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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 11 is withdrawn.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 08/07/2026. Claim 11 is withdrawn. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 2 and 10 are 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.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), the limitation “a virtual reality type headset” is indefinite because the phrase "type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “a virtual reality
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent on claim 2.
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, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruemelin et al (US Patent No. 5,177,911) in view of Levy et al (US Patent No. 5,240,503), and in further view of Santure (US PGPUB No. 2017/0057053), hereinafter referred to as Ruemelin, Levy, and Santure, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Ruemelin discloses a surface preparation method comprising the steps of:
constructing an enclosed cabinet for either wet bead blasting or dry bead blasting [Ruemelin, fig 6, 24];
positioning a blast gun [Ruemelin, fig 6, 40] having a forced air feed and a camera secured thereto [Ruemelin, fig 6, 40 is connected camber 120 and forced air 120 and col 8, lines 51-59, teaching that 120 and 130 are mounted together and col 8, lines 23-33 teaching that 40 and the unit of 120 and 130 are a movable unit] within said cabinet [Ruemelin, fig 6, 40, 125 and 128 are connected to each other through intermediate members and col 8, lines 51-59];
adjusting compressed air velocity, pressure and cfm to said blast gun and said forced air camera [Ruemelin, col 8, lines 3-8 and lines 23-33];
directing a flow of abrasives through said blast gun [Ruemelin, col 7, lines 56-65];
coordinating with a control module wherein all functions/components/equipment for said cabinet is powered up simultaneously or individually by an operator via a switch [Ruemelin, col 7, lines 56-65, switch 61, and col 8, lines 13-40, computer is the control module];
relaying real time images from said forced air camera to an external monitor with said compressed air keeping the forced air camera lens clean [Ruemelin, col 8, lines 13-33].
Ruemelin does not explicitly disclose the blast gun having a forced air camera having zoom in/out capabilities; and coordinating with a control module wherein all functions/components/equipment for said cabinet is powered up simultaneously or individually by an operator via a thumb switch mounted on said blast gun.
Regarding the camera having zoom capabilities, Levy teaches a surface preparation method comprising the steps of:
positioning a blast gun [Levy, figs 1 and 2, 32 has tool 38 and col 5, lines 15-25 and col 5, line 65 – col 6, line 8] having a camera secured thereto having zoom in/out capabilities [Levy, col 6, lines 20-35];
directing a flow of abrasives through said blast gun [Levy, col 5, line 65 – col 6, line 8, sandblasting through tool 38]; and
relaying real time images from said camera to an external monitor [Levy, col 6, lines 25-30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the camera of Ruemelin to include zoom capabilities as taught by Levy because this allows the operator to be away from harmful sprays and still be able to base his control on direct observation [Levy, col 6, lines 26-35, summarized] which allows the operator to have finer control over the detail of the work than by not having zoom capabilities.
Regarding the switch to supply power to the equipment either simultaneously or individually, Santure teaches a surface preparation method comprising the steps of:
positioning a blast gun [Santure, fig 7, showing the structure of a blast gun];
directing a flow of abrasives through said blast gun [Santure, page 1, pp 0012, blast media is directed towards a workpiece]; and
coordinating with a control module wherein all functions/components/equipment for said cabinet is powered up simultaneously or individually by an operator via a thumb switch mounted on said blast gun [Santure, fig 7, 226 is a switch which is interpreted to be capable of being operated by any hand digit including a thumb, and page 3, pp 0028-0042, where 226 operates the power source to supply the blast media].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ruemelin to incorporate a switch on the blast gun to supply the power to at least the blast gun for the blast media as taught by Santure because this allows for no blast media to pass through the blast gun when unwanted, and therefore protects the equipment from pre-mature wear [Santure, page 3, pp 0043, summarized].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Ruemelin as modified further discloses the surface preparation method according to Claim 1 including the step of providing a vacuum for removal of a debris cloud within said cabinet [Ruemelin, figs 3 and 6, 18 is a suction inlet to vacuum 60].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Ruemilin as modified further discloses the surface preparation method according to Claim 1 including the step of providing a water spray rinse for items bead blasted in a wet bead blasting cabinet [Ruemelin, col 8, lines 23-33, use of “and/or” implies that water can be used in addition to the air and directed towards the workpiece, there the water is capable of rising the workpiece as well within the cabinet].
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Ruemelin as modified further discloses the surface preparation method according to Claim 1 wherein the said control module receives instructions by a module menu [Ruemelin, col 8, lines 34-40, computer program which is interpreted to be a module menu].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruemelin et al (US Patent No. 5,177,911) in view of Levy et al (US Patent No. 5,240,503), and in further view of Santure (US PGPUB No. 2017/0057053), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bishop et al (US PGPUB No. 2013/0143470), hereinafter referred to as Ruemelin, Levy, Santure, and Bishop, respectively.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Ruemelin as modified further discloses the surface preparation method according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose 1 including the step of monitoring air temperature within said cabinet and initiating an alarm if the temperature is outside an acceptable pre-set range and an air cooler to lower the temperature to an acceptable pre-set range.
Bishop teaches a surface preparation method comprising the steps of:
constructing an enclosed cabinet for either wet bead blasting or dry bead blasting [Bishop, fig 2, 235 is an enclosed housing for blasting media];
positioning a blast gun [Bishop, fig 2, 229 is positioned];
directing a flow of abrasives through said blast gun [Bishop, fig 2, media from 227 is directed through 229];
coordinating with a control module [Bishop, fig 2, and page 2, pp 0021, 239]; and
monitoring air temperature within said cabinet and initiating an alarm if the temperature is outside an acceptable pre-set range and an air cooler to lower the temperature to an acceptable pre-set range [Bishop, page 2, pp 0021 teaches that 237 monitors humidity which includes air temperature as a part of that calculation and 239 adjusts the range of the humidity/temperature within the chamber].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the humidity sensor and control of Bishop to the media blasting system of Ruemelin because controlling the humidity, and therefore the temperature, at least reduces static buildup during abrasive blasting [Bishop, page 1, pp 0011, summarized].
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Ruemelin as modified further discloses the surface preparation method according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose 1 including the step of monitoring moisture content within said cabinet and initiating an alarm if the moisture is outside an acceptable pre-set range and an air dryer if the moisture is above a pre-set range.
Bishop teaches a surface preparation method comprising the steps of:
constructing an enclosed cabinet for either wet bead blasting or dry bead blasting [Bishop, fig 2, 235 is an enclosed housing for blasting media];
positioning a blast gun [Bishop, fig 2, 229 is positioned];
directing a flow of abrasives through said blast gun [Bishop, fig 2, media from 227 is directed through 229];
coordinating with a control module [Bishop, fig 2, and page 2, pp 0021, 239]; and
monitoring moisture content within said cabinet and initiating an alarm if the moisture is outside an acceptable pre-set range and an air dryer if the moisture is above a pre-set range [Bishop, page 2, pp 0021 teaches that 237 monitors humidity which includes moisture content as a part of that calculation and 239 adjusts the range of the humidity/moisture content within the chamber].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the humidity sensor and control of Bishop to the media blasting system of Ruemelin because controlling the humidity, and therefore the moisture content, at least reduces static buildup during abrasive blasting [Bishop, page 1, pp 0011, summarized].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Claims 2 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Bolick et al (US Patent No. 7,817,162) teaches a virtual blasting system [Bolick, abstract] using a screen and simulation [Bolick, abstract]. However, Bolick does not teach the use of a VR headset with the camera.
Therefore, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “including the step of coupling said external monitor to a virtual reality
Claim 10 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Weatherstone (European Patent Publication No. EP2902082) teaches a videogaming controller comprising a scroll wheel [Weatherstone, abstract]. However, there would be no motivation to place this controller on the blast gun since this device would likely not be able to withstand the blast environment and would not operate as intended and/or would render the device of Ruemelin unable to work in a blasting media environment.
Therefore, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein said blast gun includes a thumb switch for use in scrolling through a control module menu to select all of the functions and controls of the control module components, a forced air camera, a water rinse nozzle, an air blow gun nozzle, and a blast gun trigger for wet or dry blast bead/abrasives” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Charles (US Patent No. 10,172,516) teaches anti fogging prevention for surgical contact lenses using heated forced air to the camera [Charles, abstract]. However, the environment in which the anti fogging prevention means of Charles is a sterile and clean environment and would not likely operate as intended within the environment of a media blast cabinet and/or would render the apparatus of Ruemelin to not operate within the blast media environment as designed.
Therefore, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “including the step of directing heated compressed air through forced air camera tube to prevents fouling of the camera lens during the wet/dry bead blasting process” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights