DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on September 30, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 2-4 and 10-13 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 5-9 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 14-20 have been withdrawn. Replacement Paragraphs were submitted to include reference numerals 618, 628 and a second feed system and a nozzle. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title. Replacement Fig. 6 was include to reference numerals 618, 628.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is maintained. The amendment to the specification and the new drawings should include a statement that no new matter has been added.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“ a first controller, a first heater, a first temperature sensor, .. and to control a first feed temperature and a first feed rate of the first solid powder material; a second feed system
a second temperature sensor, and the second feed system to … and to control a second feed temperature and a second feed rate of the second solid powder material; “ in claim 1;
“one or more additional feed systems, comprising one or more additional controllers, one or more additional heaters, one or more additional temperature sensors, and one or more additional conveyors, the one or more additional feed systems to deliver one or more additional solid powder materials and to control one or more additional feed temperatures and one or more additional feed rates of the one or more additional solid powder materials, wherein the nozzle is configured to receive the one or more additional solid powder materials from the one or more additional feed systems” in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of an amended title.
The previous objection to the specification based on paragraph 63 is withdrawn based on the submission on an amended paragraph 63.
The specification is objected based on paragraph 49. The amendment to the specification should be accompanied by a statement that no new matter has been added.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “wherein the convergent section is closer to the first connection than to the second second connection” in claim 1. Please see interpretation based on Fig. 3 and paragraph 34 below.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites :” first connection and the second connection are coupled to the divergent section”
A suggested revision is :” first connection and the second connection are directly coupled to the divergent section”.
Claim 1 recites :” wherein the convergent section is closer to the first connection than to the second second connection”
Examiner is interpreting the word “closer” based on Fig. 3 and paragraph 34 “a higher position on nozzle 130 (further from spray end) for connection 113 or 123 from feed system 110 or 120”.
Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160024633 A1 to Xue et al (hereinafter Xue) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190094643 A1 to Friedman et al (hereinafter Friedman) .
Regarding claim 1, Von Schleinitz teaches a cold spray deposition system, comprising: a first feed system (one powder supply), the first feed system (one powder supply) to deliver a first solid powder material (white metal powder), the second feed system (second powder supply) to deliver a second solid powder material (separate copper powder) . (See Von Schleinitz, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 11, 15, 23, 30-32, 46, 56, 59, 61-62, 64.)
Von Schleinitz does not explicitly show a nozzle comprising a convergent section, a divergent section in fluid communication with the convergent section, a first connection to the first feed system, and a second connection to the second feed system, the nozzle to receive a carrier fluid in the convergent section and to cold spray at least portions of the carrier fluid and the first and second solid powder materials out of the divergent section.
Steenkiste teaches nozzle for spray applications.
Steenkiste teaches a nozzle (34) comprising a convergent section ( 56), a divergent section (between 58 and 60) in fluid communication with the convergent section (56), a first connection (48 on far right) to the first feed system (first powder feeder 30) , and a second connection (48 second from the far right) to the second feed system( second powder feeder 30) , the nozzle (34) to receive a carrier fluid (gas) in the convergent section (56) and to cold spray at least portions of the carrier fluid (gas) and the first and second solid powder materials out of the divergent section (between 58 and 60). (See Steenkiste, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs 1, 3, 7, 10, 16-17, 19-22, 26.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a nozzle comprising a convergent section, a divergent section in fluid communication with the convergent section, a first connection to the first feed system, and a second connection to the second feed system, the nozzle to receive a carrier fluid in the convergent section and to cold spray at least portions of the carrier fluid and the first and second solid powder materials out of the divergent section, because Steenkiste teaches this structure allows particles to adhere to a substrate positioned opposite the nozzle. (See Steenkiste, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs 1, 3, 7, 10, 16-17, 19-22, 26.)
Regarding claim 1, Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teaches comprising a first controller to control a first feed temperature and a first feed rate of the first solid powder material, a second feed system, comprising a second controller, and to control a second feed temperature and a second feed rate of the second solid powder material.
Lalande is directed to process control systems for continuous feeding systems.
Lalande teaches a first controller (controller connected to x in Fig. 1) to control a first feed temperature (filler material temperature, temperature of the hopper) and a first feed rate of the first solid powder material, a second feed system, comprising a second controller (controller connected to y in Fig. 1), and to control a second feed temperature (filler material temperature, temperature of the hopper) and a second feed rate of the second solid powder material. (See Lalande, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, Fig. 6, and paragraphs 30-33, 36-38, 41-52, 95, 155, 158-159, 176, 297, and 437.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first controller to control a first feed temperature and a first feed rate of the first solid powder material, a second feed system, comprising a second controller, and to control a second feed temperature and a second feed rate of the second solid powder material, because the process control system should also be capable of controlling various sets of multiple variable by measuring or monitoring to affect the deposition on the workpiece. (See Lalande, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, Fig. 6, and paragraphs 8, 10, 15, 36-38, 41-52, 159, and 437.)
Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the first connection and second connection are directly coupled to the divergent section of the nozzle.
Xue is directed to deposition of solid on a substrate using mechanical or metallurgical bonding upon impact.
Xue teaches the first connection (20a) and second connection (20b) are directly coupled to the divergent section of the nozzle. (See Xue, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, and paragraphs 38 and 74, 77-79.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first connection and second connection are directly coupled to the divergent section of the nozzle, because Xue teaches this structure allows the coating of the powder to be formed on the substrate. (See Xue, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, and paragraphs 38, 44, and 74, 77-79.)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))
Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the first controller of the first feed system to control a first feed temperature to below a first melting point of the first solid powder material, and to control a first feed rate of the first solid powder material.
Friedman is directed to deposition of solid on a substrate.
Friedman teaches the first controller of the first feed system to control a first feed temperature to below a first melting point of the first solid powder material (copper or silver), and to control a first feed rate of the first solid powder material in a cold spray application. (See Friedman, paragraphs 50, 71-73, and 78 .) Examiner is considering a cold spray to be below the melting temperatures.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first controller of the first feed system to control a first feed temperature to below a first melting point of the first solid powder material, and to control a first feed rate of the first solid powder material, because Friedman teaches depositing a second material such as aluminum may protect or shield layers of the substrate from subsequently deposited copper or silver particles. (See Friedman, Abstract, paragraphs 25, 47-59, and Figs. 1-10.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the second controller of the second feed system to control a second feed temperature to be lower than the first feed temperature and below a second melting point of the second solid powder material, the second melting point below the first melting point, and to control a second feed rate of the second solid powder material.
Friedman teaches the second controller of the second feed system to control a second feed temperature to be lower than the first feed temperature and below a second melting point of the second solid powder material, and to control a second feed rate of the second solid powder material. (See Friedman, paragraphs 50, 71-73, and 78 .) Examiner is considering a cold spray to be below the melting temperatures.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first controller of the first feed system to control a first feed temperature to below a first melting point of the first solid powder material, the second melting point below the first melting point, and to control a first feed rate of the first solid powder material, because Friedman teaches depositing a second material such as aluminum may protect or shield layers of the substrate from subsequently deposited copper or silver particles. (See Friedman, Abstract, paragraphs 25, 47-59, and Figs. 1-10.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the convergent section is closer to the first connection than to the second connection.
Friedman teaches velocities of particles the nozzle may be varied. (See Friedman, paragraphs 39 and 43.)
Friedman teaches a layer of copper or silver may be overlayed a layer of aluminum. (See Friedman, paragraphs 39,43, and 58.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different positions for the first connection to the convergent section, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location for the connection, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal coating of material with optimal velocity over a first layer. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969))
The previous rejection of claims 2 and 4 is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claims 2 and 4.
The previous rejection of claims 5-6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100143700 A1 to Champagne et al (hereinafter Champagne) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 11.
Claims 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160024633 A1 to Xue et al (hereinafter Xue) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190094643 A1 to Friedman et al (hereinafter Friedman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100143700 A1 to Champagne et al (hereinafter Champagne) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the first solid powder material comprises at least one of a metal, a ceramic, or a polymer.
Champagne teaches the first solid powder material comprises at least one of a metal (titanium), a ceramic, or a polymer. (See Champagne, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 10, 15-16.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first solid powder material comprises at least one of a metal, a ceramic, or a polymer, because Champagne teaches this structure allows particles to be discharged with desired coatings with compressive residual stress and without nozzle fouling using a unitary gas stream. (See Champagne, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 10, 15, and 22.)
Regarding claim 6, Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the second solid powder material comprises copper.
Champagne teaches the second solid powder material comprises copper. (See Champagne, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 10, 15-16.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second solid powder material comprises copper, because Champagne teaches this structure allows particles to be discharged with desired coatings with compressive residual stress and without nozzle fouling using a unitary gas stream. (See Champagne, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 10, 15, and 22.)
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100143700 A1 to Venkatachalapathy et al (hereinafter Venkatachalapathy) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 2.
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190094643 A1 to Friedman et al (hereinafter Friedman) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3.
The previous rejection of claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160024633 A1 to Xue et al (hereinafter Xue) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3 and amendment to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160024633 A1 to Xue et al (hereinafter Xue) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190094643 A1 to Friedman et al (hereinafter Friedman) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the nozzle comprises one or more additional connections in one or more positions distinct from the first and second connections, the one or more additional connections configured to receive the first and second solid powder materials from the first and second feed systems or to receive one or more additional solid powder materials from one or more additional feed systems.
Xue teaches the nozzle comprises one or more additional connections (620-629 in Fig. 4) in one or more positions distinct from the first and second connections, the one or more additional connections configured to receive the first and second solid powder materials from the first and second feed systems or to receive one or more additional solid powder materials from one or more additional feed systems. (See Xue, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, and paragraphs 38,44, and 74, 77-79.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle comprises one or more additional connections in one or more positions distinct from the first and second connections, the one or more additional connections configured to receive the first and second solid powder materials from the first and second feed systems or to receive one or more additional solid powder materials from one or more additional feed systems, because Xue teaches this structure can reduce or eliminate nozzle erosion and clogging temperatures. (See Xue, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, and paragraphs 38,44, and 74, 77-79.)
The previous rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,257,447 to Schlienger et al (hereinafter Schlienger) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160024633 A1 to Xue et al (hereinafter Xue) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190094643 A1 to Friedman et al (hereinafter Friedman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,257,447 to Schlienger et al (hereinafter Schlienger).
Regarding claim 7, Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the first feed rate is controlled independent of the second feed rate and the second feed rate is controlled independent of the first feed rate.
Schlienger is directed to precision controlled feeders.
Schlienger teaches the first feed rate is controlled independent of the second feed rate and the second feed rate is controlled independent of the first feed rate. (See Schlienger, Abstract, Fig. 6, and col. 4, lines 45-60.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first connection and second connection are directly coupled to the divergent section of the nozzle, because Schlienger teaches this structure allows the individual feed rates to be controlled to provide a final powder mixture with the desired composition. (See Schlienger, Abstract, Fig. 6, and col. 4, lines 45-60.)
Regarding claim 8, Von Schleinitz does not explicitly teach the first feed temperature is controlled independent of the second feed temperature and the second feed temperature is controlled independent of the first feed temperature.
Schlienger teaches the first feed temperature is controlled independent of the second feed temperature and the second feed temperature is controlled independent of the first feed temperature. (See Schlienger, Abstract, Fig. 6, and col. 4, lines 45-60.)
Examiner is considering the flow rate to be a dependent variable as described in Lalande being influenced by the temperature of the powder. Examiner is considering independent control of the flow rate to be indirectly affected by temperature.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first feed temperature is controlled independent of the second feed temperature and the second feed temperature is controlled independent of the first feed temperature, because Schlienger teaches this structure allows the individual control of each powder is provide so that a final powder mixture with the desired composition can be provided. (See Schlienger, Abstract, Fig. 6, and col. 4, lines 45-60.)
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160024633 A1 to Xue et al (hereinafter Xue) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 10.
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100143700 A1 to Champagne et al (hereinafter Champagne) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160024633 A1 to Xue et al (hereinafter Xue) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 10.
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240093730 A1 to Thilo Von Schleinitz (hereinafter Von Schleinitz) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109245 A1 to Lalande et al (hereinafter Lalande) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030190414 A1 to Thomas Hubert Van Steenkiste (hereinafter Steenkiste) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100143700 A1 to Champagne et al (hereinafter Champagne) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20110052811 A1 to McGuffey et al (hereinafter McGuffey) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5-9 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 argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20220017309 A1 to Kimura et al (hereinafter Kimura) teaches it is known to monitor temperature in powder feeding devices (See Kimura, paragraphs 67 and 125). US Pat. Num. 12, 091, 754 B2 to Ozdemir teaches ports extending through the outer portions of the convergent section of the nozzle.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717