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 Arguments
Upon further consideration and an updated search, claims 1-2 and 8 were rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Alonso (US 3,491,563) in view of Carpenter (GB 2119681 A), Precision Urethane (“Polyurethane Liners and Lining”; hereinafter Precision), and Khan (US 2023/0074518).
Claims 4-7 and 9-13 remain objected to for including allowable subject matter.
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) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso (US 3,491,563) in view of Carpenter (GB 2119681 A), Precision Urethane (“Polyurethane Liners and Lining”; hereinafter Precision), and Khan (US 2023/0074518).
Regarding claim 1, Alonso (Fig. 7) discloses a system for reducing wear to a shot peening valve, comprising: a valve (180) comprising a valve body (180) and defining a working gap through which a shot peening media (65) may flow, the valve capable of controlling a flow rate of the shot peening media (65).
Alonso fails to disclose a wear plate comprising a semi-rigid material having a lower hardness than a material of the valve body, the wear plate mountable to the valve body proximate the working gap to cover a portion of the valve body and configured to isolate abrasive wear from the shot peening media away from the valve.
Carpenter (Fig. 5; pg. 5, lines 15-23) teaches that a replaceable wear-resistant liner (152, 154) can be applied to the interior of the part of a shot blasting device that distributes the shot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alonso by applying a replaceable wear-resistant liner to the interior of the valve, as taught by Carpenter, in order to minimize wear within the valve.
Precision (pg. 1) teaches that polyurethane can be used as liners for protecting metal hoppers and chutes from abrasive compounds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Alonso and Carpenter by forming the liner taught by Carpenter of polyurethane, as taught by Precision, in order to provide abrasion resistance which can minimize impact damage.
Khan (Paragraph 0008) teaches that parts of a nozzle of a shot peening machine can be formed of tungsten carbide. Khan (Paragraph 0008) teaches that using tungsten carbide helps to provide adequate wearability against shot passing through the nozzle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alonso, Carpenter, and Precision by forming the valve body from a material such as tungsten carbide, as taught by Khan, in order to provide adequate wearability against shot that may contact the valve body.
Based on the teachings of Precision and Khan, the limitation of the wear plate comprising a semi-rigid material having a lower hardness than a material of the valve body is met.
Regarding claim 2, Alonso, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Alsonso, as modified, further discloses that the semi-rigid material is plastic (Precision: Polyurethane).
Regarding claim 8, Alonso (Fig. 7) discloses a method for reducing wear to a shot peening valve (180) comprising: providing a valve (180) comprising a valve body (180) defining an opening through which a shot peening media (65) may flow, the valve body (180) is capable of controlling a flow rate of the shot peening media (65).
Alonso fails to disclose providing a wear plate comprising a semirigid material having a lower hardness factor than a material of the valve body, the wear plate mountable to the valve body proximate the opening to cover a portion of the valve body.
Carpenter (Fig. 5; pg. 5, lines 15-23) teaches that a replaceable wear-resistant liner (152, 154) can be applied to the interior of the part of a shot blasting device that distributes the shot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alonso by applying a replaceable wear-resistant liner to the interior of the valve, as taught by Carpenter, in order to minimize wear within the valve.
Precision (pg. 1) teaches that polyurethane can be used as liners for protecting metal hoppers and chutes from abrasive compounds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Alonso and Carpenter by forming the liner taught by Carpenter of polyurethane, as taught by Precision, in order to provide abrasion resistance which can minimize impact damage.
Khan (Paragraph 0008) teaches that parts of a nozzle of a shot peening machine can be formed of tungsten carbide. Khan (Paragraph 0008) teaches that using tungsten carbide helps to provide adequate wearability against shot passing through the nozzle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alonso, Carpenter, and Precision by forming the valve body from a material such as tungsten carbide, as taught by Khan, in order to provide adequate wearability against shot that may contact the valve body.
Based on the teachings of Precision and Khan, the limitation of the wear plate comprising a semi-rigid material having a lower hardness than a material of the valve body is met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 9-13 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.
Regarding claim 4:
Closest prior art: Alonso (US 3,491,563) and Carpenter (GB 2119681 A)
Alonso and Carpenter disclose the system of claim 1.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the valve further comprises: a pole piece mounted around a periphery of the working gap; and a center bar mounted within the working gap, generally bisecting the working gap into two working gaps.
Claims 5-7 depend upon claim 4 and are objected to for depending upon claim 4.
Regarding claim 9:
Closest prior art: Alonso (US 3,491,563) and Carpenter (GB 2119681 A)
Alonso and Carpenter disclose the method of claim 8.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest the semirigid material has a lower hardness factor than a material of the valve body.
Regarding claim 10:
Closest prior art: Alonso (US 3,491,563) and Carpenter (GB 2119681 A)
Alonso and Carpenter disclose the method of claim 8.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the valve further comprising: a pole piece mounted around a periphery of the opening; and a center bar mounted within the opening, generally bisecting the opening into two working gaps.
Claims 11-13 are objected to for depending upon claim 10.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3275. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Danielle M. Christensen/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights