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 Objections
Claims 2, 4-5, 24-26, 28, and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2, 4-5, 24-26, 28, and 35 recite “the system further comprising” that should be “the abrasive blasting system further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 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 5 recites “a second water regular” it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended to claim a second water regulator or another structure. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a second water regulator”.
Claims 6-7 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (2020/0094377) and Fowler (8,500,520).
Regarding claim 1, Turner teaches An abrasive blasting system (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising:
a blast hose (Ref. 40, Fig. 1);
a mixer (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) coupled with the blast hose (Fig. 1);
a deadman assembly (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [0020]) operably configured in a deadman position of one of:
a signal-flow position ([0020] describes an activated state with flow) and a signal-no flow position ([0020] describes a deactivated state with no flow);
an air source (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via an air injection conduit (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) in order to provide an air flow to the mixer in response to the deadman position (Fig. 1);
a water source (Ref. 16, Fig. 1) with a water injection conduit (Ref. 36, Fig. 1); and
an abrasive source (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) with a media conduit (Ref. 38, Fig. 1) in order to provide a media flow in the mixer in response to the deadman position ([0020]),
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 (Fig. 1, [0020] describes control valves 22a-22c that allow the deadman to divert air to the mixer via both a water injection conduit (36)).
Turner fails to explicitly teach a water source coupled with the mixer via a water injection conduit and an abrasive source coupled with the mixer via a media conduit. Fowler teaches an abrasive blasting system with a blast hose, mixer, and air source and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Fowler teaches an abrasive blasting system (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising:
a blast hose (Ref. 74, Fig. 1);
a mixer (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) coupled with the blast hose (Fig. 1);
an air source (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via an air injection conduit (Ref. 32, Fig. 1) in order to provide an air flow to the mixer in response to the deadman position (Fig. 1);
a water source (Ref. 21, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via a water injection conduit (Ref. 36, Fig. 1); and
an abrasive source (Ref. 16, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via a media conduit (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) in order to provide a media flow in the mixer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mixer, air source, water source, and abrasive source, as taught by Turner, to be coupled to a singular mixer, as taught by Fowler, to achieve the predictable result of having a mixture to be blasted out of a nozzle to remove particles from a substrate.
Regarding Claim 4, Turner as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Turner further teaches the system further comprising:
a water pump (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) for providing a pressurized water ([0015]) from the water source to the water injection conduit (Fig. 1); and
a first water regulator (Ref. 22a, Fig. 1) for controlling an operation parameter of the pressurized water ([0017] describes the valve to control the flow).
Regarding Claim 5, Turner as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Turner further teaches the system further comprising:
a first water regulator (Ref. 22c, Fig. 1, [0017]); and
a second water regular (Ref. 22a, Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the first water regulator (Fig. 1, [0017]),
the first water regulator operable to stabilize a water flow rate and a water pressure of a water flow to the second water regulator ([0017] describes the adjusting water pressure based on the pump and pumping water flow to the conduit)).
Regarding Claim 6, Turner as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Turner further teaches wherein the second water regulator is configured to control an operation parameter of the water flow ([0017] describes a control valve upstream to control the flow of the water).
Regarding Claim 7, Turner as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and given the teachings of the water injection conduit as taught by Fowler, Turner as modified further teaches wherein the second water regulator is operable for metering the water flow ([0017], Turner) to a first water injector (Ref. 46, Fig. 1, Fowler). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first water conduit, as taught by Turner as modified, with the first water injector, as taught by Fowler, to achieve the predictable result of connecting to the mixer at the end of a conduit.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (2020/0094377), Fowler (8,500,520), and Arant (2,790,678).
Regarding Claim 23, Turner teaches An abrasive blasting system (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising:
a blast hose (Ref. 40, Fig. 1);
a mixer (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) coupled with the blast hose (Fig. 1);
a water pump (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) operable to provide a pressurized water flow ([0015]);
a main water regulator (Ref. 22c, Fig. 1) downstream of the snubber (Fig. 1);
a second water regulator (Ref. 22a, Fig. 1) downstream and in fluid communication with the main water regulator (Fig. 1);
a deadman assembly (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [0020]) operably configured to be in a deadman position of one of:
a signal-flow position ([0020] describes an activated state with flow) and a signal-no flow position ([0020] describes a deactivated state with no flow);
an air source (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via an air injection conduit (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) in order to provide an air flow to the mixer in response to the deadman position (Fig. 1);
a water source (Ref. 16, Fig. 1) with a water injection conduit (Ref. 36, Fig. 1); and
an abrasive source (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) with a media conduit (Ref. 38, Fig. 1) in order to provide a media flow in the mixer in response to the deadman position ([0020]);
a first water injector (Ref. 36, Fig. 1) in fluid communication with each of the air source and the water source (Fig. 1);
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 (Fig. 1, [0020] describes control valves 22a-22c that allow the deadman to divert air to the mixer via both a water injection conduit (36)).
Turner fails to explicitly teach a water source coupled with the mixer via a water injection conduit and an abrasive source coupled with the mixer via a media conduit. Fowler teaches an abrasive blasting system with a blast hose, mixer, and air source and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Fowler teaches an abrasive blasting system (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising:
a blast hose (Ref. 74, Fig. 1);
a mixer (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) coupled with the blast hose (Fig. 1);
an air source (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via an air injection conduit (Ref. 32, Fig. 1) in order to provide an air flow to the mixer in response to the deadman position (Fig. 1);
a water source (Ref. 21, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via a water injection conduit (Ref. 36, Fig. 1); and
an abrasive source (Ref. 16, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via a media conduit (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) in order to provide a media flow in the mixer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mixer, air source, water source, and abrasive source, as taught by Turner, to be coupled to a singular mixer, as taught by Fowler, to achieve the predictable result of having a mixture to be blasted out of a nozzle to remove particles from a substrate.
Turner as modified fails to explicitly teach a snubber in fluid communication with the water pump. Arant teaches a water pump and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to provide water pressure to a nozzle. Arant further teaches a snubber (Ref. 35, Fig. 6) in fluid communication with the water pump ([Col 5, Lines 12-14]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the water pump, as taught by Turner as modified, with a snubber, as taught by Arant, to add the safety benefit of preventing water backflow [(Col 5, Lines 12-14]).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as modified as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Woodson (WO 8707552 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Turner as modified teaches the limitations of claim 23, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach an air flow valve; and a water control valve, wherein a purge line is coupled between the air flow valve and the first water injector. Woodson teaches an abrasive blasting system with a blast hose, air source, and water source and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Woodson further teaches an air flow valve (Ref. 46, Fig. 1); and a water control valve (Ref. 20, Fig. 1), wherein a purge line (Ref. 44, Fig. 1) is coupled between the air flow valve (Ref. 46, Fig. 1) and the first water injector (Ref. 31, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the abrasive blasting system, as taught by Turner as modified, with an airflow valve, a water control valve wherein a purge line is coupled between the air flow valve and the first water injector, as taught by Woodson, to provide extra safety by controlling the flow of abrasive ([Pg. 8, Lines 5-10]).
Regarding Claim 25, Turner as modified teaches the limitations of claim 24, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a second water injector configured to receive pressurized air from the air flow valve via a respective purge line coupled between the air flow valve and the second water injector. Woodson teaches an abrasive blasting system with a blast hose, air source, and water source and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Woodson further teaches a second water injector (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) configured to receive pressurized air from the air flow valve via a respective purge line (44) coupled between the air flow valve (46) and the second water injector (42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the abrasive blasting system, as taught by Turner as modified, with a second water injector, as taught by Woodson, to provide extra safety by controlling the flow of abrasive ([Pg. 8, Lines 5-10]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (2020/0094377) and Arant (2,790,678).
Regarding Claim 34, Turner teaches An abrasive blasting system (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising:
a blast hose (Ref. 40, Fig. 1);
a mixer (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) coupled with the blast hose (Fig. 1);
a water pump (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) operable to provide a pressurized water flow ([0015]);
a main water regulator (Ref. 22c, Fig. 1);
a second water regulator (Ref. 22a, Fig. 1) configured to receive the first reduced pressure flow and reduce its pressure to form a second reduced pressure flow (Fig. 1, [0017]);
a deadman assembly (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [0020]) operably configured to be in a deadman position of one of:
a signal-flow position ([0020] describes an activated state with flow) and a signal-no flow position ([0020] describes a deactivated state with no flow);
an air source (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via an air injection conduit (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) in order to provide an air flow to the mixer in response to the deadman position (Fig. 1);
a water source (Ref. 16, Fig. 1) coupled with the water pump in order to provide a water flow to the water pump (Fig. 1) in response to the deadman position ([0020]);
an abrasive source (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) coupled with the mixer via a media conduit (Ref. 38, Fig. 1) in order to provide a media flow in the mixer in response to the deadman position ([0020]); and
a first water injector (Ref. 36, Fig. 1) coupled with each of the air source and the water source (Fig. 1);
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 (Fig. 1, [0020] describes control valves 22a-22c that allow the deadman to divert air to the mixer via both a water injection conduit (36)).
Turner as modified fails to explicitly teach a snubber in fluid communication with the water pump and a main water regulator configured to receive the snubber outlet flow and reduce its pressure to form a first reduced pressure flow. Arant teaches a water pump and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to provide water pressure to a nozzle. Arant further teaches a snubber (Ref. 35, Fig. 6) in fluid communication with the water pump ([Col. 4, Lines 50]) in order to receive the pressurized water flow (Fig. 1 shows fluid communication to receive the pressurized water flow), the snubber providing a snubber outlet flow (Ref. 32, Fig. 1&6, [Col. 4, Lines 50-54] describes a snubber outlet flow); and
a main water regulator (Ref. 33, Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 50-56]) configured to receive the snubber outlet flow and reduce its pressure to form a first reduced pressure flow (Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 55-56] describes reducing pressure from snubber flow outlet). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the water pump, with a snubber, as taught by Arant, to add the safety benefit of preventing water backflow and contamination of the water source [(Col 5, Lines 12-14]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as modified as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Woodson (WO 8707552 A1).
Regarding Claim 35, Turner as modified teaches the limitations of claim 34, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach an air flow valve, a second water injector, and a water control valve, wherein a purge line is coupled between the air flow valve and the first water injector. Woodson teaches an abrasive blasting system with a blast hose, air source, and water source and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Woodson further teaches an air flow valve (Ref. 46, Fig. 1);
a second water injector (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) configured to receive pressurized air from the air flow valve (46); and
a water control valve (Ref. 20, Fig. 1),
wherein a purge line (Ref. 44, Fig. 1) is coupled between the air flow valve (Ref. 46, Fig. 1) and the first water injector (Ref. 31, Fig. 1), and
wherein a respective purge line (44) is coupled between the air flow valve and the second water injector (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the abrasive blasting system, as taught by Turner as modified, with an airflow valve, a water control valve wherein a purge line is coupled between the air flow valve and the first water injector, as taught by Woodson, to provide extra safety by controlling the flow of abrasive ([Pg. 8, Lines 5-10]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 26-33 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:
Regarding claims 2 and 26, Turner, Woodson, and Fowler, the closest prior art the closest prior arts of record, teach some of the limitations of claim 2, but alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of claim 2.
Turner, one of the closest prior art of record, discloses a first water injector and a control panel but alone or in combination with the additional elements of the claim does not teach, suggest or make obvious a control panel configured with a mode selector operably coupled with the water source, a second water injector disposed in the mixer, and 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 the mode selector, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited features of the claim.
Woodson, one of the closest prior art of record, teaches a second water injector but alone or in combination with the additional elements of the claim does not teach, suggest or make obvious a control panel configured with a mode selector operably coupled with the water source, and 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 the mode selector, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited features of the claim. Further combining the second water injector, with control panel indicate 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 the mode selector, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited features of the claim.
Fowler, one of the closest prior art of record, teaches a first water injector wherein a water flow from the water source is provided to the mixer via the first water injector, but alone or in combination with the additional elements of the claim does not teach, suggest or make obvious a control panel configured with a mode selector operably coupled with the water source, a second water injector disposed in the mixer, and 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 the mode selector, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited features of the claim. Further combining the second water injector, with control panel indicate 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 the mode selector, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited features of the claim.
Claims 3 and 27-33 are allowable due to being dependent upon an allowable claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Armstrong (2008/0176487), Woodson (5,412,910), and Shank (5,407,379) teaches abrasive blasting systems and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723