DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Company (US 5212976, previously cited) in view of Thompson (US 5176018, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Company teaches a method for determining a velocity of a shot media expelled from a shot peening device comprising a nozzle (5) having a first end (left end as viewed in fig 1) and a second end (right end as viewed in fig 1) and a media hose (7) coupled to the nozzle and configured to supply the shot media to the nozzle (col 3, lines 27-35), the method comprising: activating a sensor (10) having a defined sensing area (at point 17), the sensing area defined proximate to the second end of the nozzle such that the shot media received through the defined sensing area are free-flying shot media that have exited the nozzle (as shown in fig 1); receiving the shot media through the defined sensing area (fig 1; col 3, lines 27-31); determining a frequency of the shot media received through the defined sensing area (col 3, lines 62-66); and determining the velocity of the shot media based on the determined frequency and a predefined characteristic (as broadly claimed, the predefined characteristic is the location of the location of the sensing area) of the sensor (as described col 4, line 66-col 5, line 7).
Company does not teach the shot media is received through the defined sensing area continuously during operation of the shot peening device. Thompson teaches a method for determining a velocity of a shot media expelled from a shot peening device, wherein the shot media (14) is received through a defined sensing area (area within sensor 40 shown in fig 2) continuously during operation of the shot peening device (col 6, lines 35-41 describes sensing during operation; col 6, lines 55-62 describes the sensing is continuous). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the sensor of Company to continuously sense the shot media during operation by arranging the sensor on the end of the nozzle, as this allows the sensor to sense an improper operating condition during use and allow corrections or adjustments to be made to the operation as taught by Thompson (col 6, lines 35-41).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Company, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Company further teaches the sensor comprises a laser sensor that emits one or more laser beams (15, 16), the defined sensing area comprises a point of intersection (17) for the one or more laser beams (col 3, lines 51-57), and determining the frequency of the shot media comprises generating a signal burst when one of the shot media passes through the defined sensing area (col 3, lines 62-68); and the shot media are peening particles (“shot elements”) that are accelerated by and expelled from a shot peening device (5; col 3, lines 24-31).
Claim(s) 2-3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Company and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertholet (WO 2012/0168190, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Company, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Company further teaches determining the frequency of the shot media comprises determining a number of disruptions of a measurement field in the measurement area (col 5, lines 15-19). Company does not teach generating a first or second magnetic field via first and second magnetic sensors. Bertholet teaches a method for determining velocity of a shot media, including activating a sensor by generating a first magnetic field via a first magnetic sensor (24) and a second magnetic field via a second magnetic sensor (25), and determining a disruption to the first and second magnetic fields ([0024] describes a “pulse” being generated in each of the sensor coils, which constitutes a disruption to a magnetic fields). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the dual magnetic sensor technique of Bertholet in place of the optical sensor used in the method of Company, as using such magnetic sensors achieves the predictable result of accurately determining velocity a shot media as taught by Bertholet ([0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Company, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Bertholet further teaches a predefined characteristic of the senor (the magnetic sensor of Bertholet included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 2 above) is a distance between the first and second magnetic sensors ([0024]) and wherein the velocity of the shot media is determined as a product of the frequency and the distance (as described in [0024] and [0028] of Bertholet).
Regarding claim 9, Company teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Company does not teach applying a Fast Fourier Transform to an output from the sensor. Bertholet teaches a method for determining velocity of a shot media, including applying a Fast Fourier Transform to an output from a sensor ([0028]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a Fast Fourier Transform to an output from the sensor of Company, as this is a known data analysis technique which filters noise from the measurement as taught by Bertholet ([0028]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Company and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dunham (US 2146723, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Company teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Company further teaches determining the frequency of the shot media comprises determining a number of changes in the measurement area (col 5, lines 15-19). Company does not teach the sensor comprises first and second conductive steel components or determining a change to a static charge in the steel components. Dunham teaches a method of determining velocity of a shot media wherein a sensor comprises a first conductive component and a second conductive component (p 1, col 2, lines 19-22; multiple antennae), and wherein determining the frequency of the shot media comprises determining change to a static charge of the first conductive component and to the second conductive component (p 1, col 2, lines 22-26). It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the conductive static charge sensors of Dunham in place of the optical sensor used in the method of Company, as such sensors achieve the predicable result of determining a velocity of the shot media as taught by Dunham (paragraph starting p 1, col 2, line 43).
Regarding claim 5, Company, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Dunham further teaches a predefined characteristic of the senor (the static sensor of Dunham included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 3 above) is a distance between the first and second conductive components (paragraph starting p 1, col 2, line 43) and wherein the velocity of the shot media is determined as a product of the frequency and the distance (as described paragraph starting p 1, col 2, line 43 of Dunham).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Company as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gedeon (US 4030097, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Company teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Company does not teach generating a radio frequency signal or receiving a reflection of the RF signal from the shot media. Gedeon teaches a method for determining a velocity of a shot media including activating a sensor (20) by generating a radio frequency (RF) signal (“radar”), and receiving a reflection of the RF signal from the shot media (col 2, lines 43-54). It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the RF sensor of Gedeon in place of the optical sensor used in the method of Company, as such sensors achieve the predicable result of determining a velocity of the shot media as taught by Gedeon (col 2, lines 43-58).
Regarding claim 7, Company, as modified by Gedeon, teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as described above. Gedeon further teaches a predefined characteristic of the senor (the static sensor of Gedeon included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 6 above) is an angle (theta; fig 1) of the radar sensor and wherein the velocity of the shot media is a function of the frequency, the angle, and a frequency of the radar sensor (col 6, lines 3-9).
Claim(s) 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Company (US 5212976, previously cited) in view of Thompson (US 5176018, previously cited) and Ho (US 2021/0046611, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Company teaches an apparatus for controlling a velocity of a shot media, the apparatus comprising: a shot peening device configured to accelerate and expel the shot media (col 3, lines 27-31), the shot peening device comprising a nozzle (5) having a first end (left end as viewed in fig 1) and a second end (right end as viewed in fig 1) and a media hose (7) coupled to the nozzle and configured to supply the shot media to the nozzle (col 3, lines 27-35), and the shot media is expelled from the second end of the nozzle (as shown in fig 1), a sensor (10) having a defined sensing area (17), the sensing area defined proximate to the second end of the nozzle such that the shot media received through the defined sensing area are free-flying shot media that have exited the nozzle (as shown in fig 1); and a computing system (elements 18-20) configured to: determine a frequency of the shot media through the defined sensing area (col 3, lines 62-66); determine the velocity of the shot media based on the determined frequency and a predefined characteristic (as broadly claimed, the predefined characteristic is the location of the location of the sensing area) of the sensor (as described col 4, line 66-col 5, line 7).
Company does not teach the computing system is configured to determine the velocity continuously during operation of the shot peening device. Thompson teaches an apparatus for determining a velocity of a shot media expelled from a shot peening device, wherein the shot media (14) is received through a defined sensing area (area within sensor 40 shown in fig 2) and its velocity is determined continuously during operation of the shot peening device (col 6, lines 35-41 describes sensing during operation; col 6, lines 55-62 describes the sensing is continuous). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the computing system of Company to continuously determine the velocity of the shot media during operation by arranging the sensor on the end of the nozzle, as this allows the sensor to sense an improper operating condition during use and allow corrections or adjustments to be made to the operation as taught by Thompson (col 6, lines 35-41).
Company does not teach the computing system configured to compare the determined velocity of the shot media to a desired velocity of the shot media to determine a difference, and control the shot peening device to adjust the velocity of the shot media in response to the comparison and the determined difference. Ho teaches an apparatus for controlling a velocity of shot media including a computing system (“programmable controller”) configured to compare a determined velocity of shot media to a desired velocity (“predetermined value”) of the shot media to determine a difference, and control the shot peening device to adjust the velocity of the shot media in response to the comparison and the determined difference (as described in [0048] and [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the computing system in the apparatus of Company to compare the determined velocity to a desired velocity and adjust the velocity in response to a determined difference, as this type of feedback control achieves the predictable result of allowing the apparatus to maintain a predetermined optimal velocity of the shot media and reduce any errors in real time as taught by Ho ([0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Company, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Company does not teach the sensor comprising a radar head, an RF field, or determining the frequency of the shot media based on receiving data regarding a doppler frequency. Ho teaches an apparatus for controlling a velocity of shot media including a sensor comprising a radar head (212), a sensing area comprises a radio-frequency field ([0142]; area at elements 256, 258; [0142]), and determining the frequency of the shot media comprises: receiving, from the sensor, data regarding a Doppler frequency of the shot media based on the shot media reflecting the RF field, and determining the frequency of shot media based on the received Doppler frequency (as described [0145-0150]). It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the RF doppler sensor of Ho in place of the optical sensor used in the apparatus of Company, as such sensors achieve the predicable result of determining a velocity of the shot media as taught by Ho ([0149-0150]).
Regarding claims 15-16, Company, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Company further teaches the sensor comprises a laser (15, 16), and wherein the sensor is configured to detect a disruption of the laser by the shot media and to transmit a signal indicative of the disruption to the computing system (col 3, lines 57-68); the laser comprises a first laser (15) and a second laser (16), and wherein the sensing area comprises an intersection (17) between the first laser and the second laser (shown in fig 1).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Company, Thompson, and Ho as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bertholet (WO 2012/0168190, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Company teaches all the elements of claim 11 as described above. Company further teaches the sensor configured to send a signal to the computing system based on the shot media disrupting the sensing area (col 3, lines 62-67). Company does not teach the defined sensing area comprising a magnetic field or the media disrupting the magnetic field. Bertholet teaches an apparatus for controlling a velocity of a shot media, including a sensor defining a sensing area comprising a magnetic field (including first and second magnetic fields formed by individual sensors 24, 25; [0024]), and determining a disruption to the magnetic fields ([0024] describes a “pulse” being generated in each of the sensor coils, which constitutes a disruption to a magnetic fields). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the dual magnetic sensor technique of Bertholet in place of the optical sensor used in the apparatus of Company, as using such magnetic sensors achieves the predictable result of accurately determining velocity a shot media as taught by Bertholet ([0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Company, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as described above. Bertholet further teaches the sensor (the magnetic sensor of Bertholet included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 2 above) comprises a first sensor (24) generating a first magnetic field, and a second sensor (25) generating a second magnetic field, and the signal is indicative of a time interval between the shot media disrupting the first magnetic field and the shot media disrupting the second magnetic field (as described [0024]).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Company (US 5212976, previously cited) in view of Ho (US 2021/0046611, previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Company teaches a method for controlling a velocity of shot media from a shot peening device comprising a nozzle (5) having a first end (left end as viewed in fig 1) and a second end (right end as viewed in fig 1) and a media hose (7) coupled to the nozzle and configured to supply the shot media to the nozzle (col 3, lines 27-35), the shot media expelled from the second end of the nozzle (fig 1), the method comprising: activating a sensor (10) having a defined sensing area (at point 17), the sensing area defined proximate to the second end of the nozzle such that the shot media received through the defined sensing area are free-flying shot media that have exited the nozzle (as shown in fig 1); receiving the shot media through the defined sensing area (fig 1; col 3, lines 27-31); determining a frequency of the shot media received through the defined sensing area (col 3, lines 62-66); and determining, by a controller (elements 18-20), the velocity of the shot media based on the determined frequency and a predefined characteristic (as broadly claimed, the predefined characteristic is the location of the location of the sensing area) of the sensor (as described col 4, line 66-col 5, line 7).
Company does not teach the comparing the determined velocity of the shot media to a desired velocity of the shot media to determine a difference, and controlling the shot peening device to adjust the velocity of the shot media in response to the comparison and the determined difference. Ho teaches a method for controlling a velocity of shot media including comparing, by a controller (“programmable controller”) a determined velocity of shot media to a desired velocity (“predetermined value”) of the shot media to determine a difference, and controlling the shot peening device to adjust the velocity of the shot media in response to the comparison and the determined difference (as described in [0048] and [0054]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller of Company to compare the determined velocity to a desired velocity and adjust the velocity in response to a determined difference, as this type of feedback control achieves the predictable result of allowing the method to maintain a predetermined optimal velocity of the shot media and reduce any errors in real time as taught by Ho ([0054]).
Regarding claims 19-20, Company, as modified by Ho, teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as described above. Ho further teaches determining, based on the comparison (the comparison of Ho included in the method as described in the rejection of claim 18 above), that the determined velocity of the shot media is less than the desired velocity of the shot media, wherein the controlling comprises increasing the velocity of the shot media ([0054]; “if a detected flow rate is lower than the pre-determined value, the programmable controller would send a strengthening signal to the media flow valve for opening the valve wider accordingly; and the flow rate is thus increased”); and determining, based on the comparison, that the determined velocity of the shot media is greater than the desired velocity of the shot media, wherein the controlling comprises decreasing the velocity of the shot media ([0054]; “If a detected flow rate is higher than the pre-determined value, the programmable controller would send a weakening signal to the media flow valve for closing the valve narrower accordingly; and the flow rate is thus decreased”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 11, 18, and their dependent’s applicant argues that Company does not teach the sensing area being defined proximate to the second end of the nozzle. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen from fig 1 of Company, when in position B, the sensing area 17 is adjacent the second end of nozzle 5 from which the media is expelled. Applicant argues that the sensing area of Company does not move with the nozzle itself. However, no such limitation is found in the claims.
Applicant further argues that Company does not perform continuous measuring of the velocity. However, Thompson renders this limitation obvious as detailed in the rejections above. Note that claim 18 does not contain this argued limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights