DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 4/21/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, & 20-28 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 1 & 20 is/are currently amended, claim(s) 27-28 are newly added; all other claims are original or previously presented. Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Claim Objections
Claims 28 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least one vibrator mounted to one of the hoppers. a plurality of flow valves” is assumed to be ” at least one vibrator mounted to one of thehoppers, a plurality of flow valves.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 20 & 25-26 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20
The claim states "the linear continuous first tube". It is unclear whether this is the linear first tube or a new tube. For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “the linear
All dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-12, & 20-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (US 20080176487) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20060089090) further in view of Lynn (US 5325638), hereinafter Armstrong, Johnson, & Lynn, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. (Claim Statuses are listed above in the Status of Claims Section) Armstrong discloses a cleaning system for mixing a plurality of cleaning materials into a mixture and then spraying the mixture to clean or prepare a surface [Fig 6] comprising:
…;
a first hopper [610] contained …, the first hopper containing dry ice [¶100; 610 can hold dry ice];
a second hopper [620]…, the second hopper containing a second cleaning blast media [¶100; 620 can hold grit (i.e. a blast media) for cleaning];
a single delivery [Fig 6; ¶30 & ¶98; 630 is a metering device (single delivery device)] … configured to receive and mix the dry ice from the first hopper and the second blast media from the second hopper [Fig 6; ¶98; the single delivery device mixes the dry ice and second blast media as disclosed in ¶98 both tubes (616 & 626) provide particles to 630]
…;
an abrasive hopper tubing extending from the second hopper to the delivery … [;
a single air source [640] …;
a hose [¶71; the compressor is connected to an applicator or nozzle (see Fig 2 for an example) by a hose or conduit]…; and
a nozzle attached to the hose [¶71; the compressor is connected to an applicator or nozzle (see Fig 2 for an example) by a hose or conduit].
Armstrong may not explicitly disclose a housing, a first hopper contained within the housing, the second hopper extending outwardly from a side of the housing, a single delivery tube extending along a bottom of the housing, an auger contained within the delivery tube, a single air source connected to the housing, or a hose extending from the housing.
However Johnson teaches a blasting system that mixes dry ice with an abrasive media, specifically Johnson teaches a housing that supports two hoppers and a tube connecting them [Fig 1 & 3; ¶25; 50 is a housing; ¶25 states “the trailer 50 houses a pumping system…a CO2 pellet hopper 19 (dry ice), an abrasive particle hopper 20 (FIG. 3)…”; and has tubing connecting them contained within the housing]; a single air source connected to the housing [Fig 1; ¶25; 24 is an air compressor that is connected to 50 via a hose], and a hose extending from the housing [Fig 1; hose (17) extends from the housing].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning system as disclosed by Armstrong to have a housing that contains the hoppers and tubing connecting the hoppers as well as having the nozzle and attached hose extend from the housing for applying the cleaning mixture as taught by Johnson for the purpose of allowing the cleaning system to be mobile and be able to move to multiple locations to clean them [Johnson: ¶25].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second hopper as disclosed by Armstrong as modified to extending outwardly from a side of the housing as pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it has been held that shifting the position or placement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device has no patentable significance, it considered to be matters of design/engineering choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious. In the instant case rearranging the second hopper would not change its function in providing the second blast media to the single delivery device.
However Lynn teaches a cleaning system wherein a single delivery tube extending along a bottom of the hopper, an auger contained within the delivery tube [Fig 2; Col4:line4-7; 15 is a metering device that is a single delivery tube that contains an auger to meter out the amount of blast/cleaning media to a nozzle (20)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metering device as taught by Armstrong to have a single delivery tube extending along a bottom of the housing, an auger contained within the delivery tube as taught by Lynn for the purpose of using a conventional metering device to control the amount of blast media is supplied to the nozzle [Lynn: Col4:line4-7].
Regarding claim 20. Armstrong discloses a cleaning system [Fig 6] comprising:
…;
a first hopper [610] … configured to receive a cryogenic materials [¶100; 610 can hold dry ice which is a cryogenic material];
a second hopper [620] configured to receive an abrasive media [¶100; 620 can hold grit (i.e. a blast media) for cleaning];
a … first … [Fig 6; ¶30 & ¶98; 630 is a metering device (single delivery device)] … and in fluid flow connection to the first hopper and the second hopper [Fig 6], the … first … being configured to mix the cryogenic material and the abrasive media [Fig 6; ¶98; the single delivery device mixes the dry ice and second blast media as disclosed in ¶98 both tubes (616 & 626) provide particles to 630];
…
a second tube in fluid flow connection to the second hopper and the linear first tube [Fig 6; ¶98; 626 is a second tube that is in fluid flow connection with the second hopper and the first device];
an air source [640] …;
a hose [¶71; the compressor is connected to an applicator or nozzle (see Fig 2 for an example) by a hose or conduit] …; and
a nozzle attached to the hose [71; the compressor is connected to an applicator or nozzle (see Fig 2 for an example) by a hose or conduit].
Armstrong may not explicitly disclose a housing having a length with an axis extending therethrough, a first hopper located within the housing, a linear first tube located within the housing along the full length of the linear first tube and extending parallel to the axis along the full length of the linear continuous tube, an auger contained within the delivery tube, a single air source connected to the housing, or a hose extending from the housing.
However Johnson teaches a blasting system that mixes dry ice with an abrasive media, specifically Johnson teaches a housing a length with an axis extending therethrough that supports two hoppers and a tube connecting them [Fig 1 & 3; ¶25; 50 is a housing which has a length and also has an axis that extends therethrough; ¶25 states “the trailer 50 houses a pumping system…a CO2 pellet hopper 19 (dry ice), an abrasive particle hopper 20 (FIG. 3)…”; and has tubing connecting them contained within the housing]; a single air source connected to the housing [Fig 1; ¶25; 24 is an air compressor that is connected to 50 via a hose], and a hose extending from the housing [Fig 1; hose (17) extends from the housing].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning system as disclosed by Armstrong to have a housing with a length with an axis extending therethrough that contains the hoppers and tubing connecting the hoppers as well as having the nozzle and attached hose extend from the housing for applying the cleaning mixture as taught by Johnson for the purpose of allowing the cleaning system to be mobile and be able to move to multiple locations to clean them [Johnson: ¶25].
However Lynn teaches a cleaning system wherein a linear delivery tube extending along a bottom of the hopper, an auger contained within the delivery tube [Fig 2; Col4:line4-7; 15 is a metering device that is a single delivery tube that contains an auger to meter out the amount of blast/cleaning media to a nozzle (20)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metering device as taught by Armstrong to have a single delivery tube extending along a bottom of the housing, an auger contained within the delivery tube as taught by Lynn for the purpose of using a conventional metering device to control the amount of blast media is supplied to the nozzle [Lynn: Col4:line4-7].
Therefore the combined blasting system of Armstrong as modified by Johnson and Lynn would have the metering device of Armstrong be the linear delivery tube of Lynn which would be located within the housing along the full length of the linear first tube as the hoppers of Armstrong would be contained within the housing as taught by Johnson. The first and second hoppers as taught by Johnson are located in line with the housing axis, as shown in Johnson Fig 1 & 3, and therefore the linear first tube extends parallel to the housing axis along the full length of the linear first tube.
Regarding claim 3. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the first hopper and the second hopper are positioned to mix the dry ice and the second blast media [Armstrong: Fig 6; ¶98].
Regarding claim 8. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the hose is attached to the delivery tube [Armstrong: Fig 6; ¶71].
Regarding claim 9. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, further comprising at least one vibrator mounted to one of the hoppers [Fig 6; ¶98; each hopper has a vibrator (614 & 624)].
Regarding claim 10. (Original) Johnson as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of flow valves [¶69-¶71; each hopper can have a valve to control the flow rate of the contents of each hopper]; and a control valve located along the delivery tube [Fig 6; ¶69-¶71; the outlet of the second hopper is a delivery tube and can have a flow control valve located on it].
Regarding claim 11. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, further comprising a blasting media that achieves surface preparation for cleaning and protective coatings [Armstrong: Abstract, ¶2, & ¶4; the abrasive material when mixed with cryogenic material forms a blasting media that can prepare surfaces for cleaning and protective coating].
Regarding claim 12. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the system is recognized for surface cleaning and protective coatings [Johnson: Abstract, ¶2, & ¶4; the system can prepare surfaces for cleaning and protective coating].
Regarding claim 21. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the first hopper comprises: a top portion having a first area; and a bottom portion having a second area; wherein the second area is less than the first area [Armstrong: Fig 6; ¶25; each hopper has a top portion (the top cross-section of the hopper) that has a larger cross-section than a bottom portion (the hopper outlet at the bottom) and the bottom portion therefore has a smaller area than the top portion].
Regarding claim 22. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 21, wherein the first hopper further comprises a plurality of tapered walls that extend from the top portion to the bottom portion [Armstrong: Fig 6; ¶25; there are sloped or slanted surfaces between the top portion and the bottom portion]; and wherein the delivery tube and auger extend along the bottom portion of the first hopper [Armstrong: Fig 6; the delivery tube extend below the second hopper to the metering device with is the auger taught by Lynn].
Regarding claim 23. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 22, wherein the tapered walls guide material contained in the first hopper towards to the delivery tube [Armstrong: ¶25].
Regarding claim 24. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the single air source comprises an air compressor [Armstrong: Fig 6; 640 is an air compressor].
Regarding claim 25. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 20, wherein the linear first tube and the auger extend along a longitudinal axis along a bottom portion of the first hopper [Armstrong: Fig 6].
Regarding claim 26. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 25, wherein the air source is a single air source compressor [Armstrong: Fig 6; 640 is an air compressor].
Regarding claim 27. A cleaning system for mixing a plurality of cleaning materials into a mixture and then spraying the mixture to clean or prepare a surface comprising:
a housing;
a first hopper contained within the housing, the first hopper containing dry ice; a second hopper extending outwardly from a side of the housing, the second hopper containing a second blast media;
a single continuous delivery tube extending along a bottom of the housing configured to receive and mix the dry ice from the first hopper and the second blast media from the second hopper;
an auger contained within the delivery tube;
an abrasive hopper tubing extending from the second hopper to the delivery tube;
a single air compressor connected to the housing;
a hose extending from the housing; and
a nozzle attached to the hose.
[Claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as cited in claims 1 & 20, see above for details]
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Johnson further in view of Lynn further in view of GIMADEEV (US 20240181600), hereinafter Gimadeev.
Regarding claim 4. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 3, but is silent in regards to further comprising a grate located at an entrance of the first hopper; wherein the grate minimizes clumping of material deposited into the first hopper.
However Gimadeev discloses a surface blasting/cleaning system [Fig 1-3; Abstract] with a cryogenic material hopper [3] with a lid over the hopper opening [Fig 1-3; a lid is shown in Fig 1-2 over the hopper and grate] and further comprising a grate [1] located at an entrance of the first hopper [Fig 3; 3 is the hopper]; wherein the grate minimizes clumping of material deposited into the first hopper [Fig 3; the grate prevents clumping by making the material separate and fall between the holes in the grate].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hopper as taught by Armstrong as modified to have a grate located at an entrance of the first hopper; wherein the grate minimizes clumping of material deposited into the first hopper as taught by Gimadeev for the purpose of preventing the entrance of material or particles that too big to work inside the system and thereby protect the system from being damaged. Additionally the lid/cover in Fig 1-2 that is over the grate further protect the system from unwanted particles entering the hopper.
Regarding claim 5. Armstrong as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 4, further comprising a cover configured to cover the entrance [Gimadeev: Fig 2; the lid/cover in Fig 1-2 that is over the grate further protect the system from unwanted particles entering the hopper].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Armstrong in view of Johnson further in view of Lynn further in view of KIM SUN GEON et al. (KR 100434601 B1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 13. Johnson as modified teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the system is gravity fed [Armstrong: Fig 6; ¶27 & ¶98; the hoppers in Fig 6 function in the same way as the prior art hopper of Fig 2 which are gravity fed (¶27)]; but is silent in regards to and wherein the system has a venturi suction.
However Kim teaches wherein the blasting system has a venturi suction [Fig 1-3; ¶41 of the translation; the system has venturi suction in the nozzle].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Armstrong as modified to have a venturi suction as taught by Kim for the purpose of generating a maximum flow velocity even with a small pressure and a small amount of air [Kim: ¶41 of the translation]
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Johnson further in view of Lynn further in view of Gimadeev further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 28. The cleaning system of claim 27, further comprising: at least one vibrator mounted to one of the hoppers [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 9], a plurality of flow valves [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 10]; a control valve located along the delivery tube [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 10]; a grate located at the entrance of the first hopper configured to minimize the clumping of material deposited into the first hopper [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 4]; a cover configured to cover the entrance [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 5]; wherein the first hopper further comprises: a top portion having a first area [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 21]; an entrance located at the top portion [Armstrong: Fig 6; ¶27-¶28 & ¶98; the hoppers have an entrance at the top]; and a bottom portion having a second area [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 21]; wherein the second area is less than the first area [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 21]; wherein the first hopper and the second hopper are positioned to mix the dry ice and the second blast media [Armstrong: Fig 6; ¶98]; wherein the system is gravity fed [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 13]; and wherein the system has a venturi suction [Rejected for the same reasons as claim 13].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 2-8, filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, see above for details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST].
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, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights