The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the sentences have an extra space in front of the period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “blasting system” in Claims 1-6 and 11, “specialized suction mechanism” in Claims 2, 7, and 11, and “system” in Claims 4 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a system has not been previously claimed.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown US 4,232,487 (hereafter Brown) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 1, Brown teaches:
1. A blasting system (abrading device, Title) comprising an air compressor comprising:
said air compressor (see discussion below) configured to provide a compressed air (pressurized air from conduit line 33);
a vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1) operatively connected (both retrieval line 21 and conduit line 33 are fluidically and mechanically connected to shroud 17 through gun 13 and outlet tube 70) to said air compressor, wherein said vacuum assembly is configured (with shroud 17) to receive said compressed air (exhausted from open end 60 of gun 13, Figure 3) and generate a vacuum (with vacuum motor 20 through sand retrieval line 21) in a cleaning nozzle (shroud 17)(note – wording allows a separate vacuum device to, first - “receive said compressed air” inside shroud 17, and, second – generate a vacuum in “a cleaning nozzle”);
a debris reservoir (removable filter bag 77) connected to said vacuum assembly (Figure 3), wherein said vacuum assembly is configured to use said vacuum to transport debris into said debris reservoir (suction created by vacuum motor will transport sand/debris through sand retrieval line into cannister 10); and
an adjustable suction control (shroud members 90a, 90b, and 90c) within said vacuum assembly (parts of shroud 17 assembly) to regulate the vacuum strength (by using different shroud members 90a, 90b, 90c to create different levels of sealing against the working surface) for debris extraction.
Brown discloses pressurized air from conduit line 33 in Figure 1 and in Column 5, Lines 31-34, Brown discloses that “this abrading device thus accommodates itself to a wide range of air compressor capacities which may be found in small shops where the device may be used”. Therefore, although not shown in the drawings, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an air compressor, as a part of the device, with the motivation to provide the required pressurized air to the device without dependence on the operational location having an air compressor available.
Regarding Claim 2, Brown teaches:
2. The blasting system of claim 1, wherein:
said vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1) includes a specialized suction mechanism (forward peripheral edge 108a, 108b, 108c with a resilient seal member 110) designed to enhance debris collection efficiency (by improving quality of seal).
Regarding Claim 3, Brown teaches:
3. The blasting system of claim 1, wherein:
said debris reservoir (removable filter bag 77) is detachable and designed for ease of cleaning and maintenance (removable for replacement or emptying).
Regarding Claim 4, Brown teaches:
4. The blasting system of claim 1, wherein:
a configuration that maintains system compactness and portability despite the integration of said vacuum assembly .
Regarding Claim 5, Brown teaches:
5. The blasting system of claim 1, wherein:
said vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1) operates continuously under varying air pressure conditions (pressure regulating valve 30 allows user to “vary the velocity of the pressurized air in the conduit line 33” while operating the vacuum assembly independently regardless of air pressure conditions) provided by said air compressor (pressurized air from conduit line 33).
Regarding Claim 6, Brown teaches:
6. A method of use of a blasting system (abrading device, Title) with an air compressor, the method comprising:
providing said air compressor (see discussion below) configured to supply a compressed air (pressurized air from conduit line 33);
operating a vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1) connected to said air compressor (both retrieval line 21 and conduit line 33 are fluidically and mechanically connected to shroud 17 through gun 13 and outlet tube 70) to generate a vacuum (with vacuum motor 20 through sand retrieval line 21) in a cleaning nozzle (shroud 17) using said compressed air (note – wording allows a separate vacuum device to generate a vacuum in “a cleaning nozzle using said compressed air”);
adjusting the suction strength of said vacuum assembly using an adjustable suction control (shroud members 90a, 90b, and 90c)(selecting the shroud member to achieve a desired suction);
collecting debris (retrieval of debris/sand via suction created by vacuum motor 20) through said vacuum into a debris reservoir (removable filter bag 77); and
detaching and cleaning said debris reservoir after debris collection (disposing of or emptying removable filter bag 77).
Brown discloses pressurized air from conduit line 33 in Figure 1 and in Column 5, Lines 31-34, Brown discloses that “this abrading device thus accommodates itself to a wide range of air compressor capacities which may be found in small shops where the device may be used”. Therefore, although not shown in the drawings, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an air compressor, as a part of the device, with the motivation to provide the required pressurized air to the device without dependence on the operational location having an air compressor available.
Regarding Claim 7, Brown teaches:
7. The method of use of claim 6, further comprising
enhancing debris collection efficiency using a specialized suction mechanism (forward peripheral edge 108a, 108b, 108c with a resilient seal member 110) within said vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Brown teaches:
8. The method of use of claim 6, wherein
the step of collecting debris (retrieval of debris/sand via suction created by vacuum motor 20) includes transporting a range of debris sizes from fine dust to larger particles (disclosed retrieval would perform this step in order to be viable).
Regarding Claim 9, Brown teaches:
9. The method of use of claim 6, further comprising
maintaining continuous operation of said vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1) under varying air pressure conditions (pressure regulating valve 30 allows user to “vary the velocity of the pressurized air in the conduit line 33” while operating the vacuum assembly independently regardless of air pressure conditions) provided by said air compressor (pressurized air from conduit line 33).
Regarding Claim 10, Brown teaches:
10. The method of use of claim 6, wherein
the system retains compactness and portability (mounted to wheeled frame, compact is relative) despite the integration of said vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1)(shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Brown teaches:
11. A blasting system comprising an air compressor comprising:
said air compressor (see discussion below) configured to provide a compressed air (pressurized air from conduit line 33);
a vacuum assembly (vacuum assembly comprising vacuum motor 20, cannister 10, sand retrieval line 21, and shroud 17 – best shown in Figure 1) operatively connected (both retrieval line 21 and conduit line 33 are fluidically and mechanically connected to shroud 17 through gun 13 and outlet tube 70) to said air compressor, wherein said vacuum assembly is configured (with shroud 17) to receive said compressed air (exhausted from open end 60 of gun 13, Figure 3) and generate a vacuum (with vacuum motor 20 through sand retrieval line 21) in a cleaning nozzle (shroud 17)(note – wording allows a separate vacuum device to, first - “receive said compressed air” inside shroud 17, and, second – generate a vacuum in “a cleaning nozzle”);
a debris reservoir (removable filter bag 77) connected to said vacuum assembly (Figure 3), wherein said vacuum assembly (parts of shroud 17 assembly) is configured to use said vacuum to transport debris into said debris reservoir (suction created by vacuum motor will transport sand/debris through sand retrieval line into cannister 10);
an adjustable suction control (shroud members 90a, 90b, and 90c) within said vacuum assembly to regulate the vacuum strength (by using different shroud members 90a, 90b, 90c to create different levels of sealing against the working surface) for debris extraction; and
said vacuum assembly includes a specialized suction mechanism (forward peripheral edge 108a, 108b, 108c with a resilient seal member 110) designed to enhance debris collection efficiency (by improving quality of seal).
Brown discloses pressurized air from conduit line 33 in Figure 1 and in Column 5, Lines 31-34, Brown discloses that “this abrading device thus accommodates itself to a wide range of air compressor capacities which may be found in small shops where the device may be used”. Therefore, although not shown in the drawings, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an air compressor, as a part of the device, with the motivation to provide the required pressurized air to the device without dependence on the operational location having an air compressor available.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of blasting devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723