DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/5/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the apparatus of claims 13-17 in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a search burden for searching for both the methods of manufacture of the spray tip and the spray tip apparatus claimed. This is not found persuasive because a search for the spray tip apparatus does not require a search within machining and manufacturing methods, and different methods can be used to manufacture the spray tip, see restriction requirement mailed 1/6/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “to from” is believed to be in error for --to form--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Materna 2002/0084290.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Materna teaches a method of manufacturing a spray tip (nozzle 300) having a wear-mimicking geometrical feature (roughening outer surface of nozzle, paragraph [0087], where the location and purpose of the wear-mimicking surface is not claimed), the method comprising: pressing carbide powder in a die to form an unfinished spray tip (molding/casting of tungsten carbide, paragraph [0077], and sintering of powdered tungsten carbide, paragraph [0078]); and removing material from the unfinished spray tip to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature (laser machining such as photoablation, paragraph [0092]).
Regarding Dependent Claims 2 and 3, Materna teaches pressing carbide powder in the die to form the unfinished spray tip (molding/casting of nozzle 300, paragraph [0077]) comprises pressing carbide powder in the die to form the unfinished spray tip including an inlet, internal geometry, and an outlet (300 comprises an inlet 305, internal geometry 385, and outlet 315 in figure 3).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Materna teaches removing material from the unfinished spray tip to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature (roughening outer surface of nozzle, paragraph [0087], where the location and purpose of the wear-mimicking surface is not claimed) comprises laser ablating the unfinished spray tip to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature (laser machining such as photoablation, paragraph [0092]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Materna teaches removing material from the unfinished spray tip to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature comprises removing material in an area of the unfinished spray tip surrounding and extending radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet (figure 11 shows material removed from outer surface of 300 that surrounding and radially away from inner perimeter of outlet 315, paragraph [0105]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Materna teaches removing material in the area of the unfinished spray tip surrounding and extending radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet comprises removing a first amount of material in a first sub-area of the area of the unfinished spray tip surrounding and extending radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet (first direction of crossed pattern of laser machined grooves, paragraph [0103]) and removing a second amount of material in a second sub-area of the area of the unfinished spray tip surrounding and extending radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature having a variable width (second direction of crossed pattern of laser machined grooves, paragraph [0103], where the presence of grooves requires the width to be variable in both the circumferential and axial direction along the outside of the nozzle).
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 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood 4,349,947 in view of Materna.
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 3, Rood teaches a method of manufacturing a spray tip (nozzle tip 12) having a wear-mimicking geometrical feature (tapered passage 17, Col. 3, ll. 49-51, where a smoother tapered surface will appear to have less wear than a stepped channel), the method comprising: forming carbide powder into an unfinished spray tip (tungsten carbide, Col. 3, ll. 25-27). However, Rood does not teach pressing the carbide as a powder in a die and removing material from the unfinished spray tip to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature. Materna teaches pressing carbide powder in a die to form an unfinished spray tip (molding/casting of tungsten carbide, paragraph [0077], and sintering of powdered tungsten carbide, paragraph [0078]) and removing material from the unfinished spray tip to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature (laser machining such as photoablation, paragraph [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to press the silicon carbide powder of Rood in a die, as taught by Materna, and to use laser ablation to remove material from the wear-mimicking geometrical feature of Rood, as taught by Materna, in order to obtain the desired shape of the nozzle tip through molding and machining (paragraph [0077]), and to remove portions of the nozzle tip to increase the roughness with a process that has superior cutting quality (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Rood in view of Materna teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Rood further teaches removing material from the unfinished spray tip to form an outlet in the unfinished spray tip (grinding wheel 48 in figure 2 used to form outlet of spray tip 12, Col. 5, ll. 7-12).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood in view of Materna as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tam 2020/0164390.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Rood in view of Materna teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Rood further teaches removing material to form the outlet of the spray tip (grinding wheel 48 in figure 2 used to form outlet of spray tip 12, Col. 5, ll. 7-12). However, Rood in view of Materna does not teach that the outlet comprises a cat-eye shape. Tam teaches using a cat-eye outlet (16, paragraph [0028]) in the spray tip (36) of a nozzle (figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the outlet of Rood in view of Materna to be cat-eyed, as taught by Tam, in order to form the spray from the spray tip in the shape of a flat spray fan (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Rood in view of Materna and Tam teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Rood further teaches removing a first amount of material in a first sub-area of the area of the unfinished spray tip surrounding and extending radially away from the inner perimeter of the cat-eye outlet (grinder 48 will remove material from 12 when forming outlet 20, such that it will remove areas in a first and any other sub-areas around an inner perimeter of the outlet), the first sub-area associated with a first canthus of the cat-eye outlet (grinder 48 removes material to form outlet, including material near and away from both canthuses of the cat-eye of Tam in the combination of Rood in view of Materna and Tam), removing a second amount of material in a second sub-area of the area of the unfinished spray tip surrounding and extending radially away from the inner perimeter of the outlet (grinder 48 will remove material from 12 when forming outlet 20, such that it will remove areas in a second and any other sub-areas around an inner perimeter of the outlet), the second sub-area associated with a second canthus of the cat-eye outlet (grinder 48 removes material to form outlet, including material near and away from both canthuses of the cat-eye of Tam in the combination of Rood in view of Materna and Tam), and removing a third amount in a third sub-area of the area of the unfinished spray tip surrounding and extending radially away from the inner perimeter of the cat-eye outlet (grinder 48 will remove material from 12 when forming outlet 20, such that it will remove areas in a third and any other sub-areas around an inner perimeter of the outlet), the third sub-area between the first sub-area and the second sub-area (grinder 48 removes material to form outlet, including material near and away from both canthuses of the cat-eye of Tam in the combination of Rood in view of Materna and Tam), to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature having a variable width (modification of the outlet of Rood to have a cat-eye can allow the cat-eye, which has a variable width as shown in figure 2 of Tam, to be a part of the wear-mimicking geometrical feature, where it is not claimed that the feature is limited to only one location on the spray tip).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood in view of Materna as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Coats 2020/0039155.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Rood in view of Materna teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Rood in view of Materna does not teach using laser ablating to form the outlet of the spray tip. Coat teaches using laser ablation (paragraph [0044]) for removing the sacrificial tip (430) of a nozzle (400) to form the outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to substitute the laser ablation technique of Coats for the grinder of Rood in view of Materna, because it is no more than the simple substitution of one known technique for another to a piece of prior art ready for improvement, in this case, generating the outlet hole in the spray tip with laser ablation instead of a grinder. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143 B.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood in view of Materna as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson 2008/0278542.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Rood in view of Materna teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Rood in view of Materna does not teach using hydro-erosive machining to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature. Anderson teaches that laser cutting, dicing (i.e. mechanical machining), and water jet machining can be used to machine very hard materials such as ceramics (paragraph [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to substitute the water jet technique of Anderson for the grinder of Rood in view of Materna, because it is no more than the simple substitution of one known technique for another to a piece of prior art ready for improvement, in this case, generating the outlet hole in the spray tip with water jet machining instead of grinding. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143 B.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood in view of Materna as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Macler 2004/0046807.
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Rood in view of Materna teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Rood in view of Materna does not teach using sand blasting to form the wear-mimicking geometrical feature. Macler teaches that laser ablation, mechanical abrasion (i.e. grinding), and sand blasting can be used to machine holes of a nozzle (paragraph [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to substitute the sand blasting technique of Macler for the grinder of Rood in view of Materna, because it is no more than the simple substitution of one known technique for another to a piece of prior art ready for improvement, in this case, generating the outlet hole in the spray tip with sand blasting instead of grinding. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143 B.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calder 4,736,892 in view of Abrahamson 4,705,124.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, Calder teaches a method of manufacturing a spray tip (spray tip 10), the method comprising: forming a die (tungsten carbide powder is compacted, which will occur in a die or mold, Col. 3, ll. 5-8) having geometry to form a spray tip having an inlet (inlet to passage 32 on reverse face 18), internal geometry (passage 32), an outlet (outlet of 32 at groove 34), and a wear-mimicking geometrical feature (groove 34 acts as a wear-mimicking feature that has worn away vs lack of groove 34); placing carbide powder in the die (placement of tungsten carbide powder into die/mold prior to compacting, Col. 3, ll. 5-8); pressing carbide powder in the die to form a compact (tungsten carbide powder is compacted, Col. 3, ll. 5-8); and sintering the compact to form the spray tip having the inlet, the internal geometry, the outlet, and the wear-mimicking geometrical feature (sintering of powder, Col. 3, ll. 5-8). However, Calder does not teach removing the compact from the die before sintering the compact. Abrahamson teaches a method of forming a tungsten carbide component (24) by compacting the component in a die (28) under pressure (Col. 4, ll. 1-3), removing the component from the die (Col. 4, ll. 3-4), and then sintering the component (Col. 4, ll. 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to remove the compact of Calder from the mold prior to sintering, as taught by Abrahamson, in order to increase the toughness and wear resistance of the component (Col. 2, ll. 36-44). It is noted that Calder is silent to removing the compact from the mold prior to sintering, so Abrahamson was included to explicitly teach the method step.
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Calder in view of Abrahamson teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Calder further teaches forming the die having geometry to form the spray tip having the inlet, internal geometry, the outlet, and the wear-mimicking geometrical feature (components of nozzle tip 10 are formed by compaction and sintering of tungsten carbide, Col. 3, ll. 5-8) surrounding the outlet and extending radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet (groove 34 surrounds and is radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet of 32 shown in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Calder in view of Abrahamson teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Calder further teaches forming the die having geometry to form the spray tip having the inlet, internal geometry, the outlet, and the wear-mimicking geometrical feature (components of nozzle tip 10 are formed by compaction and sintering of tungsten carbide, Col. 3, ll. 5-8) surrounding the outlet, extending radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet (groove 34 surrounds and is radially away from an inner perimeter of the outlet of 32 shown in figure 1), and having a variable width (34 is shown with a variable width in figure 1, Col. 2, ll. 64-66).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinne 2018/0178228 in view of Lewentz DE 19914719 A1.
In regards to Independent Claim 21, Kinne teaches a method of manufacturing a spray tip (tip 42 made out of powdered tungsten carbide, paragraph [0027], where the specific method of manufacture is not claimed), the method comprising: generating an unfinished spray tip having a first projected wear curve (spray tip 42, comprising stepped channel 96, which will have a first wear curve), the first projected wear curve comprising a first portion, corresponding to an initial use period, and a second portion, corresponding to a subsequent use period, the first portion less linear than the second portion (the steps of 96 will result in a first period of time where the edges of each step wear in a non-linear fashion, and a second time period after the edges of each step have worn away, where wear will become more linear around the periphery of channel 96). However, Kinne does not teach finishing the unfinished spray tip to generate the spray tip by providing a wear-mimicking geometrical feature, the spray tip having a second projected wear curve, the second projected wear curve more linear than the first projected wear curve. Lewentz teaches using hydro-erosive grinding to round of edges of a nozzle (Col. 1, ll. 47-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to round the edges of the stepped channel of Kinne using hydro-erosive grinding, as taught by Lewentz, in order to increase the flow coefficient through the nozzle (Col. 2, ll. 7-20). Rounding the corners of the stepped channel of Kinne will mimic wear of the stepped channel of Kinne, which will result in the wear curve being more linear than if the corners of the stepped channel are not rounded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752