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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the baffle in claim 19, the sealed housing containing the motor and the gearbox in claim 20, and the series of scooping pockets in claim 27 must be shown or the features must be canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The “top” is missing an “a” preceding the limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The “gearbox” is missing an article preceding both times it is recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶[0011] recites “the rotor is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture such that a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed outside the aperture and a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed inside the aperture.” However, ¶[0044] of the instant application and Figure 2 recite that the media receiving side 9A is disposed outside the aperture 27 and the media delivery side 9B is disposed inside the aperture. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17, 19, 21-23, 26, and 30 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.
Claim 17 recites “the rotor is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture such that a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed outside the aperture and a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed inside the aperture.” However, ¶[0044] of the instant application and Figure 2 recite that the media receiving side 9A is disposed outside the aperture 27 and the media delivery side 9B is disposed inside the aperture. It is unclear how both a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed outside the aperture and a particulate material receiving side of the rotor is disposed inside the aperture. For examination purposes, the limitations in the claim have been construed to be “the rotor is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture 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.”
Claims 19 and 22 recite the limitation “a top of the particulate material storage tank.” The top of the particulate material storage tank is already set forth in claim 16. For examination purposes, the limitation in the claim has been construed to be “the top of the particulate material storage tank.”
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a pressurised gas line.” It is confusing whether the applicant is setting forth another pressurized gas line or referring to the pressurized gas line set forth in claim 16. For examination purposes, the limitation in the claim has been construed to be “the pressurized gas line.”
Claim 23 recites the term "about," which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In such a device, any distance can be considered "about 0.2 cm to about 0.6 cm,” since the specification is silent as to how close a distance must be to be considered "about 0.2 cm to about 0.6 cm.” For examination purposes, the limitation in the claim has been construed to be “within the range of 0.2 cm to 0.6 cm.”
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the delivery conduit and particulate material storage tank comprise a cylindrical pipe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “particulate material storage tank” and it is not clear whether the conduit and the tank comprise a cylindrical pipe each or together. For examination purposes, the limitation in the claim has been construed to be “the delivery conduit and the particulate material storage tank each comprise a cylindrical pipe.”
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the desired material dosing rate,” but a desired material dosing rate has not been set forth previously. For examination purposes, the limitation in the claim has been construed to be “a desired material dosing rate.”
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, 21, 23-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 20090075569) in view of Thatcher (US 4267946 A).
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 particular 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 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 [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 in which 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 part disposed outside the particulate material storage tank 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, and that 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. However, Thatcher in the same field of endeavor, related to apparatuses that dispense particulate matter, teaches a particulate material dosing device; (cylinder 15 on shaft 16 connected to drive sprocket 13)
a particulate material storage tank having a base, a top and sidewalls and adapted to feed particulate material to the particulate material dosing device; (container 10 with the base, the top, and the sidewalls identified in the annotated FIG. 3 below, adapted to feed particulate material 19 to the cylinder 15)
and a delivery conduit to deliver particular material, (shaft 11 to deliver particular material as shown in FIG. 3)
the particulate material dosing device comprising a rotor comprising a series of scooping pockets mounted along a circumference of the rotor, (dosing device comprising cylinder 15 comprising a series of containers 17 mounted along a circumference of the cylinder 15)
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)
wherein the particulate material dosing device is located in the particulate material storage tank (the cylinder 15 is located in the tank 10) and in which 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).
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 particulate material blasting apparatus of Mase such that the upper part of the delivery conduit is disposed within the storage tank and the lower part is disposed outside of the tank, 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” (Thatcher [col. 1, lines 5-11]).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase further discloses that the outlet is configured for fluidically coupling to a pressurised gas line (the outlet configured for fluidically coupling to compressed air flow channel 41).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase does not disclose a clearance between the rotor and the base of the particulate material storage tank is within 0.2 cm to 0.6 cm. Thatcher teaches having the rotor positioned adjacent to the base of the particulate material storage tank (cylinder 15 at the base of container 10). 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 the rotor positioned adjacent to the base of the particulate material storage tank as Thatcher teaches. 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” (Thatcher [col. 1, lines 5-11]).
Additionally, 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 within 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 further discloses that the rotor is mounted in the 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 further discloses that the rotor is mounted in the 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_image3.png
614
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase further teaches that the delivery conduit comprises a cylindrical pipe (transport path 11 comprise a pipe, known to be cylindrical; ¶[0092]). Mase does not explicitly teach in this 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 further discloses 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 the 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]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase and Thatcher, further in view of Smith (US 2907444 A).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase does not disclose that the first inlet aperture is disposed adjacent the base of the particulate material storage tank,
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 aperture and a particulate material delivery side of the rotor is disposed inside the aperture.
However, Thatcher teaches that the first inlet aperture is disposed adjacent the base of the particulate material storage tank (shown in FIG. 3). 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 the first inlet aperture is disposed adjacent the base of the particulate material storage tank, 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).
Additionally, Smith, in the same field of endeavor related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches a particulate material blasting apparatus (apparatus shown in FIG. 1) comprising: a particulate material dosing device; (identified in the annotated FIG. 1 below)
a particulate material [housing] having a base, a top and sidewalls and adapted to feed particulate material to the particulate material dosing device; (housing 9 with the base, the top, and sidewalls identified in FIG. 1 and adapted to feed particulate material to the dosing device)
the particulate material dosing device comprising a rotor comprising a series of scooping pockets mounted along a circumference of the rotor, (the particulate material dosing device comprising rotor 1 comprising a series of scoops 4 mounted along a circumference of rotor 1)
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 rotor 1 configured to rotate to scoop up particles from a particulate material receiving side of the dosing device and deliver up and around to a delivery side of the dosing device where it falls into outlet 8)
wherein the particulate material dosing device is located in the particulate material [housing] (wherein the particulate material dosing device is located in the particulate material storage tank shown in the annotated FIG. 1 below)
and in which the delivery conduit comprises an upper part disposed within the particulate material storage tank having a first inlet aperture (the delivery conduit comprises extended tube 10 disposed within the particulate material storage tank having a first inlet aperture identified in the FIG. 1 below)
and a lower part disposed outside the particulate material storage tank having an outlet (lower part shown in the FIG. 1 disposed outside the storage tank);
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 aperture (see annotated FIG. 1 below: the rotor 1 is mounted partly within the first inlet aperture such that a particulate material receiving side of the rotor 1 is disposed outside the aperture) and a particulate material delivery side of the rotor is disposed inside the aperture (see annotated FIG. 1 below: a particulate material receiving side of the rotor 1 is disposed out.
PNG
media_image4.png
840
956
media_image4.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 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]).
Claims 18 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase and Thatcher, further in view of Connelly (US 8057279 B2).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase does not disclose that the upper part of the delivery conduit comprises a second inlet aperture disposed toward a top of the particulate material storage tank. However, Connelly in the same field of endeavor related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches a delivery conduit comprising an upper part disposed within a particulate material storage tank having a first inlet aperture (see FIG. 3: central conduit 46 comprising an upper part disposed within a particulate material blast vessel 24 having aperture 92)
and the upper part of the delivery conduit comprising 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, combined with Thatcher, 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 22, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase and Thatcher do 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 in the same field of endeavor related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, 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 modify the apparatus of Mase combined with Thatcher 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. 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase and Thatcher, further in view of Asson (NL 8001720 A).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase does not teach a bearing, a gearbox and optionally a motor for the rotor, in which the bearing, the gearbox and optionally the motor are contained within a sealed housing coupled to the base of the particulate material storage tank. However, Asson in the same field of endeavor, related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches a particulate material blasting apparatus comprising a bearing and a gearbox for the rotor, in which the bearing and the gearbox are contained within a sealed housing coupled to the base of the particulate material storage tank (see FIGs. 1 and 2: bearing blocks 14 and 15 and the motor gearbox M for the rotor 11 are contained within stator body 3 coupled to the base of the hopper 1; Trans. Pg. 3, Lines 22-29 and 34-35). 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, combined with Thatcher, to further comprise a bearing and a gearbox for the rotor contained within a sealed housing coupled to the base of the particulate material storage tank, as taught by Asson. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide a protected means of supporting and powering the rotor. Furthermore, the placement of sealed housing at the base of the particulate material storage tank would lower the apparatus’s center of gravity and improve the stability of the apparatus.
Claims 19 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase and Thatcher, further in view of Ganshof (WO 2007107322 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase 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 ensure that “a uniform quantity of particulate matter is continuously dispensed through the shaft” (Col. 2, Lines 24-44).
However, Ganshof in the same field of endeavor, related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches a baffle dimensioned to curve around and cover the top and sides of the particulate material receiving side of the rotor (baffle 12 is dimensioned to curve around the top and the sides of the particulate material receiving side of the rotor 7; Claim 5 and FIG. 1). 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 baffle of the apparatus of Mase combined with Thatcher to curve around and cover the sides of the particulate material receiving side of the rotor. It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that this would further control the flow of particulate material to avoid overloading the rotor.
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase discloses a series of scooping pockets mounted along the circumference of the rotor (a series of measuring grooves 23 mounted along the circumference of the drum 20’; ¶[0006]). Mase and Thatcher do not teach that the apparatus comprises at least two series of scooping pockets mounted along the circumference of the rotor, and in which the pockets of one series are circumferentially staggered with respect to the pockets of the other series.
However, Ganshof in the same field of endeavor, related to particulate material blasting apparatuses, teaches a particulate material blasting apparatus comprising at least two series of scooping pockets mounted along the circumference of the rotor, and in which the pockets of one series are circumferentially staggered with respect to the pockets of the other series (see FIGS. 2 and 4: the rotor 7 includes three series of pockets 8 that are staggered circumferentially with respect to each other; Pg. 7, lines 5-18). 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 to further comprise at least two series of scooping pockets mounted along the circumference of the rotor, in which the pockets of one series are circumferentially staggered with respect to the pockets of the other series. 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 15-19).
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Mase and Thatcher do 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fulton (US 2907444 A) discloses a rotary apparatus for conveying particulate materials with a rotor and a baffle.
Rivir (US 20030199232 A1) discloses a system for blasting particulate material incorporating a rotor.
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