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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “inlet body portion” of claims 27, 28, 83, and 84 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1, 2, 27, 28, 29, 57, 58, 83, 84, and those claims depending therefrom, 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.
Regarding claims 1, 29, and 57, the claimed “the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1.5 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet” is indefinite. The phrase “being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet” is considered to be functional language meant to evoke a specific length and diameter of the “body”, or a specific relationship thereof, in order “to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1.5 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet.”
Applicant is not specific what specific lengths, diameters, or relationships thereof, are required to inherently produce the claimed function. Instead, it seems left up to the reader to figure out on their own what lengths and diameters achieve said function. While Applicant does provide some lengths and diameters in the specification, Applicant does not directly mention that these lengths and diameters are directly responsible for the claimed function. In other words, these could be lengths and diameters that do not produce the claimed function as there is nothing that explicitly states that they produce the claimed function.
Assuming, however, that they do, these lengths and diameters are not all inclusive. There are likely diameters and lengths not described within the specification that result in the claimed function being achieved. Therefore, the claimed function would extend to structures outside of those described within the specification.
Applicant is advised to overcome the rejection of indefiniteness by simply claiming what specific structures Applicant found resulted in the claimed function being produced, whether that’s a range of lengths and diameters, a specific formula between length and diameter, combinations thereof, or something else.
As Applicant claims specific lengths and diameters in dependent claims, and as the examiner doesn’t know what lengths and diameters, outside of those being claimed, result in the claimed function, then, for the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to not be limiting in terms of diameter and length.
Regarding claims 2, 27, 28, 29, 57, 58, 83, 84, the claimed “the body” and/or “the silencer body” is indefinite as to what “body” is being referring to. There is a “silencer body,” a “nozzle body” and “a body with a silencer conduit therethrough. Any appearance of “the body” should be changed to reflect the proper body either through adjective (ex. “the silencer body”) or preposition (“the body of the silencer”). Additionally, in claims like claim 2, where just “a body” has been introduced, it is improper to refer to this as the “silencer body” as this implies this might be a different body.
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) 1-4, 27-29, 57-60, 70, 83, and 84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneckenberger (US-3,982,605) in view of Sullivan (US-2020/0130140).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Sneckenberger (US-3,982,605) discloses a noise suppressed blasting system comprising:
a source of blasting gas in a predetermined pressure range (“a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2], with abrasive particles entrained therein;
a nozzle (nozzle 10) including
a nozzle inlet for connection to the source of blasting gas (see Fig. 2 below),
a nozzle outlet for emission of the blasting gas (see Fig. 2 below),
a nozzle conduit (nozzle bore 20) from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet including a throat therebetween (see annotated Fig. 3 below) with a ratio of area of the nozzle outlet to area of the throat (Fig. 2) selected to emit the blasting gas from the nozzle outlet to produce a supersonic jet;
a silencer (silencer 22) connectable to the nozzle (nozzle 10) (Fig. 2), to receive the supersonic jet exiting the nozzle, the silencer (silencer 22) comprising a body (silencer 22) with a silencer conduit therethrough. Sneckenberger fails to disclose the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet. Sneckenberger also fails to disclose the ratio of area of the nozzle outlet to area of the throat is selected to emit the blasting gas from the nozzle outlet to produce a supersonic jet.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet for the silencer of Sneckenberger in order to achieve reduced sound production (up to and including zero “shock cells”) and the desired “abrasive particle velocity,” as taught by Sullivan.
As to the nozzle conduit made to produce a supersonic jet, Sullivan teaches “[s]ome embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion” [Sullivan; paragraph 0034], where a Mach 1 of greater than 1 is considered supersonic. Sullivan states that a higher velocity means less blasting time, while a higher velocity creates noise exposure. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious, in view of Sullivan, to make the nozzle to produce a supersonic jet as claimed in order to spend less time blasting per square meter than sonic or subsonic (“While amount of blasting time allowed for a blasting operator is related to noise exposure (due e.g. to regulatory compliance issues), productivity of a nozzle, which is related to velocity of the abrasive exiting the nozzle, is of equal concern in abrasive blasting. A higher velocity means that the blast operator can spend less time blasting per square meter. Less time translates to higher worker productivity and lower operational costs.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0012].
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 1, wherein the silencer body (silencer 22) includes a coupling portion (portion of body 22 at set screw 44) arranged to connect to a portion of the nozzle (nozzle 10) adjacent the nozzle outlet and a sound suppression portion defining the silencer conduit, wherein the sound suppression portion extends from the coupling portion to a silencer outlet of the silencer.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 2, wherein the predetermined pressure range is 80 psi or greater (“a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2].
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 1.63 ± 5%.
However, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
Regarding claim 27 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 1, wherein the silencer body (silencer 22) includes an inlet body portion (28) that is removably received within the silencer conduit (nozzle bore 20, considered the portion enclosed by jacket 24) of the silencer body (silencer 22) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 27, wherein the inlet body portion (body member 28) comprises a removable sleeve (body member 28) that is removably received within the [silencer] body (jacket 24 of silencer 22) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses a method for suppressing noise during abrasive blasting, the method comprising:
providing a blast nozzle (nozzle 10) including a nozzle body (nozzle 10) with a nozzle conduit extending from a nozzle inlet (see Fig. 2 below) to a nozzle outlet (see Fig. 2 below) with a throat of the conduit therebetween (Fig. 2);
connecting a source of blasting gas (“used with compressed air at pressure ranging up to, or exceeding, 100 psi., a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2]; and
coupling a silencer (silencer device 22) to an outlet end of the nozzle (blast nozzle 10) (Fig. 2),
the silencer (silencer device 22) comprising a body (22) with a silencer conduit therethrough (the conduit being the open space formed by the silencer device 22), but fails to disclose the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet. Sneckenberger also fails to disclose a ratio of outlet area to throat area constraining the nozzle to produce a supersonic jet and the source of blasting gas sufficient to produce a supersonic jet at the nozzle outlet.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet for the silencer of Sneckenberger in order to achieve reduced sound production (up to and including zero “shock cells”) and the desired “abrasive particle velocity,” as taught by Sullivan.
As for the “ratio of outlet area to throat area constraining the nozzle to produce a supersonic jet” and the source of blasting gas being “sufficient to produce a supersonic jet at the nozzle outlet,” Sullivan teaches “[s]ome embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion” [Sullivan; paragraph 0034], where a Mach 1 of greater than 1 is considered supersonic. Sullivan states that a higher velocity means less blasting time, while a higher velocity creates noise exposure. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious, in view of Sullivan, to make the nozzle to produce a supersonic jet as claimed in order to spend less time blasting per square meter than sonic or subsonic (“While amount of blasting time allowed for a blasting operator is related to noise exposure (due e.g. to regulatory compliance issues), productivity of a nozzle, which is related to velocity of the abrasive exiting the nozzle, is of equal concern in abrasive blasting. A higher velocity means that the blast operator can spend less time blasting per square meter. Less time translates to higher worker productivity and lower operational costs.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0012].
Regarding claim 57 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses a silencer (silencer device 22) arranged to connect to and suppress operational noise of a blast nozzle, the blast nozzle comprising a body with a conduit therethrough extending from a nozzle inlet for connection to a source of blasting gas and a nozzle outlet for emitting a jet, the nozzle conduit including a throat between the nozzle inlet and the nozzle outlet, the nozzle outlet having a nozzle outlet area and the throat having a throat area, a ratio of the nozzle outlet area to the throat area constraining the nozzle to produce a supersonic jet (As to the “blast nozzle,” this is considered to be intended use as the claim is not directly claiming the blast nozzle as part of the overall claimed silencer of claim 57. Therefore, this is merely considered to describe how one intends to use the claimed silencer and, therefore, this bears no structural requirement on the “silencer”. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).),
the silencer (silencer device 22) comprising a body (22) with a silencer conduit therethrough (the conduit being the open space formed by the silencer device 22), but fails to disclose the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet for the silencer of Sneckenberger in order to achieve reduced sound production (up to and including zero “shock cells”) and the desired “abrasive particle velocity,” as taught by Sullivan.
Regarding claim 58 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 57, wherein the silencer body (silencer 22) includes a coupling portion (portion of body 22 at set screw 44) arranged to connect to a portion of the nozzle (nozzle 10) adjacent the nozzle outlet and a sound suppression portion defining the silencer conduit, wherein the sound suppression portion extends from the coupling portion to a silencer outlet of the silencer.
Regarding claim 59 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 58, wherein the predetermined pressure range is 80 psi or greater (“a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2].
Regarding claim 60 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 59, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 1.63 ± 5%.
However, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
Regarding claim 68 (Currently Amended), Sneckberger discloses the silencer of claim 59, but fails to disclose:
wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 1.63 ± 5%,
wherein and the nozzle comprises a nozzle with nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table below and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image2.png
224
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; or
wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image3.png
212
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; or
wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 1.42 ± 5% and wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image4.png
228
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; or
wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 2.1± 5% and wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image5.png
236
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 70 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 59, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 1.42 ±5%.
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
Regarding claim 83 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 57, wherein the silencer body (silencer 22) includes an inlet body portion (28) that is removably received within the silencer conduit (nozzle bore 20, considered the portion enclosed by jacket 24) of the silencer body (silencer 22) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 84 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 83, wherein the inlet body portion (28) comprises a removable sleeve (28) that is removably received within the body (silencer 22) (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5, 12, 18, 19, 61, 68, 71-72, 74-75, and 85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneckenberger (US-3,982,605) in view of Sullivan (US-2020/0130140), and further in view of Gula (hereinafter NPL1).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein:
the nozzle comprises a #3 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 11.75 ± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 37.50 ±5% mm, or
the nozzle comprises a #4 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 15.67± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 50.00±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #5 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 19.58± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 62.50±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #6 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 23.50 ±2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 75.00±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #7 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 27.1± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 87.50 ±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #8 and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 31.33 ±2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 100 ±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #10 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 39.16± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 125 ±5% mm.
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet for the silencer of Sneckenberger in order to achieve reduced sound production (up to and including zero “shock cells”) and the desired “abrasive particle velocity,” as taught by Sullivan.
It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. As understood from the specification and the ranges of diameters and/or lengths, the claimed ranges are a result of optimizing for the least amount of sound at a desired velocity which, as shown above in regards to Sneckenberger and Sullivan, are general conditions known in the art for modifying “decreasing sound production” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013] and effecting “necessary abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Therefore, the claimed ranges for the associated type of nozzle is considered an obvious optimization in view of the prior art.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 3, but fails to disclose:
wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 1.63 ± 5%,
wherein and the nozzle comprises a nozzle with nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table below and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image2.png
224
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; or
wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image3.png
212
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; or
wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 1.42 ± 5% and wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image4.png
228
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; or
wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 2.1± 5% and wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image5.png
236
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 2, wherein the predetermined pressure range is 80 psi to 120 psi (“a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2] and the nozzle has an A/A* area ratio of 1.63±5%, and wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the table below and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the table below for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length ranging between the preferred length and the minimum length for effective silencing as set out in the table below for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image6.png
240
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the noise suppressed blasting system of claim 2, wherein the predetermined pressure range is 80 psi to 120 psi (“a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2], but fails to disclose the nozzle has an A/A* area ratio of 1.63±5%, and wherein:
the nozzle comprises a #3 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 7.5mm and 67.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 10.00mm and 13.5mm: or
the nozzle comprises a #4 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 10.0mm and 90mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 13mm and 18mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #5 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 12.5mm and 112.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 12.5mm and 22.5mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #6 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 15mm and 135.0mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 20mm and 27.1mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #7 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 17.5mm and 157.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 23mm and 31.5mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #8 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 20.0mm and 179.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 26.5mm and 36.0mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #10 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 25mm and 224.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 33.0mm and 45.0mm.
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 61 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses wherein the nozzle comprises a silencer of claim 60, but fails to disclose wherein:
the nozzle comprises a #3 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 11.75 ± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 37.50 ±5% mm, or
the nozzle comprises a #4 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 15.67± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 50.00±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #5 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 19.58± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 62.50±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #6 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 23.50 ±2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 75.00±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #7 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 27.1± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 87.50 ±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #8 and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 31.33 ±2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 100 ±5% mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #10 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of 39.16± 2.5% mm and a sound suppression portion length of 125 ±5% mm.
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body being of sufficient length and diameter to cause a flow condition of the jet received from the nozzle outlet to be modified such that 1 shock cells are created in a jet inside the silencer, no shock cells are created in the jet outside the silencer and a jet exits the silencer in the form of a core jet with an established turbulent shear layer thereabout and entraining an annular jet located around the core jet for the silencer of Sneckenberger in order to achieve reduced sound production (up to and including zero “shock cells”) and the desired “abrasive particle velocity,” as taught by Sullivan.
It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. As understood from the specification and the ranges of diameters and/or lengths, the claimed ranges are a result of optimizing for the least amount of sound at a desired velocity which, as shown above in regards to Sneckenberger and Sullivan, are general conditions known in the art for modifying “decreasing sound production” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013] and effecting “necessary abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Therefore, the claimed ranges for the associated type of nozzle is considered an obvious optimization in view of the prior art.
Regarding claim 71 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 70, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table below and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image4.png
228
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 72 (Original), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 59, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of 2.1± 5%.
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041]. Regarding claim 73 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 72, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the following table below and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length at least as long as set out in the following table below for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image5.png
236
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 74 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 58, wherein the predetermined pressure range is 80 psi to 120 psi (“a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2] and the nozzle has an A/A* area ratio of 1.63±5%, and wherein the nozzle comprises a nozzle with a nozzle size as set out in the leftmost column of the table below and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter as set out in the table below for the nozzle size and sound suppression portion length ranging between the preferred length and the minimum length for effective silencing as set out in the table below for the nozzle size:
PNG
media_image6.png
240
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 75 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 58, wherein the predetermined pressure range is 80 psi to 120 psi (“a conventional operating pressure being approximately 80 psi”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 1-2], but fails to disclose the nozzle has an A/A* area ratio of 1.63±5%, and wherein:
the nozzle comprises a #3 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 7.5mm and 67.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 10.00mm and 13.5mm: or
the nozzle comprises a #4 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 10.0mm and 90mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 13mm and 18mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #5 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 12.5mm and 112.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 12.5mm and 22.5mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #6 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 15mm and 135.0mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 20mm and 27.1mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #7 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 17.5mm and 157.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 23mm and 31.5mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #8 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 20.0mm and 179.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 26.5mm and 36.0mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #10 nozzle and wherein the length of the silencer is between 25mm and 224.5mm and the diameter of the silencer is between 33.0mm and 45.0mm.
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Regarding claim 85 (Currently Amended), Sneckenberger discloses the silencer of claim 59, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle has a nozzle exit area to nozzle throat area ratio (A/A*) of between 1.42 and 2.12 and wherein:
the nozzle comprises a #3 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of between 10mm and 13.6 mm and a minimum sound suppression portion length of between 7.5 mm and 78.5 mm: or
the nozzle comprises a #4 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of between 12.4 mm and 18.1 mm and a minimum sound suppression portion length of between 10 mm and 104 mm; or.
the nozzle comprises a #5 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of between 15.5 mm and 22.6 mm and a minimum sound suppression portion length of between 12.5 mm and 130.5 mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #6 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of between 18.5 mm and 27.1 mm and a minimum sound suppression portion length of between 15 mm and 157 mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #7 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of between 21.7 mm and 31.6 mm and a minimum sound suppression portion length of between 17.5 mm and 183 mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #8 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of between 24.8 mm and 36.1 mm and a minimum sound suppression portion length of between 20 mm and 209 mm; or
the nozzle comprises a #10 nozzle and the silencer has a silencer outlet diameter of between 31.0 mm and 45.2 mm and a minimum sound suppression portion length of between 25 mm and 261 mm.
As to the nozzle throat area, the throat area ratio (A/A*) dictates not only the mass flow rate through a converging/diverging nozzle (mass flow rate being a product of the fluid velocity and the area of the flow path), but , as taught by Sullivan (US-2020/0282517), is also responsible for reducing the sound produced (“Some embodiments of the subject invention further comprise fluid flowing through the diverging portion with a Mach number of greater than 1 at an exit from the diverging portion to the straight portion.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0034] (“The exit Mach number of the convergent section, M.sub.e, is then used with friction factor of the pipe wall and the equation for determining the length of pipe required to reduce the Mach number to 1 inside the pipe. This length, L*, is then the length of straight section required for a nozzle without any abrasive media to produce a Mach number of 1 at the exit. Any length beyond this will result in a normal shock wave at the exit. As normal shock waves have subsonic flow downstream of the shock wave, the flow velocity, and thus the sound produced by flow, are dramatically reduced.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0189]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious to modify the throat area ratio to a desired value based on conditions including desired flow rate, Mach number, and sound produced, as taught by Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0034, 0189]. It has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Table 1 [Application Publication; paragraph 0163] appears to show such routine optimization of the general conditions of the area ratio, Mach number, and ideal pressure, all of which are general conditions recognized by the prior art of Sullivan [Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the outlet diameter and length, Sullivan (US-2020/0130140) teaches that a “sufficient length,” as well as the inner diameter, contributes to the decrease in “sound production” (“This improved abrasive blasting system maintains the desired abrasive particle velocity while decreasing the exit gas velocity and consequently decreasing sound production. This is accomplished through an acceleration hose section with reduced inner diameter and sufficient length to provide the necessary abrasive particle velocity.”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0013], wherein a decrease in sound production is a desired trait in nozzle silencers. Sullivan also teaches that adjusting the length and/or diameter contribute to reduced or increased “abrasive particle velocity” [Sullivan; paragraph 0013]. Sullivan teaches that this can be between where the straight portion is at least 2/10ths of the internal diameter of the straight portion in length to less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length (“It is believed that there is a somewhat critical relationship between the silencer bore diameter D and the nozzle bore diameter d, and a somewhat less critical relationship between the silencer bore length L and the nozzle bore length l, and a somewhat critical relationship between these parameters and the particular operating pressures.”) [Sneckenberger; col. 2, lines 60-68] (“The straight portion may be at least 2/10ths the internal diameter of the straight portion in length and less than 10 times the internal diameter of the straight portion in length. The straight portion in some embodiments has a constant internal diameter, but in other embodiments has a slightly divergent profile or slightly convergent profile (5% or less change in internal diameter over the length of the straight portion).”) [Sullivan; paragraph 0021]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art the nozzle size, outlet diameter, and the length to those values as claimed in order to decrease the “sound production” while maintaining a desired abrasive velocity and volumetric flow rate, as made obvious by Sullivan; paragraphs 0037-0041].
As to the nozzle comprising a certain size of nozzle, a blast nozzle number indicates an inner diameter in 1/16-inch increments, such that a #5 nozzle, for example, would be 5/16” in inner diameter. In abrasive blasting, the size of nozzle correlates to the desired operating pressure and compressor size (See the table in NPL1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the prior art to work with numerous sizes of blasting nozzles depending on the desired nozzle pressure needed for the particular job and/or work, as taught by NPL1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6,112,850, US-2020/0130140, US-3,628,627, US-11801519, and US-20190134780 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723