DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US2020/0087876A1) as further evidenced by Yie (4666083).
It appears applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 7, which were previously rejected by Yie.
Re claims 1 and 19, Jacobs et al. teach applying a pressurized liquid stream comprising an abrasive particulate and water (suspension) to the dirty railway rails (paragraphs 5, 10, 18). Re claim 1, in reference to cleaning a railhead, the limitations are met since the claim positively recites a step of applying a suspension. Specifically, the examiner takes the position that cleaning a railhead is a result of applying the suspension, and therefore, the limitations are inherently met. Additionally, applicant is directed to paragraph 12, which teaches using the pressurized liquid during a rail cleaning operation.
Re claim 1 and 19, applicant recites applying a suspension at a pressure of at least 350 bar and an upper limit equal to or less than 1500 bar. In some embodiments, (paragraph 12) Jacobs et al. teach at least 20000 PSI (equivalent to 1379 bar). However, other embodiments include a slurry of less than about 20000 psi (paragraph 17). The teachings of at least or less than 20000psi would encompass applicant’s claimed range. Additionally, applicant’s own specification (paragraphs 62-67) teaches a lack of criticality as the slurry is applied at pressures up to 1500 bar (21755psi). The examiner notes that pressures of up to 1500 bar encompasses the teachings of Jacobs et al. Additionally, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to have adjusted the pressure of the abrasive suspension to pressures which are within the claimed range since a) applicant’s specification fails to teach criticality and/or a showing of unexpected results using the claimed pressures and b) Jacob’s teachings of at least or less than 20000psi, reads on applicant’s claimed range.
Re claims 1 and 19, Jacobs et al. fail to teach the nozzle distance or the specified diameter of the railhead being cleaned by the application of the suspension. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing parameters such as the nozzle distance and the diameter being cleaned, depending upon such factors as the length and surface area of the railhead being cleaned, the amount and type of contaminants being cleaned, the flowrate and concentration of the suspension, and the size of the nozzle. Additionally, as further evidenced by Yie (col. 11, lines 25-30), it is well within the level of the skilled artisan to clean surface diameters of at least 3cm by jetting an aqueous suspension.
Re claims 2 and 20, refer to paragraph 41 which teaches garnet. Re claim 3, Jacobs fails to teach the species alluvial garnet. However, Jacobs teaches the genus garnet. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the species alluvial garnet since Jacobs teaches the genus garnet. Re claim 5, refer to paragraph 19 which recycled water. Re claim 6, refer to paragraph 48, which teaches 2 or more nozzles.
6. Claim(s) 4, 8-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US2020/0087876A1) as evidenced by Yie (4666083), and further in view of Yam et al. (5827114).
Jacobs, as evidenced by Yie, teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the particle size, the flow rate and the concentration in kg/L. Yam teaches a slurry blasting process comprising an abrasive to enhance cleaning efficiency (abstract). Yam et al. teach average abrasive particles within the range of 50-500 microns (col. 5, lines 1-40) which falls within applicant’s claimed mesh range. Col. 7, lines 59-62 teaches 30 lbs/13 gallons, which equates to 0.28 kg of abrasive particulate per 1L of water, at a flow rate of 0.5 GPM (gallons per minute) which is equivalent to 1.9L/min. 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 method of Jacobs to include adjusting processing parameters, such as the abrasive particle size, flow rate and concentration, for purposes of effectively wet blasting the substrate surface in order to achieve the desire result.
7. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US2020/0087876A1), as evidenced by Yie (4666083), and further in view of Hashish et al. (EP3089849B1).
Re claims 11-12, Jacobs, as evidenced by Yie, fail to teach storing the abrasives in a first container, water in a second container, and a slurry mixing unit and further fails to teach passing the water from the second container to at least one nozzle along a conduit and bypassing a portion of the water, wherein the bypassed water is passed to the slurry mixing unit to mix with the abrasives to form a slurry. Hashish et al. teach abrasive slurry delivery systems comprising a first container for the abrasives (element 56, Fig. 2A), a water storage container 58 and a slurry mixing unit 60 and further teaches a primary conduits 76, 62 and a bypass conduit (76c). 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 method of Jacobs to include separate containers and a mixing unit, as taught by Hashish et al., for purposes of producing water jet abrasive systems for effectively cutting and processing a wide variety of substrates.
Response to Arguments
8. The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of arguments presented by applicant.
9. The rejections of the claims, as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al. and/or in view of the secondary references are maintained for the reasons set forth above. Applicant argues that Jacobs et al. fail to teach a pressure of at least 350 bar and an upper limit of 1500 bar. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as Jacobs et al. teach various embodiments in which the pressures are above and below 20000psi (equivalent to 1379 bar). In some embodiments, (paragraph 12) Jacobs et al. teach at least 20000 PSI (equivalent to 1379 bar). However, other embodiments include a slurry of less than about 20000 psi (paragraph 17). The teachings of above and below 20000psi would encompass applicant’s claimed range. Additionally, applicant’s own specification (paragraphs 62-67) teaches a lack of criticality as the slurry is applied at pressures up to 1500 bar (21755psi). The examiner notes that pressures of up to 1500 bar encompasses the teachings of Jacobs et al. Additionally, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to have adjusted the pressure of the abrasive suspension to pressures which are within the claimed range since a) applicant’s specification fails to teach criticality and/or a showing of unexpected results using the claimed pressures and b) Jacob’s teachings of at least or less than 20000psi, reads on applicant’s claimed range.
10. Applicant further argues that the prior art fails to teach the newly amended limitations directed to the distance and the surface diameter being cleaned. The examiner finds the newly amended limitations directed to the optimization of processing parameters and are not considered as patentable subject matter. Specifically, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing parameters such as the nozzle distance and the diameter being cleaned, depending upon such factors as the length and surface area of the railhead being cleaned, the amount and type of contaminants being cleaned, the flowrate and concentration of the suspension, and the size of the nozzle. Additionally, as further evidenced by Yie (col. 11, lines 25-30), it is well within the level of the skilled artisan to clean surface diameters of at least 3cm by jetting an aqueous suspension. Furthermore, applicant's arguments directed to a good cleaning result with a significantly reduced amount of water is not persuasive as applicant has not provided a showing of unexpected results and the primary reference of Jacobs teaches the claimed pressure ranges.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights