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
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 19, 20, and 21 must be renumbered 21, 19, and 20 respectively. Misnumbered claim 19, which was originally claim 18, should have been cancelled and the language brought back in as new claim 21, to which the dependency of currently amended misnumbered claim 21, which should have remained as claim 20, would need to be changed to 21.
The rejections below align with the current, incorrect numbers to avoid confusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4, 6, 11, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapphorn et al. (US Pub No 2002/0168466 A1) in view of Payne (US Pat No 7,959,093 B2) and further in view of Hoiland et al. (US Pub No 2016/0375451 A1). All citations to Tapphorn unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 1, Tapphorn et al. show a nozzle assembly (Fig. 7) for use in a cold spray deposition process (as all of the necessary structure is provided for, the device is fully capable of performing the intended use), comprising:
a first section (see annotated figure) comprising an internal diameter, a length and that has a flanged end (see annotated figure) and a first coupling end (see annotated figure); and
a second section (2) that has an internal converging section (5) and an internal diverging section (7) to allow powder particles (3) to be accelerated toward a target (12), the second section (2) comprising an output end (at 11) of the nozzle assembly and a second coupling end (see annotated figure) configured to be coupled with the first coupling end (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tapphorn et al. does not teach the first section comprising a bend angle, the bend angle being greater than 0[Symbol font/0xB0] and the internal diameter being substantially the same along the length and wherein at least the first section comprises one of a metal and a metal alloy.
However, Payne show a nozzle assembly with a first section including a bend (Fig. 2, 128; col. 3, line 39), an internal diameter, a length with a bend angle being greater than 0[Symbol font/0xB0], the internal diameter being substantially the same along the length (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of Tapphorn et al. include a bend angle as taught by Payne to divert the powder material traveling in an axial direction to a radial direction (col. 2, lines 19-24).
While Hoiland et al. teach at least a first section comprising one or a metal and a metal alloy (paragraph 0022).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of Tapphorn et al. utilize metal as taught by Hoiland et al. for a suitable nozzle material depending on chemical composition of the powder being sprayed (paragraph 0022).
Re claims 4 & 17, Tapphorn et al. as modified by Payne and Hoiland et al. show an adapter (see annotated figure), the first section and the second section are coupled via the adapter (see annotated figure).
Re claims 6 & 19, Tapphorn et al. as modified by Payne and Hoiland et al. disclose the one of the metal and the metal alloy comprising at least one of carbon steel, stainless steel, and tungsten carbide (Hoiland – paragraph 0022).
Re claim 11, Tapphorn et al. as modified by Payne and Hoiland et al. show a third section (42) configured to be coupled to at least one of the first section (see annotated figure) or the second section (2).
Re claim 14, Tapphorn et al. show a cold spray system (Fig. 7; as all of the necessary structure is provided for, the device is fully capable of performing the intended use), comprising:
a cold spray gun (41); and
a nozzle assembly that comprises
a first section (see annotated figure) that has a flanged end (see annotated figure) and a first coupling end (see annotated figure); and
a second section (2) that has an internal converging section (5) and an internal diverging section (7) to allow powder particles (3) to be accelerated toward a target (12), the second section (2) comprising an output end (at 11) of the nozzle assembly and a second coupling end (see annotated figure) configured to be coupled with the first coupling end (see annotated figure).
Tapphorn et al. does not teach the first section comprising a bend angle, the bend angle being greater than 0[Symbol font/0xB0] and the internal diameter being substantially the same along the length and wherein at least the first section comprises one of a metal and a metal alloy.
However, Payne show a nozzle assembly with a first section including a bend (Fig. 2, 128; col. 3, line 39), an internal diameter, a length with a bend angle being greater than 0[Symbol font/0xB0], the internal diameter being substantially the same along the length (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of Tapphorn et al. include a bend angle as taught by Payne to divert the powder material traveling in an axial direction to a radial direction (col. 2, lines 19-24).
While Hoiland et al. teach at least a first section comprising one or a metal and a metal alloy (paragraph 0022).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of Tapphorn et al. utilize metal as taught by Hoiland et al. for a suitable nozzle material depending on chemical composition of the powder being sprayed (paragraph 0022).
Claims 7, 8, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapphorn et al. (US Pub No 2002/0168466 A1) in view of Payne (US Pat No 7,959,093 B2) and Hoiland et al. (US Pub No 2016/0375451 A1) and further in view of Jakimov et al. (US Pub No 2011/0223325 A1).
Re claims 7 & 20, Tapphorn et al. as modified by Payne and Hoiland et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the first section comprises case-hardened, internal walls.
However, Jakimov et al. disclose a nozzle including case-hardened, internal walls (paragraphs 0011 & 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of Tapphorn et al. include case-hardened, internal walls as taught by Jakimov et al. to achieve sufficient hardness (Jakimov – paragraph 0011).
Re claims 8 & 21, Tapphorn et al. as modified by Payne, Hoiland et al. and Jakimov et al. disclose the case-hardened, internal walls were subjected to case-hardening treatment comprising exposure to at least one of titanium nitride, boron nitride, and nitride (Jakimov – paragraphs 0011 & 0012).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapphorn et al. (US Pub No 2002/0168466 A1) in view of Payne (US Pat No 7,959,093 B2) and Hoiland et al. (US Pub No 2016/0375451 A1) and further in view of Binek et al. (US Pat No 10,888,886 B2).
Re claim 12, Tapphorn et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach a gasket configured to be placed adjacent the second coupling end.
However, Binek et al. show a nozzle (Fig. 1) including a second coupling end (44) and a gasket (Fig. 7, 61) configured to be placed adjacent the second coupling end (44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the nozzle of Tapphorn et al. with a gasket as taught by Binek et al. to provide a seal (col. 4, lines 38-41).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapphorn et al. (US Pub No 2002/0168466 A1) in view of Payne (US Pat No 7,959,093 B2) and Hoiland et al. (US Pub No 2016/0375451 A1) and further in view of Arndt et al. (US Pub No 2017/0100732 A1).
Re claim 13, Tapphorn et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach an adhesive configured to be placed adjacent the second coupling end.
However, Arndt et al. show a nozzle (Figs. 4 & 6) including a second coupling end (at 21) with an adhesive configured to be placed adjacent the second coupling end (paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the nozzle of Tapphorn et al. with an adhesive as taught by Arndt et al. to seal materially engaging connections (Arndt – paragraph 0049).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that combining the teachings of Payne and Tapphorn would yield Payne’s bend being located at the output side of Tapphorn’s axisymmetric tapered outlet and not on its input side; this is not the combination or modification demonstrated by the rejection. The combination demonstrated by the rejection merely modifies the designated first end in Tapphorn to include a bend to divert material traveling in an axial direction into a radial direction. Applicant is asserting that the bend in Payne can only exist at “a” second end, however this is not at all the teaching described by Payne. The specific function of the bend in Payne is merely to redirect flow from one direction to another. In no way does Payne even describe an affect on the flow brought on by the bend because Payne is wholly unconcerned with anything except changing the direction of the flow. Whether this change in direction happens at a “first” end or at a “second” end would not change this function. As stated above, the combination in question is specifically modifying the designated first end in Tapphorn with a bend to change the direction of flow. The type of flow produced is immaterial as the claims make no such requirement or limitation for any type of flow.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752