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 § 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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, these claims each recite the phrase “subjecting the at least one cylinder in a state of opening the at least one gate to position control with use of the at least one servo motor.” This is confusingly worded and unclear. What does the phrase “in a state of opening the at least one gate” mean? Does this mean the gate must be open to meet the claims? Does the gate need to be currently being opened during this step to meet the claims? For the purposes of this examination, this phrase will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the at least one processor sets an amount of change per unit time in the servo motor in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller from the at least one gate” and further recites driving “the at least one servo motor by the amount of change.” This is confusingly worded and unclear. What is the described “change.” Is this a change of position of some element? Is this a general change of state of something? The phrase “change per unit time” appears to indicate a speed or rate of some sort, but it is impossible to determine what this rate refers to, as no change is specified. The claim later recites driving the servo motor “by the amount of change,” which calls into question whether or not a rate is being defined here, as the claimed amount of change no longer happens “per unit time”. It is further unclear what it means for this change to be “in accordance with a period of time”. Does this mean the change only happens after a period of time has passed, or that the change relates to a period of time in some other way? For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 9 recites “a blasting medium” in line 6. However, there is already antecedent basis for “a blasting medium” in line 4. It is unclear if these are two separate blasting mediums. For the purposes of this examination, these will be read as referring to the same blasting medium.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one processor" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what processor is being referred to here and if it is the same as “the processor” recited in claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a program for causing a computer including the at least one processor to function as a shot-blasting device recited in claim 1, the program causing the at least one processor to carry out the position control”. The claim refers to claim 1, but does not include all the structure of claim 1, as the storage medium is only meant to store a program for operating a blasting device, rather than include the structure of the blasting device itself. Therefore, claim 10 fails to include all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto (JP H06-143147, see attached machine translation) in view of Panuska (US 7040959).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto teaches a shot-blasting device comprising: a distributor that has at least one gate (7, 7a) and that supplies a blasting medium (S; [0009]); an impeller (4) that has at least one motor (5) and that projects the blasting medium which has been supplied via the at least one gate ([0008]); at least one cylinder (10) that opens and closes the at least one gate ([0009]); the device configured to adjust a degree of opening of the at least one gate, by subjecting the at least one cylinder in a state of opening the at least one gate to position control ([0010-0012]; controls degree of gate opening by controlling position of cylinder), so that a load current value of the at least one motor of the impeller falls within a set range having a lower limit ([0010] describes “proper range of electric current value,” which range must have lower and upper limits in order to maintain the desired flow rate of blasting medium and prevent the supply from being tool large or too small as described [0004]).
Fujimoto does not explicitly teach at least one processor or a servo motor for performing the claimed adjusting of the gate positioning. Panuska teaches a shot-blasting device comprising at least one processor (104) and at least one servo motor (78) that changes a position of at least one cylinder (col 5, lines 15-23; fig 2A; cylinder 76) which opens and closes a gate (100; col 5, lines 59-63), wherein the at least one processor performs program controls for positioning the gate with the use of the servomotor so that the rate of supplied blasting medium falls within a set range (col 7, lines 35-47). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a servomotor and processor to change the position of the cylinder of Fujimoto and perform Fujimoto’s controls for adjusting the degree of opening of the at least one gate, as servomotors are known to achieve the predictable result of allowing automatic accurate positioning and therefore metering of blasting medium and processors allow automatic control of the metering and servomotor as taught by Panuska (col 5, lines 15-23; col 7, lines 35-47).
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fujimoto further teaches the set range further has an upper limit ([0010] describes “proper range of electric current value,” which range must have lower and upper limits in order to maintain the desired flow rate of blasting medium and prevent the supply from being tool large or too small as described [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fujimoto does not teach a storage section storing the lower limit of the set range. Panuska further teaches the shot-blasting device comprising a storage section (106) storing values related to the blasting process (col 7, lines 35-42). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a storage section for storing the lower limit of the set range of Fujimoto, as this allows ready access of the blasting parameters to the processor as taught by Panuska (col 7, lines 35-42).
Regarding claims 5-7, Fujimoto, as modified by Panuska, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Fujimoto further teaches the lower limit is stored while the shot blasting device is in operation (as included in the device of Fujimoto as described in the rejection of claim 4 above, the stored limit is used by the controller during the blasting operation; Panuska col 7, lines 35-47); wherein the at least one processor reads the stored lower limit from the storage section and sets the lower limit (as included in the device of Fujimoto as described in the rejection of claim 4 above, the limit of Fujimoto stored in the storage section of Panuska, and is read by the controller to perform the limit setting of the blasting operation; Panuska col 7, lines 35-47); and wherein the lower limit is set before operation of the shot-blasting device commences (Fujimoto [0010]; the range is “previously determined”).
Regarding claim 9, Fujimoto teaches a method for controlling a shot-blasting device, the shot-blasting device comprising: a distributor that has at least one gate (7, 7a) and that supplies a blasting medium (S; [0009]); an impeller (4) that has at least one motor (5) and that projects the blasting medium ([0008]); at least one cylinder (10) that opens and closes the at least one gate ([0009]); the method comprising adjusting a degree of opening of the at least one gate, by subjecting the at least one cylinder in a state of opening the at least one gate to position control ([0010-0012]; controls degree of gate opening by controlling position of cylinder), so that a load current value of the at least one motor falls within a set range having a lower limit ([0010] describes “proper range of electric current value,” which range must have lower and upper limits in order to maintain the desired flow rate of blasting medium and prevent the supply from being tool large or too small as described [0004]).
Fujimoto does not teach a servo motor for performing the claimed adjusting of the gate positioning. Panuska teaches a shot-blasting method comprising using at least one servo motor (78) that changes a position of at least one cylinder (col 5, lines 15-23; fig 2A; cylinder 76) control a position of a gate (100; col 5, lines 59-63). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a servomotor to change the position of the cylinder of Fujimoto, as servomotors are known to achieve the predictable result of allowing automatic accurate positioning and therefore metering of blasting medium as taught by Panuska (col 5, lines 15-23; col 7, lines 35-47).
Regarding claim 10, Fujimoto, as modified by Panuska, teaches the shot-blasting device of claim 1 as described above, including the claimed position control. Fujimoto does not teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing thereon a program for causing a computer including the at least one processor to carry out the claimed position control. Panuska teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for causing a computer including the at least one processor (col 7, lines 35-47 describe the processor 104 acting as a computer to carry out a programmed control, which includes a storage medium 106) to perform the position control of claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a non-transitory computer readable medium storing thereon a program for causing a computer including the at least one processor to carry out the claimed position control, as this allows automatic control of the metering as taught by Panuska (col 7, lines 35-47).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto and Panuska as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funatsu (US 8342912).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fujimoto, as modified, further teaches the at least one processor (which carries out the functions of Fujimoto as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) drives the at least one servo motor by an amount of change in a case where the load current value of the at least one motor of the impeller reaches the lower limit ([0009-0012], [0004]; the amount of opening of the gate is controlled based on how a monitored current value compares to a predetermined motor current range to prevent the supply from becoming too small). Fujimoto does not teach the at least one processor sets and amount of change per unit time in the servo motor in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller from the at least one gate. Funatsu teaches, as best understood (see 112b rejection above), a shot blasting device wherein a processor sets an amount of change per unit time in a blasting medium supply (hopper 41 supplying blasting medium G) in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the blasting device (2) from at least one gate (as best understood, this described in col 8, lines 37-47, which describes waiting a period of time until blasting medium G reaches the blasting device from the supply before starting a blasting process). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the processor to drive the amount of change of Fujimoto only after a set period of time has elapsed until the blasting medium reaches the impeller, as this allows the device to prepare for blasting and purge any blasting medium prior to the blasting process as taught by Funatsu (col 8, lines 37-47).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto and Panuska as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rowland (US 2024/0198485).
Regarding claim 8, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fujimoto does not teach the storage section further stores the degree of opening of the at least one gate as time series data. Rowland teaches a shot-blasting device including a storage section (“internal memory”) which stores operating parameters and performance information as time series data ([0201-0203]; saved parameters include saved and real time parameters, indicating data is stored over a series of time). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the degree of opening of the at least one gate of Fujimoto as time series data, as storing operating parameters of the shot-blasting device allows a user to access and display information about the blasting process as taught by Rowland ([0201-0203]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar shot-blasting devices and methods are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723