DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on March 31, 2025 was received. Claims 1, 30 and 36 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued July 10, 2023.
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 1-2, 4-5, 14-17 and 29-40 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.
Claims 1, 30 and 36 recites the limitation "the gas line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the third line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauvinet and Vanderzwet on claims 1-2, 14-17, 29-30, 34-36 and 40 are withdrawn because independent claims 1, 30 and 36 have been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauvinet, Vanderzwet and Pabla on claims 4-5, 31-32 and 37-38 are withdrawn because independent claims 1, 30 and 36 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 29-30, 34-36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US 2018/0298498).
In regards to claims 1, 30 and 36, Araki teaches a cold spraying device (20a) comprising:
a spray gun-22B (coating nozzle) applies a metal or alloy powder coating to a substrate (10) (fig. 5; para. 43);
a spray gun-22A (preheating nozzle) connected to a gas heater (21) delivers at least a heated gas to the substrate, the heated gas is capable of the process of preheating the substrate before application of metal or alloy powder coating (fig. 5; para. 43);
a first line is between a powder supply device-23A and the spray gun-22B (coating nozzle), where the metal or alloy powder is delivered to the spray gun-22B via the first line (fig. 5; para. 43);
a second line is between a valve-27A and the coating nozzle, the heated gas is delivered to the spray gun-22B via the second line (fig. 5; para. 43): and
a third line is between valve-27B and the spray gun-22A (preheating nozzle), the heated gas is delivered to the pre spray gun-22A via the third line (fig. 5; para. 43).
Araki teaches the spray gun-22A and the spray gun-22B are shown to be oriented in non-intersecting directions (fig. 5).
Araki does not explicitly teach a process of pre-heat the substrate.
However, Araki teaches the configuration of the cold spraying device that has valve-26A which will stop the flow of gas to the powder supply device-23A (fig. 5).
Therefore, spray gun-22A has a configuration that allows for just heated gas from the gas heater-21 to be supplied to the spray gun-22A, which will provide the configuration to enable the process of heating/preheating the substrate.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
In regards to claim 2, Araki teaches the spray gun-22A which receives heated gas from the gas heater-21 and capable of the process of supplying heated gas to the substrate (fig. 5; para. 43).
In regards to claims 29, 35 and 40, Araki does not explicitly teach heating gas to a temperature less than the oxidation acceleration threshold of the substrate.
However, as Araki teaches the heated gas that is capable of heating heats the substrate, where the heated gas is provided at controlled temperature and capable of performing the process of preheating up to a particular temperature or ranges of temperatures (para. 27, 34, 40).
The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114).
In regards to claim 34, Araki teaches the spray gun-22A which is capable of supplying heated gas from the gas heater-21 and capable of supplying heated gas to the process of preclean and preheat the substrate (fig. 5; para. 43).
Claims 4-5, 31-33 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki as applied to claims 1-2, 29, 35 and 40 above, and further in view of Pabla (US 2013/0189441).
In regards to claims 4-5, Araki as discussed, but does not explicitly teach the pre-heating nozzle is further configured to apply a portion of the metallic coating to the substrate and the pre-heating nozzle and the coating nozzle are configured to apply two different metallic coating components, respectively.
However, Pabla teaches the preheating nozzle member comprising the laser-411 preheats the substrate before to application of the coating and then coats the substrate with material from feedstock-402 capable of being a metallic coating. (fig. 5; para. 33, 40).
Pabla teaches coating nozzle which is feed the binder-404 from feedstock-502 and preheating nozzle member which is feed metallic material from feedstock-402, that applies two different metallic coating components (fig. 5; para. 39-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the coating nozzle and preheating nozzle member arrangement of Pabla onto the cold spray device of Araki, where the nozzles would be duplicated to provide a first nozzle assembly that provides preheating and a second metallic coating and a second nozzle assembly that provides preheating and a first metallic coating, because Pabla teaches it will provide coatings with reduced drawbacks (para. 6).
In regards to claims 31-32 and 37-38, Araki and Pabla as discussed, where Pabla teaches coating nozzle which is feed the binder-404 from feedstock-502 and preheating nozzle member which is feed metallic material from feedstock-402, that applies two different metallic coating components (fig. 5; para. 30, 39-41).
In regards to claims 33 and 39, Araki and Pabla as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the first metallic coating comprises niobium, and wherein the second metallic coating comprises chromium.
However, the particular type of coating(s) or processing materials used is a process limitation rather than an apparatus limitation, and the recitation of a particular type of coating or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
As Araki and Pabla teach the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of supplying niobium to form the first coating and supplying chromium to form the second coating.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki as applied to claims 1-2, 29, 35 and 40 above, and further in view of Tan (US 2017/0173611 ).
In regards to claim 14, Araki as discussed, but does not explicitly teach a nozzle connector configured to couple the coating nozzle and the pre-heating nozzle.
However, Tan teaches a cold spray nozzle assembly (100) comprising a nozzle support mechanism (160) to support a plurality of spray nozzles (140, 150A, 150B), where the nozzle support mechanism maybe adjusted to change orientations for the spray nozzles (fig. 4; para. 67-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the nozzle support mechanism of Tan onto the spray guns of Araki because Tan teaches it will provide efficient deposition onto complex geometries (para. 14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed March 31, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 30 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauvinet and Vanderzwet have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Araki.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights