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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MECCHI (US 2008/0250899).
Mecchi teaches a method of producing a blasting medium, the method comprising pouring, at a temperature of 1300 to 1650 °C (para. 0021), which falls into the claimed range of 1300 to 1900 °C, a slag obtained from a steel making process (para. 0016); and processing the slag to produce the blasting medium (para. 0018).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KUNICKI et al. (US 4,062,672).
Kunicki teaches a method of producing a blasting medium, the method comprising pouring (col. 3 lines 43-45), at a temperature of about 1500 °C (col. 2 lines 20-23), which falls into the claimed range of 1300 to 1900 °C, a slag obtained from a steel making process (col. 1 lines 31-33); and processing the slag to produce the blasting medium (Example 1).
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) 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNICKI et al. (US 4,062,672) in view of KATAYAMA et al. (JP 2011-083869).
Kunicki teaches a method of producing a blasting medium, the method comprising pouring (col. 3 lines 43-45), at a temperature of about 1500 °C (col. 2 lines 20-23) or above 1000 °C (col. 3 lines 27-28), which falls into the claimed range of 1300 to 1900 °C, a slag obtained from a steel making process (col. 1 lines 31-33); and processing the slag to produce the blasting medium (Example 1, Example 2). Kunicki teaches that the method produces an abrasive for sand blasting (col. 5 lines 3-4).
Katayama teaches a method of making an abrasive for blasting (abstract). Katayama teaches that the purpose of blast treatment with abrasives is to clean a surface by blasting the blasting medium on the surface (translation page 1 “Background Art”). Since Kunicki teaches that the method produces an abrasive for sand blasting (col. 5 lines 3-4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the blasting medium of Kunicki to clean a surface.
Regarding claim 3, Kunicki teaches cooling the slag to form a crystalline slag (col. 1 lines 28-30). Katayama teaches cooling the slag to form a crystalline slag (page 3 “Steelmaking slag produced…”); and atomizing the crystalline slag to produce a blasting medium comprising slag particles (translation page 4 “The air classifier 41…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kunicki to include the atomizing step of Katayama because Katayama teaches that this allows the particles to be classified into a grain size of 0.1 to 3.0 mm (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Katayama teaches the slag particles have a particle size in a range of 0.1 to 3.0 mm (abstract), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 to 500 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particle range suggested by Katayama because Katayama teaches that particles sizes below 100 microns do not provide sufficient grinding force during blasting and that particle sizes above 3000 microns are more likely to cause clogging during grinding (translation page 4 “particle size”).
Regarding claim 5, Katayama teaches the atomizing includes grinding (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Kunicki teaches the cooling includes air cooling (col. 3 lines 52-53).
Regarding claim 8, Kunicki teaches pouring (col. 3 lines 43-45) at a temperature of above 1000 °C (col. 3 lines 27-28) which incorporates 1600 °C.
Regarding claim 9, Katayama teaches the blasting is conducted with a gas pressure of 0.7 MPa (translation page 5 “A blasting test…”) or 7 bar, which falls into the claimed range of 3.5 to 9 bar.
Regarding claim 10, Katayama teaches the blasting of the blasting medium is conducted using a compressed gas (translation page 5 “A blasting test…”).
Regarding claim 12, Katayama teaches the blasting is configured to de-scale steel, deburr a material, shot-peen a material, and/or remove paint from a surface (translation page 1 “Background Art”).
Regarding claim 13, Katayama teaches the blasting medium has a hardness of 7-9 Mohs (translation page 4 “Mohs hardness…”) which overlaps with the claimed range of 6 to 8 Mohs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the hardness range suggested by Katayama because Katayama teaches that Mohs hardness less than 7 is too easily crushed and Mohs hardness above 9 roughens the surface being blasted (translation page 4 “Mohs hardness…”).
Regarding claim 14, Katayama teaches the blasting medium includes particles in fine shape, coarse shape, or combinations thereof (translation page 4 “The air classifier 41…”).
Regarding claim 15, see the discussions of claims 2, 3, and 4 above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNICKI et al. (US 4,062,672) in view of KATAYAMA et al. (JP 2011-083869) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of OERTEL et al. (WO 2011/036253).
Kunicki as modified by Katayama teaches a method of producing a blasting medium.
Oertel teaches a method of producing a blasting medium. Oertel teaches the crystalline slag is substantially in cubical shape (translation page 3 “FIG. 1 shows a cubic grain…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a cubic grain for the crystalline slag of Kunicki because Oertel teaches that this is the ideal shape for a blasting agent (translation page 3 “FIG. 1 shows a cubic grain…”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNICKI et al. (US 4,062,672) in view of KATAYAMA et al. (JP 2011-083869) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of TSUBONE et al. (US 2015/0101257).
Kunicki as modified by Katayama teaches a method of producing a blasting medium.
Tsubone teaches a method of producing a blasting medium. Tsubone teaches a slag obtained from a steel making process (para. 0002) wherein the slag includes 6 to 35 wt.% FeO and Fe2O3 (para. 0042), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 30 wt.%; 10 to 35 wt.% CaO (para. 0047), which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 to 50 wt.%; 1 to 20 wt.% MgO (para. 0054), which overlaps with the claimed range of 6 to 12 wt.%; 15 to 34 wt.% SiO (para. 0046), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 20 wt.%; and 3 to 25 wt.% Al2O3 (para. 0052), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 10 wt.%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the slag of Tsubone in the method of Kunicki because Kunicki a slag obtained from a steel making process (col. 1 lines 31-33) and Tsubone also teaches a slag obtained from a steel making process (para. 0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK whose telephone number is (571)270-5130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 am - 6 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741