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 .
In the amendment filed on 02/09/2026, applicants have amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 6. Upon further consideration update of searches, amended claim 1 and claims 2-5 and 7-16 have been found rejectable over the newly cited reference to Lyons (US 3,520,278) and Blackwell (US 3,520,278) each alone and/or in combination with others.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackwell (US 3,520,278).
As to claim 1, Blackwell teaches (see Figs 1-3 and claim 1) a metallizing system (apparatus for applying metal coating, see column 1, lines 55-58) comprising: a metallizing workstation (see Fig 2) including a worktable (4) configured to receive and rotate a worn workpiece (workpiece capable of being a worn workpiece, see Abstract) wherein the worktable carries a rotatable spindle (3) having a chuck (suction box 2) capable of receiving and retaining the workpiece, the spindle (3) being rotatable about a rotation axis (see column 2, lines 22-25); and a metallizer station (see Figs 2-3) including a metallizer handler (arm 19) and a metallizing applicator (nozzle 21) carried by the metallizer handler, the metallizing applicator being movable towards and away from the worktable and including a flame spray torch (flame spraying head 20) configured to deposit a metallized layer of metal onto the workpiece as the workpiece rotates relative to the flame spray torch (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, in Blackwell the worktable is pivotable about a pivot axis between a first position and a second position (since the worktable 4 is rotatable).
As to claim 3, Blackwell teaches the metallizer handler includes an overhead gantry (see Figs 2 and 3 for upright guide post 16) having a metallizer arm that carries the metallizer applicator (spray nozzle 21).
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyons (US 3,520,278).
As to claim 1, Lyons teaches (see Figs 1, 1A-1C and 2) a metallizing system (apparatus for applying metal coating, see Abstract) comprising: a metallizing workstation (see Fig 1) including a worktable (holder 12 with turntable 36) configured to receive and rotate a worn workpiece (workpiece capable of being a worn workpiece, see Abstract) wherein the worktable carries a rotatable spindle (rotatable frame 37) having a chuck (36’, see Fig 1C) capable of receiving and retaining the workpiece, the spindle (3) being rotatable about a rotation axis (see column 2, line 62-column 3, line 4); and a metallizer station (see Fig 1) including a metallizer handler (torch-mounting unit with vertical guide and horizontal arm and oscillating mechanism see Figs 1-2) and a metallizing applicator (Torch T with a nozzle 47) carried by the metallizer handler, the metallizing applicator being movable towards and away from the worktable and including a flame spray torch (flame spraying, see column 8, lines 4-9) configured to deposit a metallized layer of metal onto the workpiece as the workpiece rotates relative to the flame spray torch (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, in Lyons the worktable is pivotable about a pivot axis between a first position and a second position (see Fig 2 and column 3, lines 46-51).
As to claim 3, Lyons teaches the metallizer handler includes an overhead gantry (see Fig 1 for vertical guide 11) having a metallizer arm (horizontal arm 30 and others) that carries the metallizer applicator (Torch T with a nozzle 47).
Regarding claim 4, Lyons teaches the metallizing applicator includes further includes a metal hopper (58) that holds a powdered metal material and is in flow communication with the flame spray torch(Torch T with a nozzle 47), a flow valve (57) between the metal hopper and the flame spray torch, and a valve actuator (solenoid operated 59) to actuate the flow valve.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell (US 3,520,278) (see Figs 1-3) or Lyons (US 3,520,278) in view of SU 808550A1 (see Figs 1-8 and English Translation pages 1-5).
Regarding claims 7, 9-10 and 11, Blackwell teaches (see Figs 1-3 and claim 1) a metallizing system (apparatus for applying metal coating, see column 1, lines 55-58) comprising: a metallizing workstation (see Fig 2) including a worktable (4) configured to receive and rotate a worn workpiece (workpiece capable of being a worn workpiece, see Abstract) wherein the worktable carries a rotatable spindle (spindle) having a chuck (suction box 2) capable of receiving and retaining the worn workpiece, the spindle (3) being rotatable about a rotation axis (see column 2, lines 22-25); and a metallizer station (see Figs 2-3) including a metallizer handler (arm 19) and a metallizing applicator (nozzle 21) carried by the metallizer handler, the metallizing applicator being movable towards and away from the worktable and including a flame spray torch (flame spraying head 20) configured to deposit a metallized layer of metal onto the workpiece as the workpiece rotates relative to the flame spray torch (see claim 1). Similarly, Lyons teach a metallization system as recited on paragraph 5 above. Blackwell or Lyons lacks teaching a material handler including a gripper arm that has a gripper end-effector, inbound pallet and outbound conveyor as claimed. However, SU'550 further teaches a material handler (a rotary section 2 of the pushing conveyor with clamping devices of satellites 24 and a rotary bracket 35) configured to acquire the workpiece, move the workpiece (53) to the metallizing workstation, and release the workpieces to the worktable (see Fig 1 and 3 for sections 1-3 of push-type conveyor), an inbound pallet (section 1) configured to hold the workpiece, and an outbound conveyor (section 3) configured to receive a metallized workpiece from the metallizer station. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a material handler including a gripper arm that has a gripper end-effector in Blackwell or Lyons to continuously and respectively supply a plurality of workpieces and mount one workpiece at a time onto the worktable.
As to claims 8 and 14, Blackwell and Lyons teach an overhead gantry (see Figs 2 and 3 for upright guide post 16) having a metallizer arm that carries the metallizer applicator (spray nozzle 21), for the teaching of this limitations (see Lyons for claim 3 rejections above under para 5), but both Blackwell and Lyons lack teaching an overhead gantry having a gripper arm to acquire the workpiece as claimed. However, SU'550 teaches the material handler includes an overhead gantry (a rotary bracket 35) having a gripper arm (satellites 24) configured to acquire the workpiece (53) and release the workpiece to the worktable at the metallizing station (section 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an overhead gantry to position the workpiece at desired position.
Regarding claim 13, in Blackwell the worktable is pivotable about a pivot axis between a first position and a second position (since the worktable 4 is rotatable). Lyons also teaches the worktable pivotable about a pivot axis between a first position and a second position (see Fig 2 and column 3, lines 46-51).
Regarding claim 15, Lyons teaches the metallizing applicator includes further includes a metal hopper (58) that holds a powdered metal material and is in flow communication with the flame spray torch(Torch T with a nozzle 47), a flow valve (57) between the metal hopper and the flame spray torch, and a valve actuator (solenoid operated 59) to actuate the flow valve.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Blackwell alone and/or in view of SU 808550A1 (see Figs 1-8 and English Translation pages 1-5) and further in view of Lyons (US 3,520,278) and Marantz (US 5,206,059).
Blackwell alone and/or in view of SU'550 lacks teaching a metallizing system provided with a metal hopper and a flow valve. However, Lyons teaches the metallizing applicator includes further includes a metal hopper (58) that holds a powdered metal material and is in flow communication with the flame spray torch (Torch T with a nozzle 47), a flow valve (57) between the metal hopper and the flame spray torch, and a valve actuator (solenoid operated 59) to actuate the flow valve. Marantz teaches the metallizing applicator including a metal hopper that holds a powdered metal material (feedstock 110) and is in flow communication with the flame spray torch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a metal hopper and a flow valve in Blackwell or Lyons to supply the desired amount of powdered coating material.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Blackwell or Blackwell in view of SU 808550A1 (see Figs 1-8 and English Translation pages 1-5) as applied to claim 1 or 11 and further in view of Marantz (US 5,206,059).
Blackwell lacks teaching a spark igniter. However, a metallizing workstation including a spark igniter located between the worktable and the metallizing applicator is taught by Marantz (see Figs 1 and 6 and column 11, lines 3-8 for spark ignitor at the end of barrel 14 and target 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a spark ignitor as claimed in Blackwell to ignite the fuel and oxidant gas and create a flame in deposition of materials onto the workpiece as taught by Marantz (see column 5, lines 2-7 and Abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell (US 3,520,278) (see Figs 1-3) in view of SU 808550A1 as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Robb et al (US 2,755,205).
Blackwell as modified lacks teaching the outbound conveyor includes a reciprocating ladder conveyor. However, Robb et al teaches (see Fig 1) the outbound conveyor includes a reciprocating ladder conveyor (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an outbound conveyor includes a reciprocating ladder conveyor in SU'550 as desired to provide an even sequence of articles of different rows passing a given point (see column 2, lines 52-69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Blackwell or Lyons as modified by SU’550 lack teaching the metallizer handler including a metallizer gantry bridge. Prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a metallization system (as described in claim 11) comprising, among others, a metallizer handler and a material handler including a gripper arm configured to acquire a worn workpiece, in which the metallizer handler and the material handler provided with a bridge type gantry for moving the metallizer arm in horizontal traversable direction, and in vertical traversable movement of the gripper arm - wherein the metallizer handler includes a metallizer gantry bridge carried by the upper frame, a vertical support coupled to the metallizer gantry bridge, a metallizer arm carriage carried by the vertical support and which carries a metallizer arm, the metallizer arm being horizontally traversable with respect to the metallizer arm carriage; wherein the material handler includes a handler gantry bridge carried by the upper frame and an arm carriage carried by the handler gantry bridge, the gripper arm being carried by the arm carriage and also being vertically traversable with respect to the arm carriage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on page 11, filed 02/09/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 under Linares have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejections are made in view of Lyons and Blackwell each alone and/or in combination with others as explained above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights