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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 3/25/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/25/26.
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
“a high-pressure-water inlet” (Claim 1); no corresponding reference character designation in drawings/specification
“an abrasive inlet” (Claim 1); no corresponding reference character designation in drawings/specification
“a mixing chamber” (Claim 1); no corresponding reference character designation in drawings/specification
“a high-pressure water line” (Claim 1); no corresponding reference character designation in drawings/specification
“wherein said sealed gas-valve chamber is directly or indirectly connected to said abrasive feeder vessel” (Claim 1); only one embodiment is shown of the claimed two (“directly or indirectly”)
“an abrasive-feeder inlet” (Claim 5); no corresponding reference character designation in drawings/specification
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because each of reference characters 1-11 have been used to designate different parts in Fig. 1 vs. those designated in Fig. 2 (see [0034] vs [0035]). 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
i. MPEP 608.01 IV: “In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7-9, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
i. Regarding Claims 3, 12, 13, 19, and 20, from MPEP 608.01 IV: “In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.”
ii. Regarding Claims 7-9, “said gas-valve chamber” should read “said --sealed-- gas-valve chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
In the claims (ex. Claim 1), “high-pressure” (like “high-pressure water line”) has been interpreted broadly rather than referring to a specific pressure value.
Applicant has Applicant has provided special definitions (MPEP 2173.01, 2173.05(a) III, and 2111.01 IV): For claim 11, from [0061]: “The gas may be selected from the group consisting of air, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, and combinations thereof. Preferably, the gas is a dry gas, such as dry air. In this specification, a "dry gas" means that the gas has a dew point less than the operating temperature, avoiding water condensation. The dew point is a function of the gas temperature and the relative humidity of the gas.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites in part “wherein said pressurized gas vessel is connected to a sealed gas-valve chamber that is configured to reduce gas pressure from said source pressure to a conveyance pressure greater than atmospheric pressure”. This is indefinite. The “sealed gas-valve chamber” itself performing the function (“configured to reduce gas pressure from said source pressure to a conveyance pressure greater than atmospheric pressure”) is indefinite as the regulator 4 would perform this function. Applicant has included “The blanketing regulator valve chamber 3 houses the blanketing regulator valve 4.” (ex. [0079]). The “chamber” itself being responsible for the claimed function is indefinite.
The term “about” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “from about 1000 atm to about 10000 atm” is rendered indefinite as a result.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said abrasive-feeder inlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 introduces such an inlet but Claim 6 depends from Claim 1, not Claim 5.
The term “about” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “about” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites in part “wherein said sealed gas-valve chamber is at a reference pressure that is less than said conveyance pressure”. This is indefinite. Claim 14 depends from Claim 1. Claim 1 has established “a sealed gas-valve chamber that is configured to reduce gas pressure from said source pressure to a conveyance pressure greater than atmospheric pressure”. Claim 14 appears to be redefining the contents of Claim 1 (“a conveyance pressure”) to be a different value (“a reference pressure that is less than said conveyance pressure”) which is indefinite. There may be a 112(d) issue.
The term “about” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “about” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11, and 19, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 9446500)
Regarding Claim 1,
A method of conveying an abrasive to cut an underwater object, said method comprising:
(a) providing a cutting head (ex. Fig. 1a) comprising a high-pressure-water inlet (10), an abrasive inlet (16), a mixing chamber (14), and a focusing tube (18) that forms an outlet from said mixing chamber;
(b) providing a high-pressure water line (line from “Pump supplied pressurized water”, Fig. 6a, or Fig. 5a) that is configured to flow high-pressure water into said mixing chamber via said high-pressure-water inlet;
(c) providing an abrasive line (line from “Abrasive feed system”) that is configured to flow an abrasive, from an abrasive feeder vessel (“Abrasive reservoir”) and through an abrasive valve (as example annotated), into said mixing chamber via said abrasive inlet;
(d) providing a pressurized gas vessel (Col. 11, line 44-Col. 14, line 2) containing a gas at a source pressure, wherein said pressurized gas vessel is connected to a sealed gas-valve chamber (for valve Col. 11, lines 44-64, must be sealed as this is underwater environment) that is configured to reduce gas pressure from said source pressure to a conveyance pressure greater than atmospheric pressure, and wherein said sealed gas-valve chamber is directly or indirectly connected to said abrasive feeder vessel;
(e) opening a valve (as annotated) upstream of said cutting head to form a high-velocity waterjet through said focusing tube that receives said high-pressure water from said mixing chamber;
(f) evacuating said abrasive line of residual water (by vacuum, ex. Col. 19, lines 26-30);
(g) after step (f), opening said abrasive valve to receive said abrasive from said abrasive feeder vessel into said mixing chamber, and to receive said gas from said abrasive feeder vessel into said mixing chamber, wherein said gas at said conveyance pressure pneumatically conveys said abrasive from said abrasive feeder vessel to said mixing chamber (ex. Col. 21 , line 63-Col. 22, line 12); and
(h) cutting said underwater object using said high-velocity waterjet and said abrasive (ex. Col. 22, lines 60-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
The method of claim 1, wherein said cutting head is an entrainment-style waterjet cutting head (ex. Col. 9, lines 38-61).
Regarding Claim 3,
wherein said high-pressure water is at a pressure selected from about 1000 atm to about 10000 atm.
Miller discloses “The waterjet washout lance, wand, or tool uses high pressure water, in the range of about 280 MPa to 1,000 MPa” (Col. 24, lines 1-2) - this corresponds to a range of about 2763 atm to 9869 atm.
Regarding Claim 4,
The method of claim 1, wherein said abrasive is selected from the group consisting of garnet, diamond, silicon carbide, silica, alumina, titanium dioxide, and combinations thereof (ex. Col. 9, lines 62-66).
Regarding Claim 7,
The method of claim 1, wherein said gas-valve chamber is directly connected to said abrasive feeder vessel (see. Col. 11, lines 44-64 in conjunction with Col. 10, line 14-Col. 11, line 22).
Regarding Claim 10,
The method of claim 1, wherein said gas is selected from the group consisting of air, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, and combinations thereof (ex. Col. 11, line 65-Col. 14, line 2).
Regarding Claim 11,
The method of claim 1, wherein said gas is dry air (ex. Col. 13, line 11-Col. 14, line 2).
Regarding Claim 19,
The method of claim 1, wherein step (g) uses an abrasive flow rate from about 0.1 pounds per minute to about 2 pounds per minute (Col. 10, lines 31-34).
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 5, 6, 8, and 9, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Funatsu et al. (US 8342912).
Regarding Claim 5, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein said abrasive feeder vessel is connected at an abrasive-feeder inlet to an abrasive hopper that stores said abrasive.
Miller does disclose “Abrasive slurry waterjet, also known as an abrasive suspension jet, typically uses a hopper filled with abrasive, water, and a slurrying or suspension agent” (Col. 2, lines 21-25) but this is the only mention of a “hopper”. It is unclear if Miller discloses a “hopper” as part of the “abrasive feed system”.
Funatsu teaches
wherein said abrasive feeder vessel (61) is connected at an abrasive-feeder inlet to an abrasive hopper (41) that stores said abrasive.
Since both references are directed to abrasive systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abrasive feed system of Miller to include a hopper as taught by Funatsu in order to provide an appropriate hopper for the abrasive feed system for stable supply of abrasive to the waterjet.
Regarding Claim 8,
The method of claim 5, wherein said gas-valve chamber is connected to said abrasive hopper (by virtue of being in the same system).
Regarding Claim 9,
The method of claim 5, wherein said gas-valve chamber is connected to both said abrasive feeder vessel and said abrasive hopper (by virtue of being in the same system).
Regarding Claim 6, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein said abrasive feeder vessel is internally configured with an abrasive feeder, and wherein a funnel is disposed at an outlet of said abrasive feeder, at a distal end relative to said abrasive-feeder inlet.
Funatsu teaches
wherein said abrasive feeder vessel (61) is internally configured with an abrasive feeder, and wherein a funnel (note shape of 61 leading to 62) is disposed at an outlet of said abrasive feeder, at a distal end relative to said abrasive-feeder inlet.
Since both references are directed to abrasive systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abrasive reservoir of Miller to include an abrasive feed vessel as taught by Funatsu in order to provide an appropriate vessel for the abrasive feed system for stable supply of abrasive to the waterjet.
Claims 12 and 13, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller.
Regarding Claim 12, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein said source pressure is selected from about 10 atm to about 250 atm
Miller discloses a variety of pressures to meet the depth and location requirements as disclosed at Col. 4, lines 7-33 for example. However Miller does not explicitly disclose the source pressure is selected from about 10 atm to about 250 atm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the source pressure of Miller to be selected from about 10 atm to 250 atm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 13, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein said conveyance pressure is selected from about 1.1 atm to about 2 atm.
Miller discloses working depths (Col. 4, lines 7-33 for example) and preferred air pressure differential (ex. Col. 10, line 42-47 for example). However Miller does not explicitly disclose conveyance pressure is selected from about 1.1 atm to about 2 atm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conveyance pressure of Miller to be selected from about 1.1 atm to about 2 atm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range ([0064]).
Claims 16 and 20, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 16, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein step (f) evacuates said abrasive line of residual water using the Venturi effect by flowing said high-pressure water past said abrasive inlet for at least 10 seconds.
Miller discloses an entrainment waterjet; these rely on vacuum generated by flowing water (Cl. 2, lines 38-44). Miller flowing water through the waterjet uses the Venturi effect but Miller does not disclose doing this for at least 10 seconds. Since applicant has not disclosed that water run for at least 10 seconds solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above this creates a vacuum for the abrasive line and it appears that the system of Miller would perform equally well with duration as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the system by utilizing duration as claimed for the purpose of creating vacuum on the abrasive line.
Regarding Claim 20, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein step (g) uses a gas flow rate from about 1 standard cubic feet per minute to about 5 standard cubic feet per minute.
Miller does not disclose the claimed rates. Since applicant has not disclosed that having rates at these specific values solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the gas flow rates are sufficient to supply the waterjet with abrasive and it appears that the system of Miller would perform equally well with gas flow rates as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the system by utilizing the gas flow rates as claimed for the purpose of supplying abrasive to the waterjet.
Claims 17 and 18, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view Langford et al. (US 2004/0132383).
Regarding Claim 17, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed
wherein step (f) evacuates said abrasive line of residual water using flow of said gas through said abrasive line.
Langford teaches
wherein step (f) evacuates said abrasive line of residual water using flow of said gas through said abrasive line (ex. [0067], Figs. 1 and 19).
Since both references are directed to abrasive systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Milelr to use a flow of gas as taught by Langford in order to provide ensure the abrasive line remains dry and clog free ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 18, Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
The method of claim 1, wherein step (i) evacuates said abrasive line of residual water using both (a) the Venturi effect by flowing said high-pressure water past said abrasive inlet for at least 10 seconds and (ii) flow of said gas through said abrasive line.
Langford teaches
wherein step (i) evacuates said abrasive line of residual water using both (a) the Venturi effect by flowing said high-pressure water past said abrasive inlet for at least 10 seconds and (ii) flow of said gas through said abrasive line (ex. [0067], Figs. 1 and 19).
Since both references are directed to abrasive systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Milelr to use a flow of gas as taught by Langford in order to provide ensure the abrasive line remains dry and clog free ([0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-time).
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
