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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 November, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “60C to -80C” that should be “-60C to -80C”.
Claim 7 recites “the first particles have a diameter between 0.01mm and 0.5mm” that should be “the second particles have a diameter between 0.01mm and 0.5mm”.
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), Johnson (US 2006/0089090), 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 a plurality of said second particles being 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) being 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 wherein the first particles are dry ice particles ([Abstract]) having 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 further teaches wherein the first particles have a diameter between 0.01mm and 0.5mm ([Claim 8]).
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 2 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 of Liu (CN 107671733 A, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Angelova teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the first particles are water ice particles. Liu 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. Liu teaches wherein a first particles are water ice particles ([0011] describes water ice particles) having a temperature between -10C and -20C ([0027] teaches the temperature can be adjusted and water ice being created with any temperature under 0 degrees Celsius) and a second particles are some abrasive ([0012]) that can be combined with the first particles to create a blasting medium ([0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ice, as taught by Angelova, to be water ice, as taught by Liu, to provide a further benefit of preventing excess wear on the nozzle due to water ice ([0011]).
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 arguments filed 03 February, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, In response to applicant's argument that there would be no reason to combine the teachings of Angelova and Foz, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further applicant’s arguments that Folz speed would not teach the projection speed being under 300 m/s have been fully considered and are not persuasive. 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]). Although the Folz reference teaches the range to be preferably 300m/s it does not limit the speed from being different due to the given ranges. Therefore, 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]).
Further, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Johnson is used to merely teach the a plurality of said second particles ([0037] describes abrasive particles) being 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]). Examiner is not relying on the reference to teach the speeds of the projection.
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 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 313-418-6775. 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