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 Objections
In claim 1, consider --where [[the]] a hardness of the first grainy material is higher than [[the]] a hardness of the pollution and equal to or less than [[the]] a hardness of the member--
--a blast treatment apparatus having a nozzle for blasting the blast media onto the exposed surface of the member using a gas as a driving fluid--
--a discharge control unit for adjusting [[the]] a flow rate of the mixture supplied from the hollow tube to the nozzle--
--wherein the nozzle has a tubular base connected to the hollow tube and a tip extending from the tubular base to an end of the nozzle through an intermediate portion, wherein the end of the nozzle has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm--
-- the surface treatment method comprising a roughening treatment including adjusting the flow rate of the mixture while the surface of the member is exposed--
-- thereby causing the mixture blasted from the blast opening to form a strip shape as a grinding tool to remove the pollution--
-- without grinding the surface to be restored, wherein the surface to be restored , the surface [[and]] underlying or peripheral to parts of the pollution [[and]] wherein the surface to be restored is adjacent to the pollution within a distance of less than millimeters--.
In claim 2, consider -- wherein said member is a wooden member, and [[uses]] the blast media comprises a plant-based blast media with an air-dried specific gravity greater than 0.5 as said first grainy material--.
In claim 3, consider -- and the surface treatment method removes a deteriorated layer on a tightly adhering paint of a paint film on the member as said pollution and exposes a wood grain including the tightly adhering paint underlying the deteriorated layer on the member--
In claim 4, consider -- The surface treatment method defined in claim 1, further comprising blasting said mixture onto the surface of the member in a state where the member is incorporated in said structure--.
In claim 5, consider -- the member is polluted by a particulate deposit generated during [[the]] a manufacturing process of the particulate product in the manufacturing facility--
-- where the first grainy material is composed of [[the]] a same substance as the deposit in granular form--
--a blast treatment apparatus having a nozzle for blasting the blast media onto the exposed surface of the member using a gas as a driving fluid--
--wherein the nozzle has a tubular base connected to the hollow tube and a tip extending from the tubular base to an end of the nozzle through an intermediate portion, wherein the end of the nozzle has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm--
-- thereby causing the mixture blasted from the blast opening to form a strip shape as a grinding tool to remove the pollution--
--without grinding [[the]] underlying or peripheral parts of the exposed surface of the member.--
In claim 8, consider --blasting a blast media from a nozzle onto a part incorporated in the manufacturing facility and polluted by the particulate deposit using a granular particle of [[the]] a same substance as the deposit as the blast media--
In claim 9, consider --wherein said particulate product is sugar, and the method comprises using sugar with an average particle size ranging from 200 m to 500 m and a coefficient of variation ranging from 0.20% to 0.30% or less as the blast media--.
In claim 10, consider --wherein the method comprises using a flat-shaped nozzle as the nozzle with a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein [[the]] a dimension in the second direction is smaller than [[the]] a dimension in the first direction [[as]] of said nozzle, and the dimension in the second direction [[at]] of the nozzle is 1.6 times or more and 4.0 times or less than [[the]] an average particle size of said blast media--
In claim 11, consider --wherein [[the]] a gas pressure for ejecting said blast media ranges from 0.4 MPa or more to 0.9 or less within a blast media tank for storing the blast media to deliver to the nozzle--
For claim 12, the claim may possibly appear [depending on if the claim is interpreted in a narrow manner i.e. “of the same substance” in claim 8 is exclusionary to containing other substances] to be inconsistent with the recitation in claim 8, which recites “using a granular particle of the same substance as the deposit as the blast media”, as white well-refined sugar, and granulated sugar may be considered different materials. In this case, it may be worth considering amending claim 8 to read --“using a granular particle [[of the]] containing a same substance as the deposit as the blast media”.
In claim 15, it appears that the character “A” is missing before method at the beginning of the claim sentence.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“discharge control unit” in claim 1, corresponding to valve unit 7, as in [0058] with a valve, consistent with [0056].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1 (dependent claims 2-4 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1), the limitations “the surface to be restored which is untarnished and underlying or peripheral parts of the pollution and adjacent to the pollution within a distance of less than millimeters” is indefinite because the range of less than millimeters is not defined in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the boundaries of. The specification provides that “These polluted areas and untarnished areas are adjacent within distances in millimeters or micrometers. However, it has been difficult for general blast treatments to perform a fine treatment like removing the pollution while avoiding grinding the untarnished areas to be restored on the surface of a member having fine texture with the scale of millimeters or less, such as gouges.” ([0015]). The term “millimeters” defines a unit, and there is essentially no boundary to “millimeters or less” (no lower boundary as well) because, for example, 1 x 106 mm and 2 mm would satisfy the definition of “millimeters or less”, while the instant disclosure appears to carry a meaning that pollution is “fine” in some manner. While usage of the term “fine” would not necessarily be indefinite as one can ascertain within reasonable certainty the term fine, the attempt to define it using a numerical scale introduces ambiguity, especially given the unbounded nature of the scale (which can be broader than any general understanding of “fine”). The examiner acknowledges that “fine” is also used to define roughness (tens to hundreds of micrometers), but the nature of this scale is significantly different, perhaps by an order of 10 (at most 999 micrometers is .999 mm). The examiner will interpret the claim to mean a single digit (i.e. less than [not inclusive of] 10) millimeter distance, as reason provides consistent with the term “fine”. Claims 2-4 are rejected as dependent.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ijichi (JP 2001105319 A).
With respect to claim 8, Ijichi discloses: A deposit removal method for removing a particulate deposit adhered to a manufacturing facility for producing a particulate product (cleaning an interior of a plastic manufacturing apparatus in [0006], where the plastic is a particulate product in [0020], and adheres as deposits 100, fig. 6, [0029]), comprising:
blasting a blast media from a nozzle onto a part incorporated in the facility (blasting blast media as in [0023] using a nozzle 26, fig. 3; [0023], the nozzle is directed towards the surface 100 of tank 2, fig. 6, [0024], which is part of the manufacturing facility; the media can be can be powders as in [0008]) ) and polluted by the particulate deposit using a granular particle of the same substance as the deposit as the blast media ([0032] provides for using the same material to avoid contamination; the member is polluted by polymer as in [0029], which is the same as the cleaning material in [0012-0013], and the same as the generated material).
With respect to claim 15, Ijichi discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses method for manufacturing a particulate product ([0020] for manufacturing polymer), comprising: manufacturing the particulate product while using said deposit removal method defined in claim 8 (as [0020] provides for the manufacturing polymer, and the deposit removal is detailed in claim 8), and removing the particulate deposit adhered to the manufacturing facility for manufacturing the particulate product ([0029], after peeled off is vacuumed).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa-361(WO 2016178361 A1) in view of Logan (US 6007639 A), Szucs (US 5462605 A), Kaji (JP 2002224960 A).
With respect to claim 1, Hayakawa-361 discloses: A surface treatment method for a structure (surface treatment method for a wood structure as in [0010-0011]; [0052] provides for a specific example of a member column included in a structure of a temple), which removes pollution from an exposed surface of a member of the structure to restore the member (removes pollution in the form of being soiled as in [0021] to be cleaned), using:
a blast media containing a first grainy material as a main component (blast media contains Japanese cedar as in [0023], which is grainy, as in [0031])
a blast treatment apparatus (fig. 1; [0030]) having a nozzle for blasting the blast media onto the surface of the member using a gas as a driving fluid (nozzle 5, fig. 1; [0039] with air blasting [driving fluid], [0041] describes how it uses blast media from a tank 2) , a hollow tube for delivering a mixture of the blast media and the gas to the nozzle (hollow tube 11b, fig. 1; [0041], allows flow so it is hollow), and a discharge control unit for adjusting the flow rate of the mixture supplied from the hollow tube to the nozzle (lever 9, fig. 1 [0042], which adjusts the blast flow rate, 112(f) equivalent as equivalent to a lever operated valve) , wherein the nozzle has a tubular base connected to the hollow tube (tubular base at 7d, fig. 1, which connects to hose 11b, fig. 1, understood to be tubular in that the hose allows flow inside, and therefore the connection at that point is also tubular to accept the hose) and a tip extending from the base to an end of the nozzle through an intermediate portion (tip at flat shape 6, fig. 1; [0041], there is a solid intermediate position between at center of 5), wherein the end has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening (see fig. 3; [0043]; approximately interpreted consistent with instant disclosure)
and the surface treatment method comprising a roughening treatment adjusting the flow rate of the mixture while the surface of the member is exposed ([0039] using a lever to adjust the flow of the abrasive ejection, roughening surface as in [0037]), thereby functioning the mixture blasted from the blast opening forming strip shape as a grinding tool to remove the pollution (removing degraded wood as in [0037]) and without grinding the surface to be restored which is untarnished and underlying or peripheral parts of the pollution ([0025, 0028] provides for cleaning without changing the shape [or grinding it], see also [0050] with cleaning the degraded wood without further damage or tarnish to the surface underneath, the strip shape would result from a rectangular blast nozzle with the outward opening fan of nozzle 5 that directs particles ) however does not explicitly disclose where the hardness of the material is higher than the hardness of the pollution and equal to or less than the hardness of the member, and wherein the end has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, forming fine micrometer scale roughness on the surface to be restored, underlying or peripheral parts of the pollution are adjacent to the pollution within a distance of less than millimeters.
As for where the hardness of the material is higher than the hardness of the pollution and equal to or less than the hardness of the member, Hayakawa-361 provides for various selection of blast media with differing hardness ([0032,0034]), and that one should avoid damaging wood ([0023]). Logan in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting teaches that for blasting, the hardness of the [blasting] material should higher than the hardness of the pollution and equal to or less than the hardness of the member (col 3 lines 38-55; giving an example that potassium magnesium sulfate is soft enough such that the particles do not damage soft surfaces during blast cleaning, however, particles of potassium magnesium sulfate are hard enough such that the particles effectively remove rust [pollution] from a surface). Logan teaches that one needs to be careful to avoid damage to blasted surfaces that are soft (col 1 lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing ate of the claimed invention, to have modified Hayakawa-361 and have selected the hardness of the material is higher than the hardness of the pollution and equal to or less than the hardness of the member, so that the pollution can be effectively removed while preventing damage to the underlying [soft] surface, as taught by Logan.
As for wherein, the end has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, Szucs, in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting, teaches of having a rectangular opening with long sides (horizonal sides) ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm (1 [long sides], fig. 2, described as having a length about 1.2mm and a width of 0.6mm in col 6 lines 64-end). Szucs teaches that this arrangement saves time for removing dirt and is good for protecting valuable objects (col 2 lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hayakawa-361 and have made the approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, as taught by Szucs for effective removal of dirt while protecting valuable objects.
Alternatively, regarding a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, as noted above Hayakawa-361 provides for a rectangular opening [with long sides], and MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hayakawa-361 such that a distance between a between long sides is from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, as a change in relative dimensions of the prior art. The applicant only provides “The height dimension H2 (in the second direction) of the blast opening 44 is preferably 1.6 times to 4.0 times the average particle size of the blast media, not only when used in the sugar removal method disclosed herein but also when used in the surface treatment method disclosed herein. In particular, to function as a grinding tool for a gas-solid mixture by blasting a band- shaped mixture of particulate blast media with a median diameter in the micron range, the blast opening preferably has a height dimension (distance between the long sides of the rectangular shape) of ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, more preferably from 0.7 mm to 1.0 mm for the narrow rectangular shape, with the short sides being a curved slit, particularly an are shape.” ([0077]), and does not provide for criticality of any particular dimension, and given that Hayakawa-361 also provides for abrading wood with a rectangular nozzle opening, it is not demonstrated that there would be any particular effect of the claimed dimensions. The modification would have yielded expected results to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
262
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 1 of Kaji (if there are any difficulties viewing the table, as it contains grayscale, the .docx may be downloaded from Patent Center)
As for forming fine micrometer scale roughness on the surface to be restored, Kaji, in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting teaches of for forming fine micrometer scale roughness on the wood surface (see Table 1 above; roughness varying from 15-38 um; [0010]), that this arrangement removes dirt ([0009]), and that having a uniform roughness makes for a smooth surface for further treatment ([0009]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hayakawa-361 and have formed micrometer scale roughness on the surface to be restored for the purpose of making the surface smooth for future treatment.
As for underlying or peripheral parts of the pollution are adjacent to the pollution within a distance of less than millimeters, while Hayakawa-361 does not explicitly disclose that the pollution is adjacent or underlying the untarnished surface with a distance of less than millimeters, Hayakawa-361 provides that the nozzle is moved around to remove dirt around a portion of the wood including to an untreated portion ([0051]), and it is thus understood that there is a untreated or partially blasted portion [with peripheral parts of the pollution because it has not been cleaned] immediately adjacent to the parts of pollution removed, and because that portion would be adjacent the blasted/cleaned portion (the cleaned portion undamaged as in [0050]), and by being immediately adjacent, it would be so by a distance of less than millimeter ([0004] also provides for preservation of fine aspects of the surface, with a scale of millimeters or less which can also be adjacent to the dirt or worn out parts of the wood and is preserved, meaning that the arrangement removes dirt that is millimeters or less in thickness that is above the fine features while preserving the thickness). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have understood that there is at some point in the process, an untreated part next with peripheral pollution next to a treated part [with an undamaged surface that is part of the surface to be restored] by a distance of less than millimeters.
With respect to claim 2, Hayakawa-361 as modified, teaches discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein said member is a wooden member (Hayakawa-361, wooden member as in [0010-0011]), and uses a plant-based blast media with an air-dried specific gravity greater than 0.5 as said first grainy material (Hayakawa-361, [0036], there is “a plant-based blasting media having a specific gravity of greater than 0.5 is mixed with a plant-based blasting media having a specific gravity of 0.5 ~ 0.1 and used”, specific gravity is air dried as in [0033] with [0034] describing a list of options).
With respect to claim 4, Hayakawa-361, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches blasting said mixture onto the surface of the member in a state where the member is incorporated in said structure (Hayakawa-361, [0052] provides for a specific example of a member column included in a structure of a temple).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa-361 (WO 2016178361 A1) in view of Logan (US 6007639 A), Szucs (US 5462605 A), Kaji (JP 2002224960 A), and further in view of Hawakawa-706 (JP 2018075706 A).
With respect to claim 3, Hayakawa-361 as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches said blast media contains a second grainy material consisting of either (A) a plant-based blast media with an air-dried specific gravity of 0.5 or less, or (B) a mineral-based media (Hayakawa-361, [0036], there is “a plant-based blasting media having a specific gravity of greater than 0.5 is mixed with a plant-based blasting media having a specific gravity of 0.5 ~ 0.1 and used”, specific gravity is air dried as in [0033] with [0034] describing a list of options), however does not explicitly teach wherein said member is a painted wooden member of which painted surface is deteriorated, removes a deteriorated layer on a tightly adhering paint of a paint film on the member as said pollution and exposes a wood grain including the tightly adhering paint underlying the deteriorated layer on the member. Hayakawa-361, however, provides that the wooden member could be coated or uncoated ([0003,0007]).
Hawakawa-706, in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting, teaches of providing a painted wooden member of which painted surface is deteriorated (a gold coating/painted layer as in [0068], paint/coating understood to be tightly adhering or attached which is why it needs blasting to remove), removes a deteriorated layer on a tightly adhering paint of a paint film on the member as said pollution (removing the deteriorated gold layer to expose a lower primer coating/or film, [0068] and exposes a wood grain including the tightly adhering paint underlying the deteriorated layer on the member (the underlying layer is exposed in between, and as in [0004] there can be a small amount left micrometers, which would mean that the wood grain is at least partially visible/exposed). Hawakawa-706 teaches that this arrangement allows for verification of the color of the paint ([0004]), which ensures historic preservation and reproduction as well as safety ([0004]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hayakawa-361, such that teach wherein said member is a painted wooden member of which painted surface is deteriorated, removes a deteriorated layer on a tightly adhering paint of a paint film on the member as said pollution and exposes a wood grain including the tightly adhering paint underlying the deteriorated layer on the member, as taught by Hawakawa-706 for the purpose of providing a method to clean wood in a manner that preserves historic value.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijichi (JP 2001105319 A) in view of Cox (NPL article on “Human Consumption of Microplastics”), Hayakawa-361 (WO 2016178361 A1), Szucs (US 5462605 A) and Kato (JP H11320627 A).
With respect to claim 5, Ijichi discloses
A surface treatment method for a structure (structure is tank 2 with dirty portion [pollution] 100, fig. 6, [0024]) which removes pollution from an exposed surface of a member of the structure to restore the member (the surface of the structure of tank 2, fig 6, is exposed/accessible by manhole 8 before cleaning, [0027-0028]; [0029] provides that the operator carries devices into the tank), wherein the structure is a manufacturing facility for producing a particulate product (producing a polymer product [polypropylene] [0020]), the member is polluted by a particulate deposit generated during the manufacturing process of the particulate product in the manufacturing facility (the member is polluted by polymer as in [0029], which is the same as the cleaning material in [0012-0013], and the same as the generated material), and the surface treatment method using: a blast media containing a first grainy material as a main component (using blast material as PP pellets in [0029], can be powders as in [0008]), where the first grainy material is composed of the same substance as the deposit in granular form ([0008,0014]), and a blast treatment apparatus having a nozzle for blasting the blast media onto the surface of the member using a gas as a driving fluid (nozzle 27, fig. 3; [0029] is used for blasting, [0023] provides for use of air), and a hollow tube for delivering a mixture of the blast media and the gas to the nozzle ([0023, 0029], there is a hose 26 [hollow tube], fig. 3 that connects to tank 2 , air holder 23 feeds to combine with the tank 2 with the pellets, therefore the hose carries the pellets), the surface treatment method comprising a roughening treatment blasting the mixture onto the surface of the member (as mentioned above contaminated portion of the surface 100 is blasted to remove the contamination, see [0033]), However does not explicitly disclose that the particulate product is ingested by an organism; wherein the nozzle has a tubular base connected to the hollow tube and a tip extending from the base to an end of the nozzle through an intermediate portion, wherein the end has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, the surface treatment method comprising a roughening treatment blasting the mixture onto the surface of the member, thereby functioning the mixture blasted from the blast opening forming strip shape as a grinding tool to remove the pollution and forming fine roughness on the surface to be restored, without grinding the underlying or peripheral parts of the surface of the member.
As for the particulate product is ingested by an organism, Cox, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of consumption of particles by organisms, evidences that humans routinely consume microplastics and are exposed to 39000 to 52000 particles depending on age and sex (abstract on first page). Therefore, given that Ijichi provides for a plastic power product, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have reasonably understood that the plastic powder may be ingested by organisms (human), and would have found the plastic powder of Ijichi, a “particulate product that is ingested by an organism”.
As for wherein the nozzle has a tubular base connected to the hollow tube and a tip extending from the base to an end of the nozzle through an intermediate portion, wherein the end has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening, Hayakawa-361,in the same field of endeavor related to blasting, teaches of wherein the nozzle has a tubular base connected to the hollow tube (tubular base at 7d, fig. 1, which connects to hose 11b, fig. 1, understood to be tubular in that the hose allows flow inside, and therefore the connection at that point is also tubular to accept the hose) and a tip extending from the base to an end of the nozzle through an intermediate portion (tip at flat shape 6, fig. 1; [0041], there is a solid intermediate position between at center of 5), wherein the end has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening (see fig. 3; [0043]; approximately interpreted consistent with instant disclosure). Hayakawa-361 teaches that “flat nozzles are preferable from the perspective of blasting efficiency and the like”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ijichi with the flat nozzle of Hayakawa-361 for blasting efficiency. The rectangular shape would cause thereby functioning the mixture blasted from the blast opening forming strip shape as a grinding tool to remove the pollution (the strip shape would result from a rectangular blast nozzle with the outward opening fan of nozzle 5 Hayakawa-361 of that directs particles to remove/grind away the dirt)
As for wherein, the end has an approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, Szucs, in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting, teaches of having a rectangular opening with long sides (horizonal sides) ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm (1 [long sides], fig. 2, described as having a length about 1.2mm and a width of 0.6mm in col 6 lines 64-end). Szucs teaches that this arrangement saves time for removing dirt and is good for protecting valuable objects (col 2 lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ijichi and have made the approximately rectangular-shaped blast opening with a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, as taught by Szucs for effective removal of dirt while protecting valuable objects.
Alternatively, regarding a distance between long sides ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, as noted above Hayakawa-361 provides for a rectangular opening [with long sides], and MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ijichi such that a distance between a between long sides is from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, as a change in relative dimensions of the prior art. The applicant only provides “The height dimension H2 (in the second direction) of the blast opening 44 is preferably 1.6 times to 4.0 times the average particle size of the blast media, not only when used in the sugar removal method disclosed herein but also when used in the surface treatment method disclosed herein. In particular, to function as a grinding tool for a gas-solid mixture by blasting a band- shaped mixture of particulate blast media with a median diameter in the micron range, the blast opening preferably has a height dimension (distance between the long sides of the rectangular shape) of ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, more preferably from 0.7 mm to 1.0 mm for the narrow rectangular shape, with the short sides being a curved slit, particularly an are shape.” ([0077]), and does not provide for criticality of any particular dimension, and given that Hayakawa-361 (with the flat nozzle) also provides for abrading with a rectangular nozzle opening, it is not demonstrated that there would be any particular effect of the claimed dimensions. The modification would have yielded expected results to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As for forming fine roughness on the surface to be restored, without grinding the underlying or peripheral parts of the surface of the member, Kato, in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting, teaches of using blast material to form a smooth surface ([0011], leaving only fine marks, providing for a non-rough material that leaves only smooth traces [fine roughness] as in [0012], therefore not grinding underlying or peripheral parts of the surface of the member because there are only smooth indentations on the underlying surface). Kato teaches that this “high gloss, luxurious feel” ([0011]), and provides for “cleaning performance with respect to adhesion of debris and the like is high” ([0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ijichi, to include forming fine roughness on the surface to be restored, without grinding the underlying or peripheral parts of the surface of the member, using the teachings of Kato for a high gloss, easy to clean surface with respect to adhesion of debris (which would make it easier to clean the surface of the dirt 100 in Ijichi).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijichi (JP 2001105319 A), and further in view of Hayakawa-361 (WO 2016178361 A1) and Becker (DE 19925476 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Ijichi discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, however does not explicitly disclose using a flat-shaped nozzle with a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the dimension in the second direction is smaller than the dimension in the first direction as said nozzle, and the dimension in the second direction at the nozzle is 1.6 times or more and 4.0 times or less than the average particle size of said blast media.
Hayakawa-361, in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting, teaches of wherein the nozzle is a flat-shaped nozzle with a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the dimension in the second direction is smaller than the dimension in the first direction as said nozzle (tip at flat shape 6, fig. 1; [0041], see fig. 3; [0043] where the flat shape/rectangle has a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the dimension in the second direction is smaller than the dimension in the first direction because of the flat shape/rectangle). Hayakawa-361 teaches that “flat nozzles are preferable from the perspective of blasting efficiency and the like”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ijichi with the flat nozzle of Hayakawa-361 for blasting efficiency.
Becker, in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting teaches that the ratio of the jet thickness to abrasive grain size has an effect in that it affects short term jamming and jet interruptions as well as performance ([0004]).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical.
As Becker teaches that the size of the nozzle (in terms of it’s thickness or in this case the dimension [smaller] in the second direction at the nozzle) is a result effective variable in that it effects performance and short term jamming/interruptions, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made he dimension in the second direction at the nozzle is 1.6 times or more and 4.0 times or less than the average particle size of said blast media, as a selection of a workable range. The applicant has not demonstrated criticality of this variable (see instant spec at [0077] where it only discusses a general preference with no specific reasoning), and the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijichi (JP 2001105319 A), and further in view of Hayakawa-361 (WO 2016178361 A1)
With respect to claim 11, Ijichi discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas pressure for ejecting said blast media ranges from 0.4 MPa or more to 0.9 or less within a blast media tank for storing the blast media to deliver to the nozzle. Instead of using a pressurized blast media tank, Ijichi provides for an external air pressure source (see pellet hopper 24 and air tank 23, fig. 3; [0023]).
Hayakawa-361 in the same field of endeavor, related to blasting teaches of wherein the gas pressure for ejecting said blast media ranges from 0.4 MPa or more to 0.9 or less within a blast media tank for storing the blast media to deliver to the nozzle ([0017,0027], 0.098 -0.98 MPa pressure inside a tank containing blast media, the claimed range overlaps/or lies in the disclosed range of the prior art, which as provided in MPEP 2144.05, is prima facie obvious; see also tank 2, fig. 1; [0041]). Hayakawa-361 teaches that using this arrangement is preferable “because sufficient blasting can be performed without damaging the member surface. By selecting the air pressure in accordance with the hardness of the dirty portion of the object to be air-blasted, blasting can be preferably performed more appropriately and efficiently” ([0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ijichi with pressure in the blast media tank, and have the gas pressure for ejecting said blast media ranges from 0.4 MPa or more to 0.9 or less (obvious as overlapping/lying within Hayakawa-361’s disclosed range) within a blast media tank for storing the blast media to deliver to the nozzle, using the teachings of Hayakawa-361 for appropriate and efficient blasting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 9, 12, 13 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:
With respect to claims 6, 9 and 12, the claims require the use of sugar to remove or blast away sugar (i.e. the same product). As noted above, Logan teaches that the particulate matter needs to be hard enough to remove the material from the surface. While Ijichi uses polymer to remove polymer of the same type adhered, Ijichi teaches that polymers are “viscoelastic materials and have properties different from those of metals and inorganic materials” [while the examiner acknowledges that sugar is an organic substance, there is still no evidence on the record that it has viscoelastic like the polymers of Ijichi, at least in granular form]. There is no indication in the prior art that the use of sugar would be effective in removing sugar deposits adhered to the surfaces, and a common understanding is that sugar does not have the same elastic properties as polymers. A search of the prior art revealed that sugar is not common as a abrasive material, but has found use as a biocompatible type of material that is water soluble and also soft (See Mar, (US 5226260 A)). This is not evidence that that type of material is sufficient to effectively abrade of the same nature [and hardness] as itself, used in a production facility to make sugar itself. Therefore, the examiner has found claims 6, 9, and 12 allowable subject matter.
For similar reasons, the examiner has found that the evidence on the record does not support a rejection of claim 13, in that there is nothing in the prior art to suggest that salt [of any kind] would be effective in removing/blasting off itself. The prior art does suggest, as in Mar, and as in Cook (WO 9405461 A1, using sodium bicarbonate as a salt) of using salt abrasive to remove a different type of water soluble salt contamination with water, the examiner again notes that there is nothing to suggest of using it in a salt production facility or of removing the same kind of salt as itself. Therefore, the examiner has found claim 13 allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights