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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/14/2023. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Sickle (US Patent No. 5,419,734), hereinafter referred to as Van Sickle.
Regarding claims 1 (Currently Amended), 3 (Original), 6 (Original), and 11 (Original), Van Sickle discloses a blast gun assembly for processing workpieces [Van Sickle, fig 1, 10], comprising:
an assembly support structure [Van Sickle, fig 1, 24] (clm 3 and clm 11);
a platform [Van Sickle, fig 2, 40/42] connected to the assembly support structure [Van Sickle, fig 2, 40/42 is connected to 24 to at least intermediate members] (clm 3 and clm 11), wherein the platform is substantially horizontal [Van Sickle, fig 2, 40/42 is horizontally extending and allows for horizontal translation];
a blast gun support structure disposed on the platform [Van Sickle, fig 2, 54 and 64b], the blast gun support structure configured to releasably hold a collar in a predetermined position [Van Sickle, fig 2, 54 and 64b holds collar 64a] and configured to alternate between an open position for accepting the collar and a closed position for holding the collar [Van Sickle, fig 3, 54 and 64b is configured to alternate between an open position of accepting 64a, when 70 is un-threaded and a closed position when 70 is threaded and 64a is closed to 64b] (clm 1 and clm 11); and
a blasting gun held onto the platform via the collar and the blast gun support structure [Van Sickle, fig 1, 28 is held onto 40/42 by collar 64a], wherein the blasting gun comprises a nozzle and is removably attached to a hose for receiving a blasting medium [Van Sickle, fig 7 and col 4, lines 7-17, teaching that 28 can be removed and 90 can be removed and then attached together to form a single hose structure, teaching that 28 is removably attached to 26, in order to attach 90 and form the configuration of fig 7] (clm 6 and clm 11).
Regarding claims 5 (Original), Van Sickle further discloses the blast gun assembly of claim 3, wherein the assembly support structure is configured to oscillate the blast gun assembly [Van Sickle, fig 2, 24 holds pulleys 22 which allows for vertical oscillation].
Regarding claims 7 (Original), Van Sickle further discloses the blast gun assembly of claim 6, wherein the hose is removably attached to the blasting gun via a sleeve [Van Sickle, fig 7 and col 4, lines 7-17, teaching that 28 can be removed and sleeve 90 can be removed and then attached together to form a single hose structure, teaching that 28 is removably attached to 26, in order to attach 90 and form the configuration of fig 7].
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Van Sickle further discloses the blast gun assembly of claim 11, wherein the blast gun comprises a sleeve, wherein the sleeve is configured to receive a nozzle and a hose [Van Sickle, fig 7 and col 4, lines 7-17, teaching that 28 can be removed and sleeve 90 can be removed and then attached together to form a single hose structure, teaching that 28 is removably attached to 26, in order to attach 90 and form the configuration of fig 7].
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.
Claims 10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Sickle (US Patent No. 5,419,734) in view of Wern (US Patent No. 6,612,909), hereinafter referred to as Van Sickle and Wern, respectively.
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Van Sickle discloses a workpiece processing apparatus [Van Sickle, fig 1], comprising:
a blast gun assembly for processing workpieces [Van Sickle, fig 1, 10], comprising:
a platform, wherein the platform is substantially horizontal [Van Sickle, fig 2, 40/42 is horizontally extending and allows for horizontal translation];
a blast gun support structure disposed on the platform [Van Sickle, fig 2, 54 and 64b], the blast gun support structure configured to releasably hold a collar in a predetermined position [Van Sickle, fig 2, 54 and 64b holds collar 64a] and configured to alternate between an open position for accepting the collar and a closed position for holding the collar [Van Sickle, fig 3, 54 and 64b is configured to alternate between an open position of accepting 64a, when 70 is un-threaded and a closed position when 70 is threaded and 64a is closed to 64b]; and
a blasting gun held onto the platform via the collar and the blast gun support structure [Van Sickle, fig 1, 28 is held onto 40/42 by collar 64a]; and
an assembly support structure [Van Sickle, fig 1, 24] connected to the blast gun assembly [Van Sickle, fig 2, 40/42 is connected to 24 to at least intermediate members] and configured to position the blast gun assembly [Van Sickle, fig 2, 40/42 is configured to adjust 28].
Van Sickle does not explicitly disclose a turn table; and a workpiece holder disposed on the turn table.
Wern teaches a workpiece processing apparatus [Wern, fig 1, 10], comprising:
a turn table [Wern, fig 4, 125];
a workpiece holder disposed on the turn table [Wern, fig 4, 130];
a blast gun assembly for processing workpieces [Wern, fig 1, 15], comprising:
a platform, wherein the platform is substantially horizontal [Wern, figs 3 and 4, 145, where 145 is horizontal];
a blast gun support structure disposed on the platform [Wern, fig 4, 150]; and
a blasting gun held onto the platform [Wern, fig 4, 155].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a turn table and workpiece holder as taught by Wern with the blasting apparatus of Van Sickle because rotation ensures even peening of the workpiece [Wern, col 6, lines 45-48, summarized].
Regarding claim 17 (Original), Van Sickle as modified further discloses the workpiece processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the assembly support structure is configured to position the blast gun assembly toward the workpiece holder [Van Sickle, fig 2, 24 holds pulleys 22 that position 40/42 facing toward the work upon the table turn table of Wern].
Regarding claim 18 (Original), Van Sickle as modified further discloses the workpiece processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the assembly support structure comprises an oscillating means for oscillating the blast gun assembly [Van Sickle, figs 2-4, joint 66 are functionally equivalent because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art (joint 66) for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification (joints)].
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Van Sickle as modified further discloses the workpiece processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the workpiece holder comprises a drive means to rotate the workpiece holder [Van Sickle, fig 2, 24 holds pulleys 22 which allows for vertical oscillation by winch 20, where 24, 22, and 20 are functionally equivalent because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the interchangeability between the two items].
Regarding claims 10 (Original), 15 (Original) and 20 (Orignal), Van Sickle discloses the blast gun assembly of claims 1 and 11 and the workpiece processing apparatus of claim 16, respectively,
Van Sickle does not explicitly disclose wherein the platform has an arc shape for providing an arcuate spray pattern
Wern further teaches a blast gun assembly for processing workpieces [Wern, fig 1, 15], comprising:
a platform, wherein the platform is substantially horizontal [Wern, figs 3 and 4, 145, where 145 is horizontal];
a blast gun support structure disposed on the platform [Wern, fig 4, 150]; and
a blasting gun held onto the platform [Wern, fig 4, 155];
wherein the platform has an arc shape for providing an arcuate spray pattern [Wern, fig 3, 145 is in an arcuate shape such that each 155 is provided around an arc to provide an arcuate spray pattern].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the platform of Van Sickle to be in an arcuate shape with the nozzles being placed in an arcuate shape to form an arcuate spray pattern as taught by Wern because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the arcuate platform shape as taught by Wern in the system of Van Sickle, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the arcuate platform shape so that the nozzles are formed into an arcuate spray pattern as taught by Wern in the system of Van Sickle because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the platform of Van Sickle to be in an arcuate shape, while still being on horizontal runners with the nozzles thus being positioned in an arcuate shape. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the nozzles would be able to be positioned to spray to the sides of a workpiece and not just a face facing the nozzles and also being able to be adjusted in a vertical tilt direction and adjusted from side to side by the runners and up and down via the winch and pulleys.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-9, 12, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 (Original) and 12 (Original), Van Sickle (US Patent No. 5,419,734) discloses the blast gun assembly, further comprising: an assembly support structure [Van Sickle, fig 1, 24].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the assembly support structure is configured to replace the platform for another platform, wherein the other platform comprises another blast gun support structure disposed on the other platform and another blasting gun” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art does not teach a second assembly support structure or the functional ability to replace it.
Regarding claims 8 (Original) and 14 (Original), Van Sickle (US Patent No. 5,419,734) teaches the blast gun assembly, wherein the hose is removably attached to the blasting gun via a sleeve [Van Sickle, fig 7 and col 4, lines 7-17, teaching that 28 can be removed and sleeve 90 can be removed and then attached together to form a single hose structure, teaching that 28 is removably attached to 26, in order to attach 90 and form the configuration of fig 7].
However, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the sleeve is inserted through the collar” and “wherein the sleeve is inserted through the collar and the sleeve is affixed to the collar via a fastener” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art sleeve is used outside of the collar as a different holding mechanism and the two are not intended to be used together as this would destroy the intended purpose of the sleeve of the prior art to have a single hose.
Claim 9 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6, regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, the applicant has argued that the limitation “collar” as put forth by the Office is not the broadest reasonable interpretation but is too broad of a recitation. Specifically, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the top plate 64a (or bottom plate 64b) as the collar because neither 64a nor 4b alone are consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “collar”, thus there is no “open” and “closed” position of the carriage 54 to alternate between accepting the clamp assembly 64 and the holding the clamp assembly because the clamp assembly 64, including the alleged collar is always mounted onto the alleged blast gun support structure (i.e. carriage 54).
Respectfully the Office disagrees because Merriam-Webster gives the definition of the term “collar” as “1) a band, strip, or chain, worn around the neck: such as f) a protective or supportive device worn around the neck” and “2) to restrain motion or hold something in place”. In the instant case, the individual portion cited within the Office action of 64a, is at least a strip, and is worn around a neck, and is to restrain motion or hold in place, such that the individual component 64a does meet the definition and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the dictionary to at least understand the term. Further the definition, nor any other definition offered by the applicant has said that the collar must be a unitary and complete piece, or that it must go completely around the circumference of the neck. Therefore, the interpretation of “collar” is reasonably broad in the instant case and thus the prior art cited does read on the instant claims. For this reason the Office action and rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights