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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, each of these claims recites the processor setting “an amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder by the at least one servo motor.” The specification as originally filed does not specify what the “amount of change per unit time” is, and therefore does not disclose “an amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder by the at least one servo motor” as claimed. Applicant’s remarks point to paragraphs [0011], [0027], [0030], [0058], and [0071-0073] of the original specification as providing support for the claim amendments. However, paragraphs [0011], [0027], and [0030] generally describe changing a position of the cylinder without a reference to an amount of change per time; paragraph [0058] describes controlling a degree of opening of the gate, and a reference to moving the cylinder “in accordance with the amount of change per unit time”, which does not describe what the change per unit time is; and paragraphs [0071-0073] generally describe the functions may be carried out with computer software controls, with no discussion of cylinder position. Additionally, applicant’s paragraph [0057] describes the processor setting “the amount of change per unit time in the servo motor 113 in advance” and driving the servo motor “by the amount of change per unit time”, but is unclear on what exactly the change is. Even if it can be inferred from this passage that the change is some change in state of the servo motor ([0057]; “processor 213 may drive the servo motor 113 by the amount of change per unit time”), this is not the same as “an amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder” as claimed. There does not appear to be sufficient support in the specification to fully describe any particular specific change per unit time, let alone “an amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder by the at least one servo motor” as claimed. Therefore, claim 1, claims 2 and 4-8 dependent therefrom, claim 9, and claim 10 are rejected under 112a as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-2, and 4-10 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 9-10, each of these claims recites “the at least one processor sets an amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder by the at least one servo motor in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller from the at least one gate”. The “amount of change in position of the at least one cylinder” appears to define a movement speed of the cylinder. It is unclear how this is set “in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller from the at least one gate” as claimed. How is the movement speed determined and how does it relate to the period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller from the at least one gate? These are two completely separate quantities and it is unclear how they correlate to each other. Given a set period of time, how is the movement speed calculated? Applicant’s specification provides no explanation as to this correlation, only stating that an amount of change per unit time is set in accordance with the period of time (see also 112a rejection above). If a person of ordinary skill is given an adjustable cylinder, how are they to know if the speed of movement of the cylinder is set “in accordance with” the claimed period of time? Paragraph [0062] references a “calculated amount of change per unit time,” but no explanation is given for a basis of this calculation, making the desired “accordance” completely unclear. As any adjustable cylinder will inherently have a movement speed (or “amount of change per unit time in the position” as claimed), any processor which sets the cylinder to move based on a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller form the at least one gate will be read as meeting the claim, as this is examiner’s best understanding of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the blasting medium" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, this will be interpreted as “a blasting medium” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
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, previously cited) in view of Panuska (US 7040959, previously cited) and Funatsu (US 8342912, previously cited).
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 carrying out position control of the at least one cylinder while the at least one gate is in a an open state ([0010-0012]; controls degree of gate opening by controlling position of cylinder; gate is open during this control, as it occurs during blasting), 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]), wherein in a case where the load current value of the at least one motor of the impeller reaches the lower limit, the device drives the at least one cylinder by a set amount of change in the position of the at least one cylinder ([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) per unit time (as the cylinder is moves in order to change the amount of opening, it is inherently moved at a speed, or amount of change per unit time; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation).
Fujimoto does not explicitly teach at least one processor or a servo motor for performing the claimed movement of the cylinder. 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).
Fujimoto does not teach the at least one processor controls the amount of change per unit time in the position of the cylinder by the at least one 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 in position of at least one gate (41d) per unit time (col 5, lines 25-39) in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium (G) 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, which involves control of the gate movement, and thus its speed). 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 set the amount of change per unit time of Fujimoto in accordance with a period of time 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).
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 adjust a degree of opening of the at least one gate by carrying out position control of the at least one cylinder while the at least one gate is in a an open state ([0010-0012]; controls degree of gate opening by controlling position of cylinder; gate is open during this control, as it occurs during blasting), 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]), wherein in a case where the load current value of the at least one motor of the impeller reaches the lower limit, the driving the at least one cylinder by a set amount of change in the position of the at least one cylinder ([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) per unit time (as the cylinder is moves in order to change the amount of opening, it is inherently moved at a speed, or amount of change per unit time; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) .
Fujimoto does not teach at least one processor or a servo motor for performing the claimed movement of the cylinder. Panuska teaches a shot-blasting method comprising using 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) 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 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).
Fujimoto does not teach the at least one processor controls the amount of change per unit time in the position of the cylinder by the at least one 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 method wherein a processor sets an amount of change in position of at least one gate (41d) per unit time (col 5, lines 25-39) in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium (G) 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, which involves control of the gate movement, and thus its speed). 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 set the amount of change per unit time of Fujimoto in accordance with a period of time 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).
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), an impeller (4) that has at least one motor (5), at least one cylinder (10) that opens and closes the at least one gate ([0009]); the method comprising adjusting adjust a degree of opening of the at least one gate by carrying out position control of the at least one cylinder while the at least one gate is in a an open state ([0010-0012]; controls degree of gate opening by controlling position of cylinder; gate is open during this control, as it occurs during blasting), 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]), wherein in a case where the load current value of the at least one motor of the impeller reaches the lower limit, driving the at least one cylinder by a set amount of change in the position of the at least one cylinder ([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) per unit time (as the cylinder is moves in order to change the amount of opening, it is inherently moved at a speed, or amount of change per unit time; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation).
Fujimoto does not teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing thereon a program for causing a computer including 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 a position control of a shot-blasting device. 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).
Fujimoto does not teach a servo motor for performing the claimed movement of the cylinder. 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) to 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 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 as taught by Panuska (col 5, lines 15-23; col 7, lines 35-47).
Fujimoto does not teach the at least one setting the amount of change per unit time in the position of the cylinder by the at least one 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 method including setting an amount of change in position of at least one gate (41d) per unit time (col 5, lines 25-39) in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium (G) 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, which involves control of the gate movement, and thus its speed). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the amount of change per unit time of Fujimoto in accordance with a period of time 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, Panuska, and Funatsu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rowland (US 2024/0198485, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 Apr 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments are supported by the original specification and render the previous 112b rejections moot. However, as detailed above, the amended claims introduce new mater of “an amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder” and fail to clarify the “accordance with a period of time” recited in the independent claims. See 112a and 112b rejections above for further explanation.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claim limitations directed to “an amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder by the at least one servo motor in accordance with a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller from the at least one gate” recited in the independent claims. However, as detailed above, these limitations are unclear. It is unclear what is meant by the amount of change per unit time being “in accordance with” the claimed period of time. Even with the benefit of applicant’s specification, the described “accordance” is completely unclear and the scope of the claim cannot be determined. As detailed in the rejection above, it is examiner’s best understanding that the “amount of change per unit time in the position of the at least one cylinder by the at least one servo motor” is describing a speed of the movement of the cylinder which adjusts the gate. However, the claims and applicant’s specification have provided no particular correlation between the speed and the claimed period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller form the at least one gate. Thus any change in position of the cylinder which takes into account the claimed period of time is interpreted to fall under the scope of the claims. As any moving cylinder will inherently have a speed, Fujimoto is interpreted in this examination to set an amount of change per unit time in the position of the cylinder, as Fujimoto moves the cylinder during blasting. Funatsu further renders obvious changing cylinder or gate position based on a period of time until the blasting medium reaches the impeller from the at least one gate as detailed in the rejection above. As best understood, these teachings render the claims obvious.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112d rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights