configured for supplying air to the first and second plasma-generating chambers (para. 15, includes air).
Regarding claim 17. Laroussi in view of Blankenship teaches the atmospheric pressure plasma system of claim 13, wherein the gas supply comprises a helium gas supply source configured for supplying helium to the first and second plasma-generating chambers (para. 15, He also supplied and also prev discussed).
Regarding claim 18. Laroussi teaches an atmospheric pressure plasma system (see claim 13) comprising: a first plasma-generating chamber configured to generate a first atmospheric pressure plasma (claim 13) for preheating a plasma-heated gas stream for introduction of precursor particles for a cold spray coating (eg the lower half of the plasma plume discussed in claim 13 which also heats a lower portion of the gas stream that was previously heated by the upper half of the plume, as disc in claim 13, hence being plasma heated); a second plasma-generating chamber configured to generate a second atmospheric pressure plasma (claim 13); a particle injector for injection of the precursor particles into the plasma-heated gas stream (claim 13); and a first plasma outlet communicating with the first plasma-generating chamber (claim 13) and through which a plasma plume exits into an ambient environment (as disc in claim 13); and a second plasma outlet communicating with the second plasma-generating chamber (claim 13), wherein the first plasma-generating chamber and the second plasma-generating chamber have respectively for emission, via the first plasma outlet and the second plasma outlet, respectively a first axis and a second axis that are directed respectively for emission to a first point and a second point, respectively, and further in view of Blankenship, teaches wherein the atmospheric pressure plasma system further comprises a multi-axis robotics system configured to direct the first plasma-generating chamber and the second plasma-generating chamber (see claim 13). Regarding wherein the first plasma outlet and the second plasma outlet are structurally arranged on a frame such that the first plasma outlet is offset from the second plasma outlet along a predetermined scanning axis, thereby exposing a region of a target substrate to the plasma plume of the first plasma outlet prior to the region receiving cold spray particles injected via the particle injector (see claim 13). Regarding a gas supply configured to supply a gas to the first and second plasma-generating chambers, the supplied gas is one of helium, nitrogen, and argon (see claim 13).
Regarding claim 20. Laroussi in view of Blankenship, teaches the atmospheric pressure plasma system of claim 18, wherein the second point is outside the plasma plume from the first plasma-generating chamber contacting the substrate, and movement of the substrate relative to the first plasma-generating chamber or the second plasma-generating chamber scans the first point and second point on the substrate such that the cold spray coating is applied to a region of the substrate where the plasma plume has momentarily been moved from (as disc in claim 13, the 2nd point is outside the plume of the 1st chamber, such as V-case 2-point contact or the X-case contact to the substrate, where the 2nd axis/2nd point intersects at different parts of the substrate apart from the 1st axis or the plume from the 1st chamber, thus 2 distinct points which allow for scanning across different points along the first plasma plume, such as the V-case as disc in claim 13; additionally, use and details of the substrate all do not limit structure of the apparatus, MPEP 2114 2115).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 regarding the newly amended claims 13, 18 have been fully considered, regarding the newly amended claim language, and the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, modified rejections in view of Laroussi and Blakenship, as well as new matter issues, are provided as necessitated by the amendments, as discussed in detail above. For instance, Laroussi teaches at least wherein the first plasma outlet and the second plasma outlet are structurally arranged on a frame (fig. 4-6 showing the dual outlet plasma structure on the side of the box/enclosure-like frame x-section structure, eg fig. 4a, 5a) such that the first plasma outlet is offset from the second plasma outlet along a predetermined scanning axis (fig. 4-6 both outlets spaced apart along a vertical direction on which a substrate can be scanned/passed as part of an intended use processing, MPEP 2114), thereby exposing a region of a target substrate to the plasma plume of the first plasma outlet prior to the region receiving cold spray particles injected via the particle injector (this is intended use processing and has no apparatus structure limitations, MPEP 2114; an intended use may include manually applying plasma first to a region of a substrate before applying particles, such as first disabling or having no particles then enabling it as a subsequent process). Comments about the dependent claims have also been considered but are dependent on the arguments regarding the newly amended language in claims 13, 18 and are addressed by the modified and new rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
