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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Paragraph 73, line 7 refers to Figure 2 as having a “resultant blast or mix media 206”, however the number 206 does not appear in Figure 2. There is a line extending to the left of box 205 (the nozzle) which does not have a reference number, and appears could be labelled “206”.
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:
Paragraph 73, line 5 recites “If a water mode is used, purge air now longer flows” and it appears the word “now” is a typo which should recite “no”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Numbering
The claims filed by the applicant contain two claims which are claim number “6” and two claims which are claim number “7”. The second instance of “claim 6” appears after the first instance of “claim 7”, and the second instance of “claim 7” appears after the second instance of “claim 6”. Accordingly, the second instance of “claim 6” should be re-numbered to “claim 8” and the second instance of “claim 7” should be re-numbered to “claim 9”.
The claims already contain claims 8-20. Accordingly, in order to accommodate the correct claim numbering, each claim number starting with the duplicate “claim 6” will be increased by two – including the dependencies in each dependent claim’s preamble in order to maintain the proper order.
The filed claim 8 depends from “claim 7”. For the purpose of examination, filed claim 8 (correctly numbered claim 10) will be treated as depending on the second claim 7 (correctly numbered claim 9).
Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3 recites “the washdown mode” which should be changed to “the water washdown mode” to be consistent with line 2.
Claim 5, line 3 recites “a second water regular” and it appears “regular” is a typo which should be “regulator”. The examiner notes claim 5, line 5, claim 6, line 1, and claim 7, line 1 all refer to “the second water regulator” which suggests that claim 5, line 3 is a typo. For the purpose of examination, claim 5, line 3 will be treated as introducing “a second water regulator”.
Re-numbered claim 13, line 4 recites “the washdown mode” which should be changed to “the water washdown mode” to be consistent with line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 US 2020/0108484 to Kavka-Coogan.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Kavka-Coogan teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising:
a blast hose (52, see Figure 2);
a mixer (42, see Figure 2) coupled with the blast hose;
a deadman assembly (56, see Figure 2) operably configured in a deadman position of one of: a signal-flow position and a signal-no flow position (squeezing or releasing the trigger, see paragraph 27);
an air source (44, see Figure 2) coupled with the mixer via an air injection conduit (45, see Figure 2) in order to provide an air flow to the mixer in response to the deadman position;
a water source (not shown, connects to valve 46, see paragraph 26) coupled with the mixer via a water injection conduit (conduit downstream of valve 46, see Figure 2); and
an abrasive source (blast pot 22) coupled with the mixer via a media conduit (38) in order to provide a media flow in the mixer in response to the deadman position,
wherein upon engagement of the deadman assembly to the signal-flow position, at least part of the air flow is diverted into the mixer via the water injection conduit (see paragraphs 19, 27, and Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0108484 to Kavka-Coogan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0236323 to Mase.
In Reference to Claim 2
Kavka-Coogan teaches:
The abrasive blasting system of claim 1, the system further comprising:
a control panel (30) configured with a mode selector (pneumatic selector valve 62) operably coupled with the water source;
a first water injector (duct leading from water source to mixer 42 downstream of the valve 46) disposed in the mixer; and
wherein a water flow from the water source is provided to the mixer via the first water injector based upon a mode selector position (position of valve 62: “slurry”, “air only”, “water only” in Figure 5) of the mode selector (valve 62 is actuated to control the water through the first water injector, see paragraph 27).
Kavka-Coogan fails to teach:
A second water injector disposed in the mixer.
Mase teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising a mixer (8) having a first water injector (upper instance of 88a in Figure 3A) and a second water injector (lower instance of 88a in Figure 3A), wherein a water flow from the water source is provided to the mixer via at least one of the first water injector, the second water injector, and combinations thereof, based upon a mode selector position of a mode selector (see paragraphs 99 and 103-107 and Figure 3A). Regarding the water flow from the water source, Figure 3A shows multiple water sources (“liquid supply sources”), and the upper liquid supply source is selectively used by controlling the flow control valve 7 (paragraph 104). The “mode selector” determines how far the valve 7 is opened (ranging from closed to fully open).
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 abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan by adding a second water injector and configuring the mode selector to allow water to selectively flow to the second water injector as taught by Mase as both references are directed to abrasive blasting system having nozzles and water, and for the purpose of being able to provide additional water and more control over how much water is used.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0108484 to Kavka-Coogan as modified by US 2016/0236323 to Mase as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2022/0241930 to Nguyen.
In Reference to Claim 3
Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mase teaches:
The abrasive blasting system of claim 2, wherein the mode selector position comprises: a water blast mode (“slurry” mode, see Figure 5 of Kavka-Coogan) and a water washdown mode (“water only” mode, see Figure 5 of Kavka-Coogan).
Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mase fails to teach:
The pressure of the air flow in the mixer in the water blast mode is greater than the pressure of the water flow in the mixer in the water washdown mode. Kavka-Coogan is silent regarding the pressures.
Nguyen teaches:
An abrasive blasting system (10) comprising a mixer (140 in Figure 5 where air from source 16, water from source 118, and abrasive media from tank 1 mix) having a water blast mode (“blasting” setting) and a water washdown mode (“washdown” setting, at 35 psig), wherein the pressure of the air flow in the mixer in the water blast mode (80 psig, see paragraph 67) is greater than the pressure of the water flow in the mixer in the water washdown mode (35 psig, see paragraph 67). The water flow rate during water washdown mode is higher than the flow rate during the blasting mode (paragraph 66, lines 4-6), and reducing the air pressure increases the water flow rate (paragraph 67, lines 8-11).
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 abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mase by operating the system such that the air flow in the mixer in the water blast mode is at a pressure greater than the water flow in the water washdown mode as taught by Nguyen as both references are directed to abrasive blasting systems having mixers for water, air, and abrasive, and for the purpose of allowing the system to effectively switch between modes by regulating the air and water pressures.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0108484 to Kavka-Coogan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 95/22432 to Mellendijk.
In Reference to Claim 4
Kavka-Coogan teaches:
The abrasive blasting system of claim 1 comprising the water injection conduit and water source.
Kavka-Coogan fails to teach:
A water pump for providing a pressurized water from the water source to the water injection conduit and a first water regulator for controlling an operation parameter of the pressurized water.
Mellendijk teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising a water pump (17) for providing a pressurized water from a water source (water tank 13) to a water injection conduit (21) and a first water regulator (18) for controlling an operation parameter (water pressure) of the pressurized water (see page 7, lines 11-34 and Figure 2).
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 abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan by adding a water pump and a first water regulator as taught by Mellendijk as both references are directed to abrasive blasting systems, and for the purpose of being able to increase and control the pressure of the water as desired.
In Reference to Claim 5
Kavka-Coogan teaches:
The abrasive blasting system of claim 1, comprising a water flow.
Kavka-Coogan fails to teach:
A first water regulator, and a second water regulator in fluid communication with the first water regulator, the first water regulator operable to stabilize a water flow rate and a water pressure of a water flow to the second water regulator.
Mellendijk teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising a first water regulator (18) and a second water regulator (23”) in fluid communication with the first water regulator, the first water regulator operable to stabilize a water flow rate and a water pressure of a water flow to the second water regulator (see page 7, lines 11-34 and Figure 2).
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 abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan by adding a first water regulator and a second water regulator as taught by Mellendijk as both references are directed to abrasive blasting systems, and for the purpose of controlling the water flow rate and pressure.
In Reference to Claim 6
Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mellendijk teaches:
The abrasive blasting system of claim 5, wherein the second water regulator is configured to control an operation parameter (flow rate) of the water flow (page 9, lines 31-35 of Mellendijk).
In Reference to Claim 7
Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mellendijk teaches:
The abrasive blasting system of claim 5, wherein the second water regulator is operable for metering the water flow to a first water injector (duct leading from water source to mixer 42 of Kavka-Coogan).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0108484 to Kavka-Coogan as modified by WO 95/22432 to Mellendijk as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of CN 112276802 to Liu et al (a machine translation will be referred to herein).
In Reference to Claim 8
Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mellendijk teaches:
The abrasive blasting system of claim 5 comprising the first water regulator.
Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mellendijk fails to teach:
A snubber tank disposed between the water pump and the first water regulator.
Liu teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising a water pump (2) and a snubber tank (pulsation damper 5) disposed downstream of the water pump (see paragraph 32, lines 1-10 and Figure 1).
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 abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mellendijk by adding a snubber tank downstream of the water pump as taught by Liu as for the purpose of dampening pulsations of pressure.
When modifying the abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan with the teachings of Liu, the snubber tank would be located downstream of the water pump, which results in the snubber tank being disposed between the water pump and the first water regulator.
In Reference to Claims 9 and 20
Kavka-Coogan teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising:
a blast hose (52, see Figure 2);
a mixer (42, see Figure 2) coupled with the blast hose;
a main water regulator (angle seat valve 46);
a deadman assembly (56, see Figure 2) operably configured to be in a deadman position of one of: a signal-flow position and a signal-no flow position (squeezing or releasing the trigger, see paragraph 27);
an air source (44, see Figure 2) coupled with the mixer via an air injection conduit (45, see Figure 2) in order to provide an air flow to the mixer in response to the deadman position;
a water source (not shown, connects to valve 46, see paragraph 26) which provides a water flow in response to the deadman position;
an abrasive source (blast pot 22) coupled with the mixer via a media conduit (38) in order to provide a media flow in the mixer in response to the deadman position;
a first water injector (duct leading from water source to mixer 42 downstream of the valve 46) in fluid communication and coupled with each of the air source and the water source;
wherein upon engagement of the deadman assembly to the signal-flow position, at least part of the air flow is diverted into the mixer via the first water injector (see paragraphs 19, 27, and Figure 2).
Kavka-Coogan fails to teach:
A water pump operable to provide a pressurized water flow, a snubber in fluid communication with the water pump in order to receive the pressurized water flow, the snubber providing a snubber outlet flow, the main water regulator is downstream of the snubber and configured to receive the snubber outlet flow and reduce its pressure to form a first reduced pressure flow, a second water regulator downstream and in fluid communication with the main water regulator and configured to receive the first reduced pressure flow and reduce its pressure to form a second reduced pressure flow, and the water source is coupled to the water pump in order to provide the water flow to the water pump.
Mellendijk teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising a water pump (17) operable to provide a pressurized water flow from a water source (water tank 13) to a water injection conduit (21), and a main water regulator (18) configured to receive the pressurized water flow and reduce its pressure to form a first reduced pressure flow, and a second water regulator (23”) downstream and in fluid communication with the main water regulator and configured to receive the first reduced pressure flow and reduce its pressure to form a second reduced pressure flow, and wherein the water source is coupled with the water pump in order to provide a water flow to the water pump (see page 7, lines 11-34 and Figure 2).
Liu teaches:
An abrasive blasting system comprising a water pump (2) operable to provide a pressurized water flow, and a snubber (pulsation damper 5) in fluid communication with the water pump in order to receive the pressurized water flow, the snubber providing a snubber outlet flow (see paragraph 32, lines 1-10 and Figure 1).
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 abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan by adding a water pump and a second water regulator as taught by Mellendijk as both references are directed to abrasive blasting systems, and for the purpose of being able to increase and control the pressure of the water as desired.
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 abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan as modified by Mellendijk by adding a snubber in fluid communication with the water pump as taught by Liu as for the purpose of damping any pulsations of pressure.
When modifying the abrasive blasting system of Kavka-Coogan with the teachings of Mellendijk and Liu, the snubber tank would be located downstream of the water pump, which results in the main water regulator being downstream of the snubber. The snubber outlet flow would be received by the main water regulator where the pressure would be reduced to form the first reduced pressure flow. The second water regulator is downstream of the first water regulator, and therefore the first reduced pressure flow has its pressure reduced to form the second reduced pressure flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-19, 21, and 22 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:
The prior art of record fails to teach a purge line is coupled between an air flow valve and the first water injector as recited in claims 10 and 21. Kavka-Coogan fails to teach a purge line.
Claims 11-19 depend from claim 10 and contain its limitations and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
The prior art of record fails to teach a respective purge line coupled between the air flow valve and a second water injector as recited in claim 22. Kavka-Coogan fails to teach a purge line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,925,642 to Eliason teaches an abrasive blasting system comprising a water source, an air source, and a media source. US 5,421,767 to Spears Jr teaches an abrasive blasting system comprising a water source, an air source, and a media source. US 2020/0094377 to Turner et al teaches an abrasive blasting system comprising a water source, an air source, and a media source
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745