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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “60C to -80C” there is a missing “-“ for the 60C temperature and the range should be “-60C to -80C”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelova (WO 2015/035479 A1, previously presented) in view of Geology (NPL “Mohs Hardness Scale”, previously presented), Weger (DE 102012017906 A1), Johnson (US 2006/0089090, previously presented), and Folz (US 8,574,371, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Angelova teaches A method for cleaning and treating an external surface ([Abstract]) of a part by using a blasting medium (Ref. 3&4, Fig. 1, [Abstract]) comprising first particles of ice (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) and second particle ([Abstract] describes the second particles being made of corundum), said method comprising a step in which a flow of blasting medium is generated and projected towards an area of the external surface of said part (Fig. 1), the blasting medium having a projection speed (Fig. 1 shows a projection speed of the blasting medium).
Given Angelova’s teaching of the second particle being corundum, Corundum inherently has a hardness of 2000 HV (See Figure below, note examiner interprets HV as Vickers Hardness Scale). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second particle, as taught by Angelova, to have a hardness between 2000 and 2500HV, as taught by Geology, because it is old and well known in the art that corundum inherently has a hardness of 2000HV and it overlaps the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Angelova as modified fails to explicitly teach the blasting medium comprising pellets with a rod shape and the pellets being formed from a compressed and extruded mixture of dry ice and said second particles. Weger teaches producing a blasting medium for abrasive blasting using dry ice and an abrasive and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Weger further teaches a blasting medium ([0001]) comprising pellets ([0025] describes “to form a plurality of individual dry ice pellets” with a rod shape ([0025] describes “dry ice rods…can then be cut, broken…to form a plurality of individual dry ice pellets”), each pellet comprising first particles of ice and second particles ([0025] describes “pellets are produced…in which dry ices snow, here together with the added at least one further abrasive…”), the pellets being formed from a compressed and extruded mixture of dry ice and said second particles ([0025] describes “in which dry ice snow, here together with the added at least one further abrasive, is pushed onto a die having openings by means of at least one piston, is thereby compressed and compressed dry ice rods emerge from the openings of the die…”) so that a plurality of said second particles are embedded in a volume of each of said first particles ([0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the blasting material, as taught by Angelova as modified, to be rod shaped pellets having both particles of ice and second particles, as taught by Weger, by simple substitution to produce the predictable result of being used in abrasive blasting for cleaning surfaces.
Angelova as modified fails to explicitly teach a plurality of said second particles are embedded both in a surface and in a volume of each of said first particles, so that some of the second particles are not fully encased in the first particle. Johnson teaches an abrasive blasting cleaning device using an abrasive and ice mixture and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of blasting surface cleaners. Johnson further teaches a plurality of said second particles ([0037] describes abrasive particles) are embedded both in a surface and in a volume of each of said first particles ([0037] describes dry ice and teaches the abrasive particles embedding into the surface of the dry ice particles), so that some of the second particles are not fully encased in the first particle ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify to modify the first and second particles, as taught by Angelova as modified, to have the second particles being embedded in a surface and in a volume of said first particles, as taught by Johnson, to provide a further benefit of dramatically increases the momentum of the plurality of abrasive particles allowing for more effective cleaning and abrading of a surface ([0037]).
Angelova as modified fails to explicitly teach the blasting medium having a projection speed adjusted to avoid separation between the second particles and the first particles on impact of the first particles against the external surface of the part. Folz teaches a surface cleaning and treatment using an ice mixture and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of blasting surface cleaners. Folz teaches a blasting medium ([Col. 3, Line1-14] talk about an ice blasting medium) having a projection speed from 150 m/s to 500 m/s ([Col. 3, Lines 11-14]). Folz’s range of speeds are below speeds that would cause separation between the first and second particles on impact ([Pg. 2-3] of Angelova describe 300m/s causing vaporization of the dry ice on contact). Given the teachings of vaporization of the dry ice from Angelova as modified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the projection speed, as taught by Angelova as modified, to be below 300 m/s to avoid separation between the second particles and the first particles on impact of the first particles against the external surface of the part, as taught by Folz, since the ranges overlap with the intended range (MPEP 2144.05 I.), it would reduce wear on the nozzle and produce intensive cleaning effect within a relatively short time ([Col. 3, Line 12-13]).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the first particles have a temperature between -60C and -80C ([Abstract] teaches the temperature to be between -70 to -30C).
Regarding Claim 5, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the second particles are corundum particles ([Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 6, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first particles have a diameter between 1mm and 50mm ([Claim 7]).
Regarding Claim 7, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Angelova further teaches wherein the second particles have a diameter between 0.01mm and 0.5mm ([Claim 9]).
Regarding Claim 8, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Folz further teaches wherein said projection speed is between 150 m/s to 500 m/s ([Col. 3, Lines 11-14]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to configure the projection speed, as taught by Angelova as modified, to be between 10m/s and 290m/s, as taught by Folz, since the ranges taught by Folz overlap within the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 I.) and to produce intensive cleaning effect within a relatively short time ([Col. 3, Line 12-13]).
Regarding Claim 9, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Folz further teaches wherein said projection speed is between 150 m/s to 500 m/s ([Col. 3, Lines 11-14]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to configure the projection speed, as taught by Angelova as modified, to be between 100m/s to 150m/s, as taught by Folz, since the ranges taught by Folz overlap within the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 I.) and to produce intensive cleaning effect within a relatively short time ([Col. 3, Line 12-13]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelova as applied to claims 1, 3, and 5-9 above, and further in view Armstrong (US 2008/0176487, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 4, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and teaches a mixing volume of ice and abrasive ([Abstract]) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second particles are in a proportion of between 20 to 40% by volume of the first ice particles. Armstrong teaches surface cleaning and treatment using an abrasive and ice mixture and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of blasting surface cleaners. Armstrong further teaches any desired volume ratio of the two mediums to achieve the optimal blend depending on the properties and factors of the material being cleaned ([0085]). Given the teaching of Armstrong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the second particles are in a proportion of between 20 to 40% by volume of the first ice particles, through routine optimization, based on intended use, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function, to adjust for the surface being cleaned and provide the most optimal cleaning of a surface ([0085], MPEP 2144.05 II.). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the second particles are in a proportion of between 20 to 40% by volume of the first ice particles since there is a lack of criticality for the claimed dimensions and the ranges lack a clear distinction over how the ranges would make a difference to the usability of abrasive ice mixture (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the claim objection of claim 5 but has maintained the claim objection of claim 3. Claim 3 still recites the temperature range to be between 60C and -80C. This range would not allow for the first particles to be ice as the melting point for ice is at 0C and any temperature greater than this would no longer be dry ice.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 August, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant has amended the claims to recite “a blasting medium comprising pellets with a rod shape, each pellet comprising first particles of ice and second particles having a hardness between 2000 and 2500HV, the pellets being formed from a compressed and extruded mixture of dry ice and said second particles…” thereby changing the scope of claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the blasting medium as pellets have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, examiner has applied Weger to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Weger teaches a blasting medium for abrasive blasting ([0001]) that combines both dry ice and an abrasive to compress and extrude into rod shaped pellets ([0025]). Given that Angelova teaches the blasting medium is a dry ice and abrasive mixture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the blasting medium to be a rod shaped pellet since such a modification is merely an alternate alternative structure for cleaning and abrading a surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fong (4,389,820) and Henzler (5,632,150) teach abrasive blasting systems using dry ice and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
