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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims (1-17) directed to the Invention I have been elected without traverse. Claims directed to the method are withdrawn. Species a, c, e, g, and i have been elected. Claims directed to species b, d, f, h, j, and k are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 9, 2026.
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 “an inner body structure defining a channel forming a portion of the particle path, the inner body structure being positioned in the outer body structure to further define the inner annular gap” in claim 17 and “Babbit material” in claim 18, 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification includes phrases such as “and the like”. The specification should be reviewed for proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. Amendments to the specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
One information disclosure statement (IDS) has been received in this application with two references. Applicant is reminded of the requirements under 37 CFR 1.56(a) for each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application having a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(a) section.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites : “powder to a surface utilizing a gas stream”, “powder in a stream of heated gas”, “particles of the powder stream move”, and “primary gas stream”. Claim 4 recites “ and particles of the powder”. Claim 18 recites “powder output with the primary gas stream”. Clarification is requested to use the same terms for “gas”, “gas stream”, “particles”, “powder” and “output” consistently and use “a”/”an” for a first occurrence of a specific term and “the/said” for subsequent occurrences of the same specific term.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the mixing device” should be “a mixing device”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second input opening” should be “a second input opening”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first section and a second section” should be “the first section and the second section”
Claim 16 recites the “the inner annular ” should be “the inner annular gap “.
Claim 17 recites: “the inner body structure” should be “[[the]] an inner body structure“.
Claim 17 recites: “the inner body structure being positioned in the outer body structure to further define the inner annular gap” . This limitation is awkward. A suggested revision is as follows: “the inner body structure being positioned [[in]] against the outer body structure to further define the inner annular gap”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160047052 A1 to Baranovski et al (hereinafter Baranovski) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130112383 A1 to Hanamachi (hereinafter Hanamachi) .
Regarding claim 1, Baranovski teaches a powder spray applicator system (56) for applying a powder to a surface utilizing a gas stream, the applicator system comprising an applicator device (45’) configured to eject particles of powder in a stream of a heated gas, the applicator device (45’) having a flow chamber (36) , the applicator device (45’) defining a gas path (from fitting 12, from outer location 58 to inner location 36) along which a primary gas stream moves upon introduction into the flow chamber (36) , the applicator device comprising: a body assembly (36, 58, 56) defining an outer annular gap (58) forming a first section of the gas path and an inner annular gap (36) forming a second section of the gas path; and a spray nozzle (8, 13) defining a flow passage extending between an entry opening (35) of the spray nozzle and an exit opening of the spray nozzle (portion after 8) , the flow passage having an initial section (13) and a final section (8), and wherein the initial section (13) of the flow passage has a converging shape and the final section (8) of the flow passage has a straight shape (8). (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Baranovski does not explicitly teach the applicator device defining a particle path along which particles of the powder stream move upon introduction into the flow chamber.
Hanamachi teaches the applicator device using a powder to form a layer on a metal.
Hanamachi teaches the applicator device defining a particle path along which particles of the powder stream move upon introduction into the flow chamber. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator device defining a particle path along which particles of the powder stream move upon introduction into the flow chamber, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer on a metal. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Baranovski does not explicitly teach the body assembly and the spray nozzle are configured to define a convergence point of the particle path and the gas path located proximate to the entry opening of the spray nozzle.
Hanamachi teaches the body assembly (14) and the spray nozzle (15) are configured to define a convergence point (point in 14 where particle path and gas path meet) of the particle path (path of 1 from 12 to end of 15) and the gas path (path from 13 to 14 to end of 15) located proximate to the entry opening of the spray nozzle (opening of 15) . (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the body assembly and the spray nozzle are configured to define a convergence point of the particle path and the gas path located proximate to the entry opening of the spray nozzle, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer on a metal. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 4, Baranovski teaches the applicator device has an input end and an output end with a central longitudinal axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the mixing device between the input and output ends, the applicator device having a first input opening at the input end and an output opening at the output end, the output opening being configured to output the primary gas stream and particles of the powder. (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Baranovski does not explicitly teach the first input opening at the input end being configured to connect to a first conduit to receive particles from a powder source.
Hanamachi teaches the first input opening (opening of 15) at the input end being configured to connect to a first conduit (12a) to receive particles from a powder source (12). (See Hanamachi , Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first input opening at the input end being configured to connect to a first conduit to receive particles from a powder source, because Hirano teaches this allow the nozzle to be used for the desired speed. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 5, Baranovski does not explicitly teach the applicator device has a second input opening located on the body assembly between the first input opening and the output opening, the second input opening being configured to connect to a second conduit to receive the primary gas stream.
Hanamachi teaches the applicator device has a second input opening(opening in 14 which receives 13a) located on the body assembly (14) between the first input opening (opening in 14 which receives 12a) and the output opening (end of 15), the second input opening(opening in 14 which receives 13a) being configured to connect to a second conduit (13a) to receive the primary gas stream. (See Hanamachi , Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator device has a second input opening located on the body assembly between the first input opening and the output opening, the second input opening being configured to connect to a second conduit to receive the primary gas stream, because Hirano teaches this structure would allows a powder to form a layer with desired properties on the substrate. (See Hanamachi , Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 6, Baranovski teaches the particle path of the applicator device (45) is in fluid communication with the first input opening (orifices 59, 64). (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Baranovski does not explicitly teach a portion of the particle path is defined by the flow chamber extending from the input opening toward the output opening, the particle path having a primary flow direction extending from the input end toward the output end .
Hanamachi teaches a portion of the particle path is defined by the flow chamber (14) extending from the input opening toward the output opening, the particle path having a primary flow direction extending from the input end toward the output end. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a portion of the particle path is defined by the flow chamber extending from the input opening toward the output opening, the particle path having a primary flow direction extending from the input end toward the output end, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer with desired properties on the substrate. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 7, Baranovski does not explicitly teach the gas path of the applicator device is in communication with the second input opening and a portion of the gas path is defined in the flow chamber, the gas path extending from the second input opening to the output opening, the gas path having a convoluted character.
Hanamachi teaches the gas path of the applicator device is in communication with the second input opening (opening in 14 which receives 13a) and a portion of the gas path is defined in the flow chamber (14) , the gas path extending from the second input opening (opening in 14 which receives 13a) to the output opening (end of 15) , the gas path having a convoluted character. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.) (Examiner is considering a non-linear path to be equivalent to a convoluted character.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the gas path of the applicator device is in communication with the second input opening and a portion of the gas path is defined in the flow chamber, the gas path extending from the second input opening to the output opening, the gas path having a convoluted character, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer with desired properties on the substrate. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 8, Baranovski teaches the gas path has a first section (58) and a second section (36), a direction of movement of the gas along the gas path reversing between the first section in the second section of the gas path. (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Regarding claim 9, Baranovski teaches the direction of movement of gas along the first section (58) of the gas path is in a secondary movement direction, the secondary movement direction (36) being substantially opposite of the primary flow direction. (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Regarding claim 10, Baranovski teaches the first section of the gas path extends from the second input opening (opening of the fitting 11) extending from the secondary input opening to a reversal location (35), the second section of the gas path extending from the reversal location (35) toward the output opening (end of 8) of the applicator device (45’). (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Regarding claim 11, Baranovski teaches the gas path is in communication with the particle path at a convergence point of the flow chamber to combine the primary gas stream and particles of the powder in the powder stream. (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Baranovski does not explicitly teach the convergence point being located at the entry opening of the spray nozzle.
Hanamachi teaches the convergence point (point in 14 where particle path and gas path meet) being located at the entry opening of the spray nozzle (15). (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.) (Examiner is considering a non-linear path to be equivalent to a convoluted character.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the convergence point being located at the entry opening of the spray nozzle, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer with desired properties on the substrate. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 12, Baranovski does not explicitly teach the convergence point of the flow chamber is located in the initial section of the flow passage of the spray nozzle having the converging shape.
Hanamachi teaches the convergence point (point in 14 where particle path and gas path meet) of the flow chamber is located in the initial section of the flow passage of the spray nozzle (15) having the converging shape. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.) (Examiner is considering a non-linear path to be equivalent to a convoluted character.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the convergence point of the flow chamber is located in the initial section of the flow passage of the spray nozzle having the converging shape, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer with desired properties on the substrate. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.) Regarding claim 13, Baranovski teaches the initial gas movement space and the subsequent gas movement space being annular in shape. (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Further, regarding claim 13, Baranovski does not explicitly teach the flow chamber includes an initial gas movement space of the flow chamber defining the first section of the gas path and a subsequent gas movement space of the flow chamber defining the second section of the gas path.
Hanamachi teaches the flow chamber includes an initial gas movement space of the flow chamber defining the first section of the gas path and a subsequent gas movement space of the flow chamber defining the second section of the gas path, the initial gas movement space and the subsequent gas movement space being annular in shape. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.) (Examiner is considering a non-linear path to be equivalent to a convoluted character.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the flow chamber includes an initial gas movement space of the flow chamber defining the first section of the gas path and a subsequent gas movement space of the flow chamber defining the second section of the gas path, the initial gas movement space and the subsequent gas movement space being annular in shape, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer with desired properties on the substrate. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 14, Baranovski teaches the subsequent gas movement space is positioned radially inwardly from the initial gas movement space. (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. ) (Examiner is considering a location downstream in a convergent nozzle to be equivalent to be positioned radially inwardly from the initial gas movement space.)
Regarding claim 15, Baranovski teaches the body assembly of the applicator device (45’) includes a housing structure (11) defining a housing interior (14) and having a case portion (13’) and a cap portion (10) removably mounted on the case portion (13’), the cap portion being configured to secure the spray nozzle (8) on the body assembly when the cap portion (10) is mounted on the case portion (13’) . (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. ) (Examiner is considering a location downstream in a convergent nozzle to be equivalent to be positioned radially inwardly from the initial gas movement space.)
Regarding claim 16, Baranovski teaches the body assembly further includes an outer body structure ( structure including and on top of 15 in Fig. 11) positioned in the housing interior of the housing structure, an outer annular gap (58) of the body assembly being formed between the outer body structure (15) and the housing structure (11) , an inner annular gap (33, 35, 56) of the body assembly being formed in the outer body structure, a plurality of holes (59, 64 ; holes connecting 58 and 35 in Fig. 11) being formed in the outer body structure ( between 13’ and 15 in Fig. 11- 12) to permit fluid communication between the outer annular gap and the inner annular (gap). (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11-12, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. ) (Examiner is considering a location downstream in a convergent nozzle to be equivalent to be positioned radially inwardly from the initial gas movement space.)
Regarding claim 17, Baranovski teaches the inner body structure (13) being positioned in the outer body structure (15) to further define the inner annular gap (33, 35, 56). (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11-12, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Further, regarding claim 17, Baranovski does not explicitly teach the body assembly further includes an inner body structure defining a channel forming a portion of the particle path.
Hanamachi teaches the body assembly (14,15) further includes an inner body structure (portion of 12a which protrudes past 14) defining a channel (12a) forming a portion of the particle (12) path. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.) (Examiner is considering a non-linear path to be equivalent to a convoluted character.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the body assembly further includes an inner body structure defining a channel forming a portion of the particle path, because Hanamachi teaches this structure allows a powder to form a layer with desired properties on the substrate. (See Hanamachi, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 62-67, 127, and Fig. 2.)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160047052 A1 to Baranovski et al (hereinafter Baranovski) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130112383 A1 to Hanamachi (hereinafter Hanamachi) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160047052 A1 to Hirano et al (hereinafter Hirano).
Regarding claim 2, Baranovski does not explicity teach the final section of the flow passage is configured to produce a gas stream of subsonic character.
Hirano is directed to spraying powder with a nozzle.
Hirano teaches the final section of the flow passage is configured to produce a gas stream of subsonic character. (See Hirano, Abstract, paragraph 59 and Fig. 7.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the final section of the flow passage is configured to produce a gas stream of subsonic character, because Hirano teaches this allow the nozzle to be used for the desired speed. (See Hirano, Abstract, paragraph 59 and Fig. 7.)
Regarding claim 3, Baranovski teaches the flow passage (between 35 and 8) of the spray nozzle has a passage surface, the passage surface of the initial section of the flow passage has a substantially conical shape (surface portion near 35) ; and wherein the passage surface of the final section (surface portion near 8) of the flow passage has a substantially cylindrical shape. (See Baranovski, Abstract, Figs. 2, 11, and paragraphs 1-3, 24-26, 29-30, 33-35. )
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160047052 A1 to Baranovski et al (hereinafter Baranovski) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130112383 A1 to Hanamachi (hereinafter Hanamachi) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160047052 A1 to Hirano et al (hereinafter Hirano).
Regarding claim 5, Baranovski does not explicitly teach the applicator device has a second input opening located on the body assembly between the first input opening and the output opening, the second input opening being configured to connect to a second conduit to receive the primary gas stream.
Hirano teaches the applicator device has a second input (8) opening located on the body assembly between the first input opening and the output opening, the second input opening being configured to connect to a second conduit to receive the primary gas stream. (See Hirano, Abstract, paragraphs 29-34, 39-52, 63 and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator device has a second input opening located on the body assembly between the first input opening and the output opening, the second input opening being configured to connect to a second conduit to receive the primary gas stream, because Hirano teaches this structure would allow a predetermined discharge amount of powder. (See Hirano, Abstract, paragraphs 29-34, 39-52, 63 and Fig. 1.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160047052 A1 to Baranovski et al (hereinafter Baranovski) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130112383 A1 to Hanamachi (hereinafter Hanamachi) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. 20140349007 A1 to Lamberton et al (hereinafter Lamberton).
Regarding claim 18, Baranovski does not explicitly teach wherein the particles of the powder output with the primary gas stream comprise a Babbit material .
Lamberton is directed to a cold spray coating process.
Lamberton teaches it is known to use a cold spray coating process wherein the particles of the powder output with the primary gas stream comprise a Babbit material. (See Lamberton, Abstract, paragraphs 6-8, 15, and 22 and Figures 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the particles of the powder output with the primary gas stream comprise a Babbit material, because Lamberton teaches providing a Babbit coating would improve the uniformity of the coating and increase efficiency of the coating and substantially retain the phases and microstructure of the powdered Babbit material. (See Lamberton, Abstract, paragraphs 6-9, 15, 13, 19, and 22 and Figures 1-2.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160047052 A1 to Baranovski et al (hereinafter Baranovski) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130112383 A1 to Hanamachi (hereinafter Hanamachi) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. 20230285999 A1 to Li et al (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 18, Baranovski does not explicitly teach wherein the particles of the powder output with the primary gas stream comprise a Babbit material .
Li is directed to a cold spray coating process with independent feed systems.
Li teaches the deposition can use any suitable metals. (See Li, Abstract, paragraphs 2, 4-5, 15, 18, 25, 27, 29-30, 34, 37, and 57 and Figures 1-8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the particles of the powder output with the primary gas stream comprise a Babbit material, because Li teaches a device which can include metals of any type, so that whatever the metal or metal composition is provided to the nozzle independent controls would enable the metal supplied to the nozzle with most suitable temperature control to better control deposition of a film with the particular metal. (See Li, Abstract, paragraphs 2, 4-5, 15, 18, 25, 27, 29-30, 34, 37, and 57 and Figures 1-8.)
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including Babbit materials. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
The coating apparatus in Baranovski and Hanamachi and Li would be capable of coating with Babbit materials. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20100170938 A1 to Eklavya Calla teaches the material deposited may be any metal. (See Calla, paragraphs 22 and 36.)
Additionally, the term Babbitt is not limited by a specific composition. (See article entitled “Babbit – What is Babbitt”; www.vintagemachinery.org)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717