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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 10/15/2023.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
The claim amendments filed 10/14/25 have not been entered as the amended claims were Non-Compliant and the Applicant did not respond to the Office’s decision on petition mailed 10/22/25. Therefore, the claims filed on 10/15/2023 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2025 has been received and considered. However, the IDS includes a number of non patent literature document references that appears to have no relevancy to the claimed invention and has not been considered. These inclusions have not been considered as shown on the struck through IDS.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length that exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-2, and 6-7 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.
Claims 1-2, and 6-7 recites the limitation: ultra high pressure. It is unclear what boundary or magnitude is considered ultra high pressure in order to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 are rejected for depending on a rejected indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US4534427).
Claim 1. Wang discloses: A rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device (rotary drill with abrasive fluid jet nozzles, Figs. 2-4; fluid and abrasive supply hoses are rear mounted to the drill with double channels for fluid and abrasive), characterized by comprising:
an ultra-high pressure water jet supply system (150 fluid supply means, Fig. 1) and an abrasive supply system (160 abrasive supply means, Fig. 1), wherein
the ultra-high pressure water jet supply system is used to provide a continuous high pressure water jet power source (151 fluid storage and 152 pump, Fig. 1),
abrasive transfer is provided by the abrasive supply system (161 abrasive storage and 162 pump, Fig. 1), and
cutting (Col. 6, lines 56-58) is performed by a high pressure abrasive jet (123 abrasive fluid jet nozzles, Fig. 2-5) formed by mixing abrasive into the water jet power source, thus to enhance a hitting force for cutting (Fig. 5; Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 34).
Claim 7. Wang discloses: The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that:
cutting is performed by the ultra-high pressure water jet supply system and the abrasive supply system through a double-channel cutter, wherein
the double-channel cutter comprises a cutter outer wall (outer surface of 122 drill bit, Fig. 2-4), and
the cutter outer wall is internally divided into a cutter abrasive channel (136 abrasive conduit, Fig. 2-4) and a cutter high pressure water channel (127 fluid conduits, Fig. 2-4) by a cutter inner wall (adjacent to outer surface of drill bit, Fig. 2-4);
cutter abrasive transfer holes are formed in one end of the cutter abrasive channel (35 abrasive solid feed means, Fig. 5),
a nozzle penetrating through the cutter abrasive channel is arranged on the cutter high pressure water channel (70 and 71 orifices intersect abrasive feed means, Fig. 5),
nozzle abrasive transfer holes are formed in one end of the nozzle inside the cutter high pressure water channel (Fig. 5), and
a nozzle hole is formed in one end of the nozzle on the cutter outer wall (123 or 80 fluid jet nozzles, Fig. 2-5).
Claim 9. Wang discloes: The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 7, characterized in that:
four cutter abrasive transfer holes are annularly and symmetrically distributed at a junction between the cutter outer wall and the cutter inner wall (quantiy 4 of 77 solids orifices, Fig. 12).
Claim 10. Wang discloes: The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 7, characterized in that:
two nozzle abrasive transfer holes are symmetrically distributed in the nozzle (quantiy 2 of 77 solid orifices, Fig. 10).
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 2-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US4534427) in view of Hashish et al. (US4854091).
Claim 2. The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that:
the ultra-high pressure water jet supply system comprises an ultra-high pressure clean water (water; Col. 4, lines 40-42) pump (152 pump, Fig. 1) connected by an ultra-high pressure hose (153 hoses, Fig. 1). Wang does not disclose: an ultra-high pressure rotary water swivel.
Hashish recites an abrasive swivel assembly for providing a rotating, particle-laden fluid stream, therefore, Hashish teaches: an ultra-high pressure rotary water swivel (abrasive swivel, Fig. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the free rotation system of Wang with the swivel assembly of Hashish with a reasonable expectation of success in order provide a swivel for use with high pressure jets to minimize wear to various components that are exposed to abrasive material and to minimize interruption to the flow of fluid without creating clogs or significant turbulence as taught by Hashish (Col. 1, lines 30-48).
Claim 3. Wang in view of Hashish teaches: The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: the abrasive supply system comprises:
an abrasive tank (Wang: 161 abrasive storage, Fig. 1) and
a feeding pump (Wang: 162 pump, Fig. 1) which are in communication with each other (Wang: 161 and 162 are fluidically connected, Fig. 1),
a pressure cap is arranged on the abrasive tank (Wang: 161 abrasive storage is illustrated with a dome cap, Fig. 1),
the abrasive tank is connected with an abrasive transfer hose (Wang: 163 conduit, Fig. 1), and
one end of the abrasive transfer hose away from the abrasive tank is provided with an abrasive rotary sealing water swivel (Wang: 163 conduct would be coupled to Hashish: abrasive swivel).
Claim 4. Wang in view of Hashish teaches: The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 3, characterized in that: the abrasive rotary sealing water swivel comprises:
a water swivel outer wall (Hashish: outer wall of 60 housing, Fig. 2) , wherein
the water swivel outer wall is internally divided into a water swivel high pressure water channel (Hashish: 32 particle free fluid stream, Fig. 2) and a water swivel abrasive channel by a water swivel inner wall (Hashish: 78 particle stream, Fig. 2),
a sealing rotary body outer bayonet is arranged on the water swivel outer wall (Hashish: 60 housing, Fig. 2),
a sealing rotary body is arranged in the sealing rotary body outer bayonet through sealing bearings (Hashish: 70 annular seal bearing, Fig. 2),
abrasive feeding holes (Hashish: bore of 46 within 60 housing delivers abrasive to 51 nozzle, Fig. 2) in communication with the water swivel abrasive channel are formed in the sealing rotary body outer bayonet (Hashish: abrasive flow through bore of 46 is fluidically in communication with water flow from 24‘), and
water swivel abrasive transfer holes are formed in one end of the water swivel abrasive channel (Hashish: bore of 24‘, Fig. 2).
Claim 6. Wang in view of Hashish teaches: The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that:
the abrasive and the water jet power source are mixed (Hashish: water and abrasive mixes as the distal end of 24‘, Fig. 2) by the ultra-high pressure water jet supply system and the abrasive supply system through a double-channel sealing drill pipe (Hashsih: 46 tubular end section and 24‘ tube form a double channel drill pipe, Fig. 2);
the double-channel sealing drill pipe comprises a drill pipe outer wall (Hashish: outer wall of 46, Fig. 2), and
the drill pipe outer wall is internally divided into a drill pipe abrasive channel in communication with the abrasive supply system (Hashish: annulus between 46 and 24‘ delivers abrasive to 51 nozzle, Fig.2) and
a drill pipe high pressure water channel in communication with the ultra-high pressure water jet supply system by a drill pipe inner wall (Hashish: inner wall of 24‘ delivers fluid to 51 nozzle, Fig. 2);
drill pipe abrasive transfer holes are formed in one end of the drill pipe abrasive channel (Hashish: bore of 46 within 60 housing delivers abrasive to 51 nozzle, Fig. 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US4534427) in view of Al Daif et al. (US11448027).
Claim 8. Wang discloses: The rear-mounted double-channel abrasive jet cutting device as claimed in claim 7. Wang does not disclose: one end of the cutter high pressure water channel is provided with a pressure relief baffle, and the pressure relief baffle is arranged in the cutter high pressure water channel through a spring.
Al Daif discloses a acid jetting apparatus comprising of nozzels and a spring actuated pressure relief valve for controlling the flow of fluid through the nozzles. Therefore, Al Daif teaches: a pressure relief baffle (236 pressure relief valve, Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 9-19), and the pressure relief baffle is through a spring (spring type valve; Col. 7, lines 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Wang by incorporating the spring type pressure relief valve as taught by Al Daif with a reasonable expectation of success in order control the activation of the jetting tool to flow only when a desired pressure is obtained as taught by Al Daif (Col. 7, lines 9-19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or
35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dotson et al. (US8925653) recites a method and system for an abrasive jet tool comprising of dual channels for supplying jetting fluid and abrasive media. Wu et al. (CN212317853) recites a pressure relief device for an abrasive jetting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676