Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/688,010

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COLD DEPOSITION OF POWDERED MATERIALS ON A SUBSTRATE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Concordia University
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
479 granted / 656 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
685
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 656 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. 1. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Liquid Accelerated Cold Spray”; CSAT Meeting Presentation; by Tom Butler; published 18 May 2011; (“Butler”) in view of US 2018/0200755 to Dardas et al. (“Dardas”). With regard to Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, and 27, Butler teaches a device for liquid-accelerated (water, fluorocarbons) cold spraying comprising a propellant jet unit, a nozzle featuring a jewel orifice propellant inlet and mixing chamber therein, and a focusing tube (see Pg. 18). Butler indicates delivery of powder to the nozzle mixing chamber but does not expressly teach a powder feeder. Dardas teaches a material feed arrangement for cold spray systems comprising a powder feeder 60 and a temperature control unit (heater) 70 (see Abstract; FIG. 1; ¶ [0040]). Dardas also teaches usage of motive fluids to facilitate powder material conveyance (see ¶ [0033]) and that associated pressurization systems are additionally useful to facilitate such conveyance (see ¶¶ [0047]-[0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the powder feed and heating system of Dardas into that of Butler in order to facilitate controlled material delivery to the liquid-accelerated cold spray system of Butler. Thus Butler in view of Dardas collectively teaches a system comprising all of the claimed elements. The manner of operation of an apparatus does not distinguish the apparatus from that of the prior art (see MPEP § 2114), though Ormond and Dardas teaching the claimed operating parameters (see Dardas at Pg. 8, Dardas at ¶ [0032]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 07 August 2025 have been fully considered. The rejection of Claims 5-6 is overcome in view of the amendments thereto. Applicant argues that Butler in view of Dardas does not disclose using a liquid propellant for cold spray as claimed (see Response at Pg. 10). This argument is not found persuasive. As noted, Butler in view of Dardas teaches the claimed apparatus features comprising a propellant jet unit, a temperature controlling unit, a nozzle, and a powder feeder, the nozzle comprising an inlet, jewel orifice, mixing chamber, and focusing tube. Butler teaches the propellant is in a liquid state prior to vaporizing (see Pg. 21). Accordingly, the rejections of Claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 are maintained. New Claim 27 is newly rejected on the same grounds. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6 are 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: As argued by Applicant, Butler teaches away from usage of water as a propellant (see Response at Pg. 8; Butler at Pg. 13). Accordingly, the cited art does not teach or suggest the features of Claims 5-6, which recite water as the liquid propellant. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599567
A METHOD FOR PREPARING A VETERINARY MEDICAMENT DOSAGE WITH INKS AND A VETERINARY MEDICAMENT DOSAGE OBTAINABLE BY THE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599919
SLOT-TYPE SPRAY NOZZLE, COATING DEVICE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF FILM-COATED MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594729
ADHESIVE APPLICATION DEVICE AND METHOD OF APPLYING ADHESIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594578
STRUCTURAL MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580202
ELECTRODE LAYER COMPOSITION, PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE THEREOF AND MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 656 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month