Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous objections to the drawings, the specification and the claims and the previous 112 rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
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 16, 19, 21-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 20090075569) in view of Thatcher (US 4267946 A), Smith (US 2907444 A), and Connelly (US 8057279 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Mase teaches a particulate material blasting apparatus (apparatus 1 in FIGs. 5 and 6; Abstract) comprising: a particulate material dosing device; (¶[0006]-[0007])
a particulate material storage tank having a base, a top and sidewalls and adapted to feed particulate material to the particulate material dosing device; (abrasive tank 10 with the base, the top, and the sidewalls identified in annotated FIG. 5 below, adapted to feed particulate material to the drum 20’)
and a delivery conduit to deliver particulate material into a pressurised gas line, (transport path 11 to deliver particular material into flow channel 41; ¶[0005])
the particulate material dosing device comprising a rotor comprising a series of scooping pockets mounted along a circumference of the rotor, (dosing device comprising drum 20’ comprising a series of measuring grooves 23 mounted along a circumference of the drum 20’; ¶[0006])
the rotor configured to rotate to scoop-up particulate material from a particulate material receiving side of the dosing device and deliver it up and around to a delivery side of the dosing device where it [is delivered] into the delivery conduit, (the drum 20’ configured to rotate to scoop up particular material from a particulate material receiving side of the drum 20’ and deliver it up and around to a delivery side of the drum 20’ where it [is delivered] into the transport path 11)
wherein the particulate material dosing device is located in the particulate material storage tank (the drum 20’ is located in the tank 10)
and wherein the delivery conduit comprises a part disposed within the particulate material storage tank having a first inlet aperture (transport path 11 comprises a part disposed within the tank 10 having a first inlet aperture end 11a)
and a second part disposed outside the particulate material storage tank and having an outlet to deliver particular material into a pressurised gas line (and a part disposed outside the tank 10 having an outlet to deliver particular material into flow channel 41).
PNG
media_image1.png
2542
1874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mase does not specifically teach that the rotor is configured to rotate to scoop-up particular material from a particulate material receiving side of the dosing device and deliver it up and around to a delivery side of the dosing device where it falls into the delivery conduit,
the delivery conduit comprises an upper part disposed within the particulate material storage tank having a first inlet aperture and a lower part disposed outside the particulate material storage tank having an outlet to deliver particular material into a pressurised gas line,
the upper part comprises an elongated pipe having a first inlet aperture disposed adjacent the base of the particulate material storage tank,
the rotor is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture such that a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed outside the elongated pipe and a particulate material delivery side of the rotor is disposed inside the elongated pipe,
and wherein the upper part further comprises a second inlet aperture disposed toward the top of the particulate material storage tank.
However, Thatcher (US 4267946 A) in the same field of endeavor, related to apparatuses that dispense particulate matter, teaches a particulate material dosing device wherein the rotor configured to rotate to scoop-up particular material from a particulate material receiving side of the dosing device and deliver it up and around to a delivery side of the dosing device where it falls into the delivery conduit, (the cylinder 15 configured to rotate to scoop up particular material from a particulate material receiving side of the cylinder 15 and deliver it up and around to a delivery side of the cylinder 15 where it falls into the shaft 11)
the delivery conduit comprises an upper part disposed within the particulate material storage tank having a first inlet aperture (shaft 11 comprises an upper part disposed within the container 10 having a first inlet aperture)
and a lower part disposed outside the particulate material storage tank having an outlet to deliver particular material (and a lower part disposed outside the container 10 having an outlet to deliver particular material),
wherein the upper part comprises an elongated pipe having a first inlet aperture disposed adjacent the base of the particulate material storage tank (annotated FIG. 3 below: shaft 11 comprises an elongated pipe and the first inlet aperture is disposed adjacent the base of the storage tank).
PNG
media_image2.png
1006
983
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mase so that that the upper part of the delivery conduit is disposed within the storage tank and the lower part is disposed outside of the tank, and the upper part comprises an elongated pipe having a first inlet aperture is disposed adjacent the base of the particulate material storage tank, and wherein the rotor is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture such that a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed outside the elongated pipe and a particulate material delivery side of the rotor is disposed inside the elongated pipe, as taught by Thatcher.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that “a uniform quantity of particulate matter is continuously dispensed” through the delivery conduit (Thatcher [Col. 2, Lines 40-44]) as Thatcher teaches “[t]here are many industrial applications that require the application of particulate matter to a moving surface such as in the manufacture of abrasive coatings” (Col. 1, Lines 5-11).
Furthermore, Smith (US 2907444 A) teaches a particulate material blasting apparatus with an elongated pipe (see shaded portion of annotated FIG. 1 below; Note: The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification—see MPEP 2111.01. The shaded portion denotes a pipe elongated into the storage tank and thus an elongated pipe, meeting the limitations of the claim)
wherein the rotor is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture (rotor 1 is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture) such that a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed outside the elongated pipe (particulate material receiving side of rotor 1 is disposed outside the shaded portion denoting the elongated pipe) and a particulate material delivery side of the rotor is disposed inside the elongated pipe (particulate material receiving side of rotor 1 is disposed inside the shaded portion denoting the elongated pipe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor of Mase combined with Thatcher such that a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed outside the aperture and a particulate material delivery side of the rotor is disposed inside the aperture, as taught by Smith. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “[the particles] drop off by gravity and are emptied into the outlet during their downward movement” (Smith [Col. 1, Lines 46-68]).
PNG
media_image3.png
840
956
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Connelly (US 8057279 B2), in the same field of endeavor related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches an upper part of a delivery conduit wherein the upper part further comprises a second inlet aperture disposed toward the top of the particulate material storage tank (the upper part of the delivery conduit comprising a second inlet aperture disposed toward the top of blast vessel 24; Col. 4, Lines 17-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delivery conduit of the apparatus of Mase, as modified, to further comprise a second inlet aperture disposed toward the top of the particulate material storage tank, as taught by Connelly. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the air pressure within the exterior and the interior of the conduit to equalize (Col. 4, Lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, does not teach a baffle attached to the delivery conduit dimensioned to curve around and cover the top and sides of the particulate material receiving side of the rotor.
However, Thatcher further teaches a baffle attached to the delivery conduit dimensioned to cover the top of the particulate material receiving side of the rotor (restrainer 18 attached to shaft 11 dimensioned to cover the top of the particulate material receiving side of cylinder 15, shown in the annotated FIG. 3 in the discussion of claim 16 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mase to have a baffle attached to the delivery conduit dimensioned to cover the top of the particulate material receiving side of the rotor to, as taught by Thatcher. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure that “a uniform quantity of particulate matter is continuously dispensed through the shaft” (Col. 2, Lines 24-44).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, further discloses that the outlet is configured for fluidically coupling to the pressurised gas line (the outlet configured for fluidically coupling to compressed air flow channel 41).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, does not teach that the top of the particulate material storage tank includes a fitting for receiving a top of the delivery conduit and securing the delivery conduit in position within the particulate material storage tank.
However, Connelly teaches a particulate material apparatus (FIG. 3) in which the top of the particulate material storage tank includes a fitting for receiving a top of the delivery conduit and securing the delivery conduit in position within the particulate material storage tank (the top of the blast vessel 24 includes a seal assembly 50 for receiving a top of the conduit 46 and securing the conduit 46 in position within the blast vessel 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus of Mase, as modified, so that the top of the particulate material storage tank includes a fitting for receiving a top of the delivery conduit and securing the delivery conduit in position within the particulate material storage tank, as taught by Connelly. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “facilitate removal and replacement of various lengths of conduit” (Col. 3, Lines 4-23).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, does not disclose a clearance between the rotor and the base of the particulate material storage tank is from 0.2 cm to 0.6 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clearance between the rotor and the base of the particulate material storage tank of Mase, combined with Thatcher, to be from 0.2 cm to 0.6 cm. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the size of the particulate material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension so as to scoop the particulate material at the bottom of the tank for uniform flow through the delivery conduit, without the rotor interfering with the base of the storage tank. Further, in ¶[0019]-[0020] and ¶[0044] of the instant application, there are no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. Therefore, the apparatus claimed in claim 23 is not patentably distinct from the apparatus of Mase combined with Thatcher.
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, further teaches that the rotor is mounted in the first inlet aperture of the delivery conduit such that an axle of the rotor is perpendicular with a longitudinal axis of the delivery conduit (the drum 20’ is mounted in the aperture of transport path 11 such that an axle of the drum 20’ is perpendicular with a longitudinal axis of the transport path 11).
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, further teaches that the rotor is mounted in the first inlet aperture of the delivery conduit such that an axle of the rotor is in line with a sidewall of the delivery conduit (the drum 20’ is mounted in the aperture of transport path 11 such that an axle of the rotor is in line with a sidewall of the transport path 11; see annotated FIG. 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
614
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, further teaches that the delivery conduit comprises a cylindrical pipe (transport path 11 comprise a pipe, known to be cylindrical; ¶[0092]), but does not teach in the modified embodiment (shown in FIGS. 5 and 6) that the particulate material storage tank comprises a cylindrical pipe.
However, Mase teaches in another embodiment detailed in FIGs. 1-4 a particulate material blasting apparatus comprising a particulate material storage tank that comprises a cylindrical pipe (top view of tank 10 shown in FIG. 1 and side view in FIGs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particulate material storage tank in the first embodiment of Mase to comprise a cylindrical pipe as taught by the second embodiment. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because it would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that cylinders evenly distribute pressure, making them stronger than boxy tanks.
Regarding claim 30, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, further teaches a method of blasting a surface with particulate material which employs a particulate material blasting apparatus according to Claim 16, which method comprises the steps of: providing a reservoir of particulate material in the particulate material storage tank; (reservoir of particulate material in the particulate material tank 10 shown in FIG. 5; ¶[0085]-[0086]).
actuating a motor to rotate the rotor at a desired speed corresponding to a desired material dosing rate, (actuating electric motor 30 to rotate the drum 20’ at a desired speed corresponding to the desired material dosing rate; ¶[0007])
and dosing particulate material through the delivery conduit into a pressurised gas line disposed externally to the storage reservoir; (dosing particulate material through the transport path 11 into compressed air flow channel 41 disposed externally to the storage reservoir shown in FIG. 5)
and blasting a surface by employing a nozzle fluidically coupled to the pressurised gas line to direct a stream of pressurised gas and particulate material at the surface (blasting a surface by employing a nozzle at the end of blasting gun 40 fluidically coupled to the compressed air flow channel 41 to direct a stream of compressed air and particulate material at the surface; ¶[0005]).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase, Thatcher, Smith and Connelly as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ganshof (WO 2007107322 A1).
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase, as modified, does not teach the apparatus comprising a plurality of rotors, in which the scooping pockets of one rotor are circumferentially staggered with respect to those of the other rotor(s).
However, Ganshof in the same field of endeavor, related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches a particulate material blasting apparatus comprising a plurality of rotors, in which the scooping pockets of one rotor are circumferentially staggered with respect to those of the other rotors (see FIG. 3: three separate rotors 7a, 7b and 7c may be provided and arranged such that the pockets in the rotors are circumferentially staggered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor of the apparatus of Mase combined with Thatcher to further comprise a plurality of rotors, in which the scooping pockets of one rotor are circumferentially staggered with respect to those of the other rotors. One would have been motivated to make such a modification “to ensure the delivery of particulate material into the product delivery conduit is reasonably consistent and smooth” (Pg. 7, Lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase and Thatcher do not teach that the pockets of the rotor are formed by tooth-like formations which project from the circumference of the rotor.
However, Ganshof in the same field of endeavor, related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches that the pockets are formed by tooth-like formations which project from the circumference of the rotor (pockets 8 are formed by tooth-like formations which project from the circumference of the rotor as shown in FIG. 1; Pg. 7, Lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor of Mase combined with Thatcher so that the pockets are formed by tooth-like formations which project from the circumference of the rotor to ensure the particulate material stays within the pockets of the rotor while it is rotating before being delivered into the delivery conduit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that the combination of the prior art does not read of the inclusion of the claim limitation regarding the elongated pipe, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111.01). The applicant has set forth “an inlet aperture” in the claims and has not defined this aperture as a planar dimension. Furthermore, “elongated pipe” may be interpreted as a pipe that has been elongated or extended is some manner, such as extending into another component. As such, there are no limitations regarding the size or width of said inlet aperture. As inlets and outlets are relational terms defining the relations of different components to each other, the inlet aperture as defined in the discussion of claim 16 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the inlet aperture as claimed. As such, the Examiner considers the given combination of the prior art to read on the amended claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, the Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In Pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s Response, the applicant incorporates extraneous structural components from the multiple references other than the concepts in which they are used to modify Mase. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument on Pages 11-12 of the Applicant’s Response that the combination would “require selecting isolated aspects from multiple references and reconstructing them into a configuration that none of the cited references teaches or suggests”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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 at (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 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights