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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. MPEP § 609.04(a)(III); see Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Thus, though MPEP § 609A(3) allows the applicant some discretion in the manner in which it phrases its concise explanation, it nowhere authorizes the applicant to intentionally omit altogether key teachings of the reference.”). Specifically, Applicant appears to have submitted the entirety of the Chinese office action dated 09/03/2025 for consideration of the substance therein (including the examiner’s discussion of the cited art and the reasoning for allowance and/or rejection of the claims), but Applicant provided a translation of only the last three pages of the office action. The Chinese office action appears to be relevant to the patentability of the claims in this case, but the substance of the Chinese office action cannot be understood without a complete translation. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-16, 19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the external side” (line 12). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear if this refers to the earlier recited “external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle” or something else. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-5, 9-11, 13-16, and 19 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1. Examiner notes that the term “external side” is present in claims 14 and 19 as well and suggests that these terms be reviewed for consistency and intention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle” (line 8). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear if this refers to the earlier recited “external side of the cavitation peening nozzle” or something else. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 22-26 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 21. Examiner notes that the term “external surface” is present in claim 23 as well and suggests that these terms be reviewed for consistency and intention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle” (line 8). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear if this refers to the earlier recited “external side of the cavitation peening nozzle” or something else. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Examiner notes that the term “external surface” is present later in the claim (two instances) and suggests that these terms be reviewed for consistency and intention.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the cavitation peening nozzle includes the spacing device, which includes a plurality of protrusions extending from an external side of the cavitation peening nozzle”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does the “plurality of protrusions” refer to the “plurality of triangular vanes” recited in claim 1, or to something else? Examiner notes that the specification does not appear to support the existence of a plurality of vanes and a separate plurality of protrusions. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 19 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 14.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein the spacing device includes a plurality of vanes evenly distributed around the external side of the cavitation peening nozzle.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does the “plurality of vanes” refer to the “plurality of triangular vanes” recited in claim 1, or to another “plurality of vanes”? Further, is this “plurality of vanes” in addition to the “plurality of protrusions” recited in claim 14? Examiner notes that the specification does not appear to support the existence of a plurality of vanes and a separate plurality of protrusions. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Sanders in view of Ohashi and Loitherstein
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, 14-15, 19, 21-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190061103 A1 (“Sanders”) in view of US 20100255759 A1 (“Ohashi”) and US 5465791 A (“Loitherstein”).
Sanders pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 2). Ohashi pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Loitherstein pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in an auger bore (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6; 1:6-34). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Loitherstein is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in a hole.
Regarding claim 1, Sanders discloses a method of smoothing an inner surface of a workpiece (Figs. 2, 4, 5), comprising:
immersing a workpiece in a mixture of a liquid and an abrasive (Figs. 2, 5; ¶ 0035, workpiece 36 is immersed in tank 24 in a mixture of water 26 and abrasive 40),
and injecting a cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle into the cavity (Figs. 2, 4, 5; ¶ 0035, nozzle 22 injects a cavitating jet into a cavity of the workpiece 36 (e.g., Fig. 5, at upper surface)).
Sanders does not explicitly disclose:
inserting a cavitation peening nozzle into a cavity of the workpiece,
guiding the cavitation peening nozzle along a substantially centered path through a tubular section of the cavity by using a spacing device between an external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle and an inner surface of the tubular section of the cavity, wherein the spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to a direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle,
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of triangular vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle, wherein a plane defined by each of the plurality of triangular vanes is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle,
using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth a tubular configuration of the workpiece,
and detaching the spacing device and attaching another differently sized spacing device sized for smoothing a different tubular configuration, wherein the another differently sized spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to the direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle.
However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious this claim.
Ohashi discloses:
inserting a cavitation peening nozzle into a cavity of the workpiece (Figs. 4-7, nozzle 43a is inserted into the cavity of workpiece 44),
guiding the cavitation peening nozzle along a substantially centered path through a tubular section of the cavity by using a spacing device between an external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle and an inner surface of the tubular section of the cavity, wherein the spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to a direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, nozzle 43a is centered and moved in the tubular section of cavity 44 using supporting elements 53/53a/53b (“spacing device”) attached to nozzle 43a that extend outward from the external surface of the nozzle 43a relative to the fluid flow direction),
using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth a tubular configuration of the workpiece (Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0124-0129, the cavitating jet from nozzle 43a is used to smooth the inside of the tubular workpiece 44),
and detaching the spacing device and attaching another differently sized spacing device sized for smoothing a different tubular configuration, wherein the another differently sized spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to the direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle (Ohashi ¶ 0126, supporting member 53 includes a spring used to extend/conform the rollers 53a to tubes of different diameters, “The kind of the actuator 51 is not especially limited, as long as it can accurately and constantly controls the distance 52 of the processing passage, without inhibiting the flow of the processing fluid 8 into the fluid suction passage 47.”; see discussion below).
Loitherstein discloses:
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of triangular vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle, wherein a plane defined by each of the plurality of triangular vanes is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6, spacing device 8 with triangular vanes 12, a plane defined by the triangular vanes 12 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the central pipe 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ohashi with Sanders by modifying the use of the Sanders method and apparatus to abrade an inner surface of a tubular workpiece by inserting the cavitation nozzle into the cavity of the workpiece, as taught by Ohashi, and also to use a spacing device with the nozzle as taught by Ohashi to accomplish the “guiding...along a substantially centered path” limitation. This would have been obvious because this is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Sanders contemplates using the disclosed abrasion method and apparatus to abrade an internal surface of a workpiece (Sanders ¶ 0058, “Since the cavitation cloud and bubbles impart a swirling and multi-directional motion to the abrasive media, material may be removed from tight corners, crevices, and internal features of the workpiece.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an internal surface (e.g., inside a cavity of a workpiece) could be abraded more efficiently by inserting the cavitation nozzle of Sanders into the cavity of the workpiece to reach that internal surface, as taught by Ohashi. This would be an improvement over attempting to abrade the internal surface of the workpiece without inserting the cavitation nozzle into the cavity, as the closer proximity to the internal surface would yield better abrasion results. Moreover, the use of the Ohashi spacing device to guide the nozzle along a centered path in the tubular cavity would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill as this would be required to ensure even abrasion along the inner surfaces of the cavity (see Ohashi Figs. 6, 7; ¶ 0126, “accurately and constantly controls the distance 52 of the processing passage”).
To the extent Ohashi does not explicitly disclose “wherein the spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the spacing device (e.g., from its position in Fig. 7 (near element 51 of Fig. 6)) to attach it to the nozzle instead because this would have been obvious to try in order to see if the closer placement of the spacing device to the nozzle 43a would result in a more consistent finish over the entire inner surface of the tubular workpiece compared to its present location or other locations further away from the nozzle (e.g., may provide greater nozzle stability during usage). Applicant has not disclosed that having the spacing device attached directly to the nozzle, as opposed to being attached upstream of the nozzle, provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this positioning as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to the “detaching” and “attaching” limitations, Applicant states no new and unexpected result due to making the spacing device detachable/attachable or replaceable with another spacing device, but only the ordinary result of being able to do so to abrade different sized workpiece cavities (Spec. p. 16, lines 1-9). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application because a detachable and attachable spacing device would facilitate replacement in case of failure or resizing for a different workpiece (see below). In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (“If it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of Peterson’s holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
With respect to attaching “another spacing device sized for smoothing a different tubular configuration, wherein the another differently sized spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to the direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle”, the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to any particular size for the spacing device (or for a replacement spacing device). Attaching a replacement spacing device having a different size would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application because Ohashi contemplates using the disclosed abrasive apparatus to smooth workpieces (e.g., tubes) of different sizes (Ohashi ¶ 0126, supporting member 53 includes a spring used to extend/conform the rollers 53a to tubes of different diameters), and the spacing device of Ohashi could be replaced with one that is sized (e.g., having different length elements 53b (Ohashi Fig. 7)) for the workpiece at hand (see Ohashi ¶ 0126, “The kind of the actuator 51 is not especially limited, as long as it can accurately and constantly controls the distance 52 of the processing passage, without inhibiting the flow of the processing fluid 8 into the fluid suction passage 47.”). Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device based on a difference in dimensions because it would perform no differently than the prior art device); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Loitherstein with the Sanders/Ohashi combination to modify the vanes of Ohashi (supporting elements 53/53a/53b) to have a triangular shape, or substitute out the spacing device of Ohashi with spacing device 8 of Loitherstein, because this is simply a design choice which reduces the number of parts and increases the durability and reliability of the device as a result. Ohashi explicitly contemplates the use of different types of actuators with the nozzle for proper centering and spacing (Ohashi ¶ 0126, “The kind of the actuator 51 is not especially limited, as long as it can accurately and constantly controls the distance 52 of the processing passage, without inhibiting the flow of the processing fluid 8 into the fluid suction passage 47.”). Applicant has not disclosed that having a spacing device with triangular vanes provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs (Spec. p. 10, line 18–p. 11, line 4, “Any shape and/or number of vanes 242 allowing sufficient flow and providing effective positioning of nozzle 212 may be included in guide attachment 240”). Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this “triangular vanes” feature as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses moving the cavitation peening nozzle through the tubular section of the cavity of the workpiece, wherein the tubular section has a circumferential wall (Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0119, 0122, nozzle 43a is moved in the cavity of workpiece 44 with a tubular section having a circumferential wall 44a).
Regarding claim 3, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 2 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses maintaining a radial space between the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle and the circumferential wall of the tubular section during moving (Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0119, 0122, nozzle 43a is moved in the cavity while maintaining a radial space between the nozzle 43a and the circumferential wall 44a).
Regarding claim 5, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Sanders further discloses wherein the mixture is contained in a tank, and further comprising mixing the mixture to maintain suspension of the abrasive in the liquid (Figs. 2, 4, 5, tank 24 holds a mixture of water and abrasive; ¶ 0035, “FIG. 5 shows workpiece 36 supported by a stage 70, in a swirling mixture of cavitation bubbles and abrasive media 40”).
Regarding claim 9, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Sanders further discloses wherein a tank contains the mixture of the liquid and the abrasive, and further comprising using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth an inner surface of the cavity of the workpiece (Figs. 2, 4, 5, tank 24 holds a mixture of water and abrasive, nozzle 22 injects a cavitating jet into a cavity of the workpiece 36 (e.g., Fig. 5, at upper surface); ¶ 0035, “abrasive media 40 may be acted on by the high forces of the cavitation cloud to smooth rough surface 72”).
Regarding claim 10, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 9 as applied above. Sanders further discloses wherein the tank includes a mixing device for maintaining a concentration of abrasive particles in the mixture (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0032, 0034, corkscrew 54 and conduit 42 promote and maintain a concentration of abrasive particles in the mixture, at least in the area near reference 38).
Regarding claim 14, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 2 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses wherein the cavitation peening nozzle includes the spacing device, which includes a plurality of protrusions extending from an external side of the cavitation peening nozzle, configured to maintain an equal radial distance between the external side of the cavitation peening nozzle and the circumferential wall (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, nozzle 43a is centered in the tubular section of cavity 44 using supporting elements 53/53a/53b (“a spacing device” with “a plurality of protrusions”)).
Regarding claim 19, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 14 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses wherein the spacing device includes a plurality of vanes evenly distributed around the external side of the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, spacing device 53 has a plurality of vanes 53b evenly distributed around nozzle 43a).
The obviousness rationale for claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 14, and 19 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 2 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses wherein the cavitation peening nozzle has a cross-sectional diameter parallel to an inner diameter of the tubular section, the cross-sectional diameter of the cavitation peening nozzle being less than approximately 75 percent of the inner diameter of the tubular section (Fig. 6, diameter of nozzle 43a is parallel to and is less than 75 percent of the inner diameter of the tubular section of workpiece 44, as shown by distances 52).
To the extent Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional diameter of the cavitation peening nozzle being less than approximately 75 percent of the inner diameter of the tubular section, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious this claim.
The modification of the diameter of the Ohashi nozzle 43a to be less than 75 percent of the diameter of the tubular section (e.g., by resizing nozzle 43a or applying the method (without changing nozzle 43a) to a different sized tubular section) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the ratio of the two diameters is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of allowing proper fluid/abrasive flow in the tubular section (see Ohashi ¶ 0126, “without inhibiting the flow of the processing fluid 8 into the fluid suction passage 47”). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Accordingly, the claimed diameter ratio is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any criticality or significance (novel or unexpected results) to any ratio (Spec. p. 10, lines 10-11, “Preferably, outer diameter 247 may be less than approximately 75% of inner diameter 248.”). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 21, Sanders discloses a method of smoothing an inner surface of a workpiece (Figs. 2, 4, 5), comprising:
immersing the workpiece in a mixture of a liquid and an abrasive (Figs. 2, 5; ¶ 0035, workpiece 36 is immersed in tank 24 in a mixture of water 26 and abrasive 40),
injecting a cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle into the cavity (Figs. 2, 4, 5; ¶ 0035, nozzle 22 injects a cavitating jet into a cavity of the workpiece 36 (e.g., Fig. 5, at upper surface)).
Sanders does not explicitly disclose:
inserting a cavitation peening nozzle into a cavity of the workpiece,
wherein the cavitation peening nozzle comprises a spacing device configured to maintain a substantially equal radial distance between an external side of the cavitation peening nozzle and a wall of the cavity, wherein the spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to a direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle,
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of triangular vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle, wherein a plane defined by each of the plurality of triangular vanes is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle,
and using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth a tubular configuration of the workpiece.
However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious this claim.
Ohashi discloses:
inserting a cavitation peening nozzle into a cavity of the workpiece (Figs. 4-7, nozzle 43a is inserted into the cavity of workpiece 44),
wherein the cavitation peening nozzle comprises a spacing device configured to maintain a substantially equal radial distance between an external side of the cavitation peening nozzle and a wall of the cavity, wherein the spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to a direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, nozzle 43a is centered (equal radial distance) and moved in the tubular section of cavity 44 using supporting elements 53/53a/53b attached to nozzle 43a that extend outward from the external surface of the nozzle 43a relative to the fluid flow direction),
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of...vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, spacing device 53 has a plurality of vanes 53b extending radially from and evenly distributed around nozzle 43a around its longitudinal axis),
and using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth a tubular configuration of the workpiece (Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0124-0129, the cavitating jet from nozzle 43a is used to smooth the inside of the tubular workpiece 44).
Loitherstein discloses:
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of triangular vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle, wherein a plane defined by each of the plurality of triangular vanes is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6, spacing device 8 with triangular vanes 12 extending radially from and evenly distributed around central pipe 18, a plane defined by the triangular vanes 12 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the central pipe 18).
The obviousness rationale for claim 21 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 21 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses moving the cavitation peening nozzle through a tubular section of the cavity of the workpiece, wherein the tubular section has a circumferential wall (Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0119, 0122, nozzle 43a is moved in the cavity of workpiece 44 with a tubular section having a circumferential wall 44a).
Regarding claim 23, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 22 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses maintaining a radial space between an external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle and the circumferential wall of the tubular section during moving (Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0119, 0122, nozzle 43a is moved in the cavity while maintaining a radial space between the nozzle 43a and the circumferential wall 44a).
Regarding claim 25, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 21 as applied above. Sanders further discloses wherein the mixture is contained in a tank, and further comprising mixing the mixture to maintain suspension of the abrasive in the liquid (Figs. 2, 4, 5, tank 24 holds a mixture of water and abrasive; ¶ 0035, “FIG. 5 shows workpiece 36 supported by a stage 70, in a swirling mixture of cavitation bubbles and abrasive media 40”).
Regarding claim 26, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 21 as applied above. Sanders further discloses wherein a tank contains the mixture of the liquid and the abrasive, and further comprising using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth an inner surface of the cavity of the workpiece (Figs. 2, 4, 5, tank 24 holds a mixture of water and abrasive, nozzle 22 injects a cavitating jet into a cavity of the workpiece 36 (e.g., Fig. 5, at upper surface); ¶ 0035, “abrasive media 40 may be acted on by the high forces of the cavitation cloud to smooth rough surface 72”).
The obviousness rationale for claims 22-23 and 25-26 is the same as for claim 21 (which includes the obviousness rationale for claim 1).
Regarding claim 27, Sanders discloses a method of smoothing an inner surface of a workpiece (Figs. 2, 4, 5), comprising:
immersing the workpiece in a mixture of a liquid and an abrasive (Figs. 2, 5; ¶ 0035, workpiece 36 is immersed in tank 24 in a mixture of water 26 and abrasive 40),
injecting a cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle into the cavity (Figs. 2, 4, 5; ¶ 0035, nozzle 22 injects a cavitating jet into a cavity of the workpiece 36 (e.g., Fig. 5, at upper surface)).
Sanders does not explicitly disclose:
inserting a cavitation peening nozzle into a cavity of the workpiece,
wherein the cavitation peening nozzle comprises a spacing device configured to maintain a substantially equal radial distance between an external side of the cavitation peening nozzle and a wall of the cavity, wherein the spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to a direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle,
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of triangular vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle, wherein a plane defined by each of the plurality of triangular vanes is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle,
guiding the cavitation peening nozzle along a substantially centered path through a tubular section of the cavity by using the spacing device between an external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle and an inner surface of the tubular section of the cavity,
using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth a tubular configuration of the workpiece,
and detaching the spacing device and attaching another differently sized spacing device sized for smoothing a different tubular configuration, wherein the another differently sized spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to the direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle.
However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious this claim.
Ohashi discloses:
inserting a cavitation peening nozzle into a cavity of the workpiece (Figs. 4-7, nozzle 43a is inserted into the cavity of workpiece 44),
wherein the cavitation peening nozzle comprises a spacing device configured to maintain a substantially equal radial distance between an external side of the cavitation peening nozzle and a wall of the cavity, wherein the spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to a direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, nozzle 43a is centered (equal radial distance) and moved in the tubular section of cavity 44 using supporting elements 53/53a/53b attached to nozzle 43a that extend outward from the external surface of the nozzle 43a relative to the fluid flow direction),
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of...vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, spacing device 53 has a plurality of vanes 53b extending radially from and evenly distributed around nozzle 43a around its longitudinal axis),
guiding the cavitation peening nozzle along a substantially centered path through a tubular section of the cavity by using a spacing device between an external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle and an inner surface of the tubular section of the cavity (Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0126, nozzle 43a is centered and moved in the tubular section of cavity 44 using supporting elements 53/53a/53b),
using the cavitating jet from the cavitation peening nozzle to smooth a tubular configuration of the workpiece (Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0124-0129, the cavitating jet from nozzle 43a is used to smooth the inside of the tubular workpiece 44),
and detaching the spacing device and attaching another differently sized spacing device sized for smoothing a different tubular configuration, wherein the another differently sized spacing device is attached to the cavitation peening nozzle and extends outward from the external surface of the cavitation peening nozzle relative to the direction of fluid flow through the cavitation peening nozzle (Ohashi ¶ 0126, supporting member 53 includes a spring used to extend/conform the rollers 53a to tubes of different diameters, “The kind of the actuator 51 is not especially limited, as long as it can accurately and constantly controls the distance 52 of the processing passage, without inhibiting the flow of the processing fluid 8 into the fluid suction passage 47.”; see discussion in claim 1 above).
Loitherstein discloses:
wherein the spacing device comprises a plurality of triangular vanes both extending radially from the external side and substantially evenly distributed around a longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle, wherein a plane defined by each of the plurality of triangular vanes is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6, spacing device 8 with triangular vanes 12 extending radially from and evenly distributed around central pipe 18, a plane defined by the triangular vanes 12 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the central pipe 18).
The obviousness rationale for claim 27 is the same as for claim 1.
Sanders in view of Ohashi, Loitherstein, and Soyama
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190061103 A1 (“Sanders”) in view of US 20100255759 A1 (“Ohashi”), US 5465791 A (“Loitherstein”), and Soyama, Hitoshi; Key Factors and Applications of Cavitation Peening, Int. J. of Peening Science and Tech., vol. 1, pp. 3-60; 2017 (“Soyama”).
Sanders pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 2). Ohashi pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Loitherstein pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in an auger bore (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6; 1:6-34). Soyama pertains to a methods for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Loitherstein is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in a hole.
Regarding claim 4, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 2 as applied above. Sanders, Ohashi, and Loitherstein do not explicitly disclose wherein the moving step includes varying a rate of moving the cavitation peening nozzle through the tubular section in relation to changes in an inner diameter of the circumferential wall. However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein/Soyama combination makes obvious this claim.
Soyama discloses that the intensity of abrasion using a cavitation nozzle depends on various parameters, including the distance between the nozzle and the workpiece surface (p. 16, “In order to show how the aggressive intensity of a submerged high speed water jet varies with standoff distance, Fig. 10 shows the mass loss as a function of standoff distance at constant injection pressure for various cavitation numbers”; pp. 24-26) and processing time per unit length (Soyama Fig. 22; p. 29-32, abrasion intensity is a function of “processing time per unit length”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Soyama with the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination to modify the moving step to include varying a rate of moving the cavitation peening nozzle through the tubular section in relation to changes in an inner diameter of the circumferential wall. This would have been obvious because, based on Soyama’s teachings, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that the intensity of abrasion depends on the distance between the nozzle and the workpiece surface (Soyama pp. 16, 24-26). Thus, in the process of abrading an internal tubular wall, it would have been obvious to compensate for a drop (or increase) in abrasion intensity due to an enlarged diameter (or decreased diameter) by altering other parameters related to abrasion intensity, including the abrasion time by having the nozzle spend more time (i.e., “rate of moving”) abrading the enlarged diameter region compared to smaller diameter regions, thereby varying the movement rate of the nozzle through a tubular region that has changes in inner diameter (Soyama Fig. 22; p. 29-32, abrasion intensity is a function of “processing time per unit length”).
Regarding claim 24, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 22 as applied above. Sanders, Ohashi, and Loitherstein do not explicitly disclose wherein moving includes varying a rate of moving the cavitation peening nozzle through the tubular section in relation to changes in an inner diameter of the circumferential wall. However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein/Soyama combination makes obvious this claim.
Soyama discloses that the intensity of abrasion using a cavitation nozzle depends on various parameters, including the distance between the nozzle and the workpiece surface (p. 16, “In order to show how the aggressive intensity of a submerged high speed water jet varies with standoff distance, Fig. 10 shows the mass loss as a function of standoff distance at constant injection pressure for various cavitation numbers”; pp. 24-26) and processing time per unit length (Soyama Fig. 22; p. 29-32, abrasion intensity is a function of “processing time per unit length”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 24 is the same as for claim 4 but depending from claim 22 (which includes the obviousness rationale for claim 1).
Sanders in view of Ohashi, Loitherstein, and Yeo
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190061103 A1 (“Sanders”) in view of US 20100255759 A1 (“Ohashi”), US 5465791 A (“Loitherstein”), and US 20220161387 A1 (“Yeo”).
Sanders pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 2). Ohashi pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Loitherstein pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in an auger bore (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6; 1:6-34). Yeo pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 4). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Loitherstein is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in a hole.
Regarding claim 11, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 10 as applied above. Sanders, Ohashi, and Loitherstein do not explicitly disclose wherein the maintained concentration is between approximately 10 and 60 percent. However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein/Yeo combination makes obvious this claim.
Yeo discloses wherein the maintained concentration is between approximately 10 and 60 percent (¶ 0066, “The slurry 80 comprises a suspended mixture of abrasive particles. The slurry 80 may comprise a concentration of up to 30% (by wt.) of abrasive particles suspended in a liquid.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Yeo with the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination to use a “maintained concentration” of the abrasive in the liquid of up to 30%, as taught by Yeo, for the purpose of obtaining the desired cavitation characteristics for the abrading task. The specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any criticality or significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular “maintained concentration” (see Spec. p. 18, lines 26-27). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Sanders in view of Ohashi, Loitherstein, and McAfee
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190061103 A1 (“Sanders”) in view of US 20100255759 A1 (“Ohashi”), US 5465791 A (“Loitherstein”), and US 20130284440 A1 (“McAfee”).
Sanders pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 2). Ohashi pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Loitherstein pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in an auger bore (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6; 1:6-34). McAfee pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Loitherstein is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in a hole.
Regarding claim 13, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Sanders, Ohashi, and Loitherstein do not explicitly disclose wherein the abrasive includes garnet grit. However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein/McAfee combination makes obvious this claim.
McAfee discloses wherein the abrasive includes garnet grit (¶ 0105, “an abrasive with the properties within or similar to the complex family of silicate minerals such as garnet is utilized. Garnets are a complex family of silicate minerals with similar structures and a wide range of chemical compositions and properties. The general chemical formula for garnet is AB (SiO), where A can be calcium, magnesium, ferrous iron or manganese; and B can be aluminum, chromium, ferric iron, or titanium.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of McAfee with the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination and use garnet grit as the abrasive (or as a part of the abrasive) because “[g]arnets tend to be inert and resist gradation and are excellent choices for an abrasive” in an abrasive fluid jet application” (McAfee ¶¶ 0105-0107). Further, it would have been obvious to use garnet as it is a commonly used type of silicate material for abrasives similar to silica oxide, which is disclosed by Sanders (Sanders ¶ 0046, “Abrasive media 212, 216, 218 may include particles of any effective material, of any grit size, or may include a mixture of materials. For example, a media may include metal, glass, ceramic, silica oxide, aluminum oxide, pumice, nut shells, corn cob, or plastic abrasive particles. Each media may include particles preferably within a range of approximately 16 to 1200 ANSI grit size.”).
Sanders in view of Ohashi, Loitherstein, and Kozey
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190061103 A1 (“Sanders”) in view of US 20100255759 A1 (“Ohashi”), US 5465791 A (“Loitherstein”), and US 20120145813 A1 (“Kozey”).
Sanders pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 2). Ohashi pertains to a method and apparatus for fluid abrasion using cavitation (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Loitherstein pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in an auger bore (Figs. 1A-B, 2-6; 1:6-34). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Kozey pertains to a hose construction (Abstr.; Fig. 1) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it discloses hose constructions that could be used in various applications, including for a fluid abrasion process. To the extent Loitherstein is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it pertains to a spacing device for guiding and centering a pipe in a hole.
Regarding claim 16, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Ohashi further discloses wherein the cavitation peening nozzle is connected to a fluid source by a conduit, and the conduit includes a flexible portion (Figs. 4-5; ¶ 0120, nozzle 43a connected to the fluid source via tube 43, “tube body 43 is made up of the flexible material like a flexible tube that connects a hose made from a rubber, a vinyl, a plastic or the like, and a plurality of hard materials made from a stainless or the like”).
Sanders, Ohashi, and Loitherstein do not explicitly disclose the conduit having a metal reinforced outer flexible hose and a polymeric inner flexible hose. However, the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein/Kozey combination makes obvious this claim.
Kozey discloses the conduit having a metal reinforced outer flexible hose and a polymeric inner flexible hose (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0016, “conduit 14 is a polymeric hose reinforced with metal braid 37”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kozey with the Sanders/Ohashi/Loitherstein combination and use the hose construction taught by Kozey because it is a stronger design (i.e., has a metal reinforced outer layer) than what is explicitly disclosed in Sanders or Ohashi. Although Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the claimed hose construction, Ohashi discloses that the hose could be made of various materials, which conveys to a person of ordinary skill that a hose made up of both polymer and metal could be used (Ohashi ¶ 0120, “tube body 43 is made up of the flexible material like a flexible tube that connects a hose made from a rubber, a vinyl, a plastic or the like, and a plurality of hard materials made from a stainless or the like”).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 6-8, 12, 17-18, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-16, 19, and 21-27 are pending. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-16, 19, and 21-27 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejection of claims 21-27 is hereby withdrawn (but see new rejection due to Applicant’s amendments).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 21, and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723