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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mead (GB 722464 A).
Regarding claim 1, Mead shows A blast nozzle (fig 1) having a conduit therethrough for accelerating air applied to the blast nozzle at pressure greater than ambient pressure the, air containing abrasive particles for abrading a workpiece (page 1, lines 10-18), the conduit including: an inlet portion (see marked up fig below) converging from an inlet opening for receiving the air, to a throat (see marked up fig below, page 3, line 18) for accelerating the air to a sonic speed; an outlet portion (see marked up fig below) extending from the throat to a nozzle outlet (20) for accelerating the air from the throat to a super-sonic speed at the nozzle outlet (page 3, lines 40-44); and wherein a ratio (A/A*) of cross sectional area of a fluid pathway of the nozzle outlet to a cross sectional area of a fluid pathway of the throat is selected for expansion of the air through the conduit so that air is emitted from the nozzle outlet in a jet at an ambient pressure (page 2, lines 4-19 and page 4, lines 43-55), wherein the ratio (A/A*) is 1.66 +/- 0.05 (The Table on page 3 states that the outlet diameter is 0.400 in and the throat diameter is 5/16 in. (Pi(.4/2)^2)/(Pi((5/16)/2)^2) =1.64. 1.64 is 1.66 +/- 0.05 );
The examiner notes that air can be introduced to the nozzle at the inlet opening at 80-120 psi; and that when air is introduced at that pressure a ratio of the pressure of the air at the throat to the pressure of the air at the nozzle outlet will be between 6.0 and 9.5, because the disclosed invention of Mead teaches all the same structural features and claimed ratios as thew claimed invention. The air pressure at the throat and the air pressure at the outlet are directly related to the diameters of the throat and the outlet. If the ratio of the diameters are the same, the ratio of the pressures will also be the same.
The examiner notes that the jet will inherently impart drag on the abrasive particles between the nozzle outlet and the workpiece, just as it does in the present invention. Additionally, this will improve abrading of the workpiece by the abrasive particles just as it does in the present invention.
Mead also shows wherein the throat has a length that is zero or less than 5% of a length of the outlet portion (see marked up figure below), wherein the outlet portion includes a first diverging sub-portion following the throat (see marked up fig below), wherein the outlet portion includes a second diverging sub-portion following the first diverging sub-portion (see marked up fig below), wherein the first diverging sub-portion diverges more than the second diverging sub-portion per unit of axial length along the conduit (see marked dup fig below), wherein the first diverging sub-portion comprises a bell shape (fig 1, the first portion has a bell shape since it expands in diameter like a bell).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
472
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein the inlet portion converges from the inlet opening for receiving the air at 80-120 psi (page 3, lines 18-20) to the throat for accelerating the air to the sonic speed at the throat.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the ratio of the area of the nozzle outlet to the area of the throat is 1.64 (table on page 3, outlet diameter is .4 inches, throat diameter is 5/16inch, so the ratio of areas is 1.64) .
Regarding claim 5, wherein in use a ratio of pressure of the air at the throat to pressure of air at the nozzle outlet is between 6 and 9.5 for emitting the air from the nozzle outlet in the jet.
The examiner notes that this limitation is not a structural limitation, but a limitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. Without the nozzle being used, no pressures exist. This pressure ratio will only occur in the present invention at specific input pressures and velocities with a specific fluid and a specific abrasive material. The examiner notes that the apparatus of Mead will perform this function if the proper fluid and abrasive material was used at the proper pressure and velocity because the disclosed invention of Mead teaches all the same structural features and claimed ratios as thew claimed invention.
The examiner notes that the jet will inherently impart drag on the abrasive particles between the nozzle outlet and the workpiece for abrading of the workpiece by the abrasive particles, just as it does in the present invention. The examiner notes that the apparatus of Mead will perform this function if the proper fluid and abrasive material was used at the proper pressure and velocity because the disclosed invention of Mead teaches all the same structural features and claimed ratios as thew claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, wherein, in use, the ratio of pressure of the air at the throat to pressure of air at the nozzle outlet is between 6.4and 9.2.
The examiner notes that this limitation is not a structural limitation, but a limitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. Without the nozzle being used, no pressures exist. This pressure ratio will only occur in the present invention at specific input pressures and velocities with a specific fluid and a specific abrasive material. The examiner notes that the apparatus of Mead will perform this function if the proper fluid and abrasive material was used at the proper pressure and velocity, because the disclosed invention of Mead teaches all the same structural features and claimed ratios as thew claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, wherein in use, the ratio of pressure of the air at the throat to pressure of air at the nozzle outlet is 7.8.
The examiner notes that this limitation is not a structural limitation, but a limitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. Without the nozzle being used, no pressures exist. This pressure ratio will only occur in the present invention at specific input pressures and velocities with a specific fluid and a specific abrasive material. The examiner notes that the apparatus of Mead will perform this function if the proper fluid and abrasive material was used at the proper pressure and velocity, because the disclosed invention of Mead teaches all the same structural features and claimed ratios as thew claimed invention.
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.
As a backup rejection for claims 5, 6 and 8, the following rejection is presented:
Claim(s) 5-8, 40 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mead (GB 722464 A).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 8, Mead fails to teach wherein the ratio of pressure of the air at the throat to pressure of air at the nozzle outlet is 7.8
The examiner notes that there are many different fluids and abrasive mixtures with different densities and flow characteristics that can be used with the nozzle Mead at different pressures and velocities.
Therefore, it would be obvious to try different fluid/abrasive mixtures at different pressures and velocities to achieve a pressure ratio of 7.8 in order to achieve a desired abrasive performance.
Regarding claims 40 and 41, Mead shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 above, including that the nozzle can be different sizes than listed in the table and that the dimensions can be calculated by scaling the dimesons up or down in proportion to the desired throat diameter (page 3, liens 80-90).
Mead fails to show that the throat and the nozzle outlet are separated by a distance of 220 mm and that the inlet opening and the throat are separated by a distance of 36 mm.
The examiner notes that since Mead teaches scaling the dimensions to achieve the desired nozzle diameter, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the distance between the throat and outlet is a results effective variable. The larger the desired orifice size the longer the distance and vice versa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the throat and the nozzle outlet separated by a distance of 220 mm, in order to have the desired nozzle diameter.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the inlet opening and the throat separated by a distance of 36 mm, in order to have the desired nozzle diameter.
Claim(s) 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mead (GB 722464 A), in view of A Scientific View of the Productivity of Abrasive Blasting Nozzles
Regarding claims Mead shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, But fails to disclose that the ratio (A/A*) is 1.66
A Scientific View of the Productivity of Abrasive Blasting Nozzles teaches in fig 9 that a ratio of 1.66 has a specific design pressure that should be used. This fig demonstrates that a ratio of 1.66 is possible with a pressure in the range of 80-120psi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the ratio A/A* 1.66 in order to use desired design pressure that corresponds to the specific ratio in the fig 9 of A Scientific View of the Productivity of Abrasive Blasting Nozzles
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mead (GB 722464 A) in view of Sullivan (11,383,349)
Regarding claim 39. Mead shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 11, including that the nozzle can be different sizes than listed in the table and that the dimensions can be calculated by scaling the dimesons up or down in proportion to the desired throat diameter (page 3, liens 80-90).
Mead fails to disclose wherein the fluid pathway of the throat has a diameter of 9.5 mm and the fluid pathway of the nozzle outlet has a diameter of 12 mm.
However, Sullivan teaches a throat diameter of 9.5mm or .375 inches (col 9, liens 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the throat diameter 9.5, and then scale up the rest of the dimensions so that the nozzle outlet has a diameter of 12 mm, in order to have a larger spray pattern at the outlet of the nozzle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments to the rejection of claim 1, the examiner notes that since the claim does not specifically define the structure of the inlet portion, throat and outlet portion, the examiner can select an inlet portion, throat and outlet portion to so that the throat length is zero. See the marked up figure above. Nothing in the claim prevents the examiner from calling the inlet portion, throat and outlet portion as marked in the above figure.
Secondly, the examiner notes that the outlet portion has two portions that diverge at different rates. See the marked up figure above.
Lastly, the term “bell shaped” is very broad. All bells have different shapes with different cures. The examiner is interpreting the first sub portion (as marked in the above figure) to have a shape that is bell shaped.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 6 and 8 as well as the “in use” limitations of claim 1, each claim literally states “in use” before the limitation about the ratio of air pressure. These limitations are therefore intended use limitations. The claimed limitation only occurs when the nozzle is in use, as defined by the claims themselves. They are not structural limitations, and the prior art only has to be capable of performing the intended use limitations.
The examiner notes that since the ratio of the throat diameter to the outlet diameter of Mead is identical to that of the claimed invention, when the nozzle of Mead is in use, the air pressure ratio between the throat and the outlet will also be identical.
Additionally, since the term “in use” is not defined, the pressure of the fluid through the nozzle can meet the claimed ratios at two different points in time. For example, at point in time A, the throat pressure can be one value and at point B, the outlet pressure can be another value that meets the claimed ratio, but these pressure do not have to be present at the same point in time.
The nozzle of Mead is fully capable of preforming the intended use limitations of claims 1, 5, 6 and 8.
Regarding claims 39-41, Mead specifically teaches that the nozzle can be different sizes than listed in the table and that the dimensions can be calculated by scaling the dimesons up or down in proportion to the desired throat diameter (page 3, liens 80-90). The examiner notes that for claim 39, the nozzle of Mead can be scaled up or down to meet the diameters of 95 and 12mm. For claim 40, the nozzle of Mead can be scaled up or down to meet the distance of 220mm. for claim 41, the nozzle of Mead can be scaled up or down to meet the distance of 36mm.
The above rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 6/16/2026
Prosecution Insights