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 because the drawings are heavily shaded and it is difficult to discern the structures from one another. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chacko (US 20130112056).
Regarding claim 1, Chacko (US 20130112056) discloses a cutting head (see [0002-0004]) comprising:
a cutting head body with an integrated collet (see cutting head body 100 having an integrated collet, Reference Drawing 1 which is annotated Figure 4a);
a wear insert secured within the cutting head body (see housing 118, [0018-0019]);
an orifice flow connected to the wear insert (see orifice mount 114, as well as Reference Drawing 1; see also [0024]);
a feed tube flow connected to the wear insert (see abrasive port 130; see Figure 3 as well as Reference Drawing 1; see also [0017-0019], [0024-0025]);
a focusing tube secured to the integrated collet (see focusing tube 142 secured to the collet in Reference Drawing 1; see also [0019], [0024-0025]); and
a nut configured for securing the integrated collet to the focusing tube and sealing an interior of the cutting head body (see retaining nut 300, as well as [0025]: An o-ring 320 sealingly engages the retaining nut 300 with the cutting head 100 to preclude the entrance of outside contaminants).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
Regarding claim 2, Chacko discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chacko further discloses wherein at least one sealing ring (320) extends between the nut and the cutting head body with the integrated collet (see Reference Drawing 1 as well as Figure 4B, wherein the ring 320 extends between the body and the nut 300).
Regarding claim 4, Chacko discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chacko further discloses wherein the nut is in covering relationship with the at least one sealing ring (best shown in Reference Drawing 1, wherein the nut 300 covers the o-ring 320).
Regarding claim 9, Chacko (US 2013/0112056) discloses a cutting head that is flow connected to a pressurized supply of water and a metered feed of abrasive particles (see [0002-0004]), the cutting head comprising:
a cutting head body with an integrated collet (see cutting head body 100 having an integrated collet, Reference Drawing 1 which is annotated Figure 4a);
a wear insert secured within the cutting head body (see housing 118, [0018-0019]);
an orifice that is flow connected to the wear insert (see orifice mount 114, as well as Reference Drawing 1), wherein the orifice is configured such that the pressurized supply of water flows through the orifice to form a focused stream of water ([0024]: the orifice mount 114 converts high pressure water within the high pressure fluid chamber 162 to a high velocity fluid stream that passes through the mixing chamber 166 of the mixing chamber housing 118);
a feed tube that is flow connected to the wear insert (see abrasive port 130; see Figure 3 as well as Reference Drawing 1), wherein the feed tube is configured such that the metered feed of abrasive particles is drawn into the wear insert by the focused stream of water (see [0018-0019], [0024]), and the focused stream of water and the metered feed of abrasive particles form a cutting stream (see [0017-0019] and [0024-0025]);
a focusing tube secured to the integrated collet (see focusing tube 142 secured to the collet in Reference Drawing 1), the focusing tube configured such that the cutting stream flows therethrough (see [0019], [0024-0025], wherein [0024] discloses: high velocity mixture passes through the funnel 184 of the focusing tube 142, which facilitates a smooth fluid entry into the stream channel 186); and
a nut configured for securing the cutting head body with the integrated collet to the focusing tube and sealing an interior of the cutting head body (see retaining nut 300, as well as [0025]: An o-ring 320 sealingly engages the retaining nut 300 with the cutting head 100 to preclude the entrance of outside contaminants),
wherein at least one sealing ring (320) extends between the cutting head body and the nut (see Reference Drawing 1 as well as Figure 4B, wherein the ring 320 extends between the body and the nut 300), and the nut (300) is in covering relationship with the at least one sealing ring (best shown in Reference Drawing 1, wherein the nut 300 covers the o-ring 320).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Chacko discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chacko further discloses wherein the integrated collet is configured to prevent at least lateral movement of the focusing tube secured therein (see retaining pin 200, as well as [0019-0021], [0024-0026]; see also o-ring 190).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Chacko discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chacko further discloses wherein the cutting head body includes a tapered exterior surface that is screwably secured to the nut (see Figure 4b, 5, as well as [0025]; see threaded engagement and tapering shown in Reference Drawing 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chacko (US 2013/0112056) in view of Shank (US 5402939).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 15, Chacko discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Chacko does not explicitly teach the at least one sealing ring extends in a groove of the cutting head body (see body of claims 3, 10 and 15).
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Shank teaches of a blasting device which incorporates at least one sealing ring which extends in a groove of a body (see o-rings 60 in grooves 51) in the context of parts being assembled and mated to one another (see Col. 5, lines 26-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Chacko to incorporate a groove for accommodating the o-ring (320), as taught by Shank. One would be motivated to do so in order to ensure the ring has a set place for mating, i.e. accommodating a groove in the labeled collet of Reference Drawing 1, mirroring the groove within the retaining nut 300 which supports the o-ring. Incorporation of an additional groove would ensure the groove is placed correctly when the retaining nut of Chacko is threadably attached, which bolsters the sealing capabilities of the engagement. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. a groove for accommodating an o-ring, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Chacko as modified by Shank teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chacko further teaches wherein the cutting head body includes a tapered exterior surface that is screwably secured to the nut (Chacko: see Figure 4b, 5, as well as [0025]; see threaded engagement and tapering shown in Reference Drawing 1).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chacko (US 2013/0112056) in view of Hursen (US 11,267,101).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 12, and 13, Chacko discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Chacko does not explicitly teach wherein a shield is moveably secured to the focusing tube (subject matter of claims 6 and 12) and wherein a cone shaped shield is secured to the focusing tube (subject matter of claims 7 and 13).
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Hursen teaches of a shield is moveably secured to the focusing tube (see Figure 5, shield 48; wherein Col. 6, lines 52-59 disclose that the shield is movably attached) and wherein a cone shaped shield is secured to the focusing tube (see shield 48, Figure 5; see also Col. 7, lines 34-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the shield as taught by Hursen into the invention of Chacko. One would be motivated to do so in order to increase operator and equipment safety (Hursen: Col. 6, lines 52-59 and Col. 7, lines 34-39).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chacko (US 2013/0112056) in view of Shank (US 5402939), and in further view of Hursen (US 11267101).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Chacko in view of Chank teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Chacko does not explicitly teach wherein a shield is moveably secured to the focusing tube (subject matter of claim 6) and wherein a cone shaped shield is secured to the focusing tube (subject matter of claim 17).
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Hursen teaches of a shield is moveably secured to the focusing tube (see Figure 5, shield 48; wherein Col. 6, lines 52-59 disclose that the shield is movably attached) and wherein a cone shaped shield is secured to the focusing tube (see shield 48, Figure 5; see also Col. 7, lines 34-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the shield as taught by Hursen into the invention of modified Chacko. One would be motivated to do so in order to increase operator and equipment safety (Hursen: Col. 6, lines 52-59 and Col. 7, lines 34-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yie (US 4,555,872), see Figure 8
Moore (US 3228147), see Figures 3 and 8
Wang (US 4,534,427), see Figures 13 and 14
Vandergon (US 2018/0257253), see Figure 1.
Hashish (US 6280302), see Figure 5 and seals 457.
Bury (US 20140004776), see Figure 4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights