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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because label “134” crosses with an indicator line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0048] states “container 11”. This should be written as “container 110”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 states “discharge the propellant at a high-velocity”. Paragraph [0027] of the specification filed on 09/03/2024 states “As used herein, "high velocity" refers to controlled aerodynamic speed regimes including, without limitation, subsonic, transonic, hypersonic, and supersonic speeds”. Subsonic speeds occur when an object or airflow moves slower than the speed of sound (typically Mach < 0.75), transonic speeds occur approximately between Mach 0.75 and Mach 1.20, supersonic speeds are those faster than the speed of sound, typically between Mach 1.20 and Mach 5, and hypersonic speeds exceed Mach 5. Based on the paragraph [0027], the applicant is stating that any amount of velocity is considered “high velocity”. It is unclear how a velocity such as 1 m/s and a velocity of Mach 5 (which is approximately 1,715 m/s) are both be considered “high velocity”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “discharge the propellant at a velocity”.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 states “the fluid” and has dependency on claim 1. However, claim 1 does not previously state “a fluid”; in fact, it is claim 7 that states “a fluid”. It is unclear whether the dependency of claim 8 is proper. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret claim 8 as having dependency on claim 1 rather than on claim 1.
Claim 9 states “exposing the article to high-velocity flow for a predetermined time period”. Paragraph [0027] of the specification filed on 09/03/2024 states “As used herein, "high velocity" refers to controlled aerodynamic speed regimes including, without limitation, subsonic, transonic, hypersonic, and supersonic speeds”. Subsonic speeds occur when an object or airflow moves slower than the speed of sound (typically Mach < 0.75), transonic speeds occur approximately between Mach 0.75 and Mach 1.20, supersonic speeds are those faster than the speed of sound, typically between Mach 1.20 and Mach 5, and hypersonic speeds exceed Mach 5. Based on the paragraph [0027], the applicant is stating that any amount of velocity is considered “high velocity”. It is unclear how a velocity such as 1 m/s and a velocity of Mach 5 (which is approximately 1,715 m/s) are both be considered “high velocity”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “exposing the article to a velocity flow for a predetermined time period”.
Claims 10-14 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 9.
Claim 13 states “the fluid” and has dependency on claim 9. However, claim 9 does not previously state “a fluid”; in fact, it is claim 12 that states “a fluid”. It is unclear whether the dependency of claim 13 is proper. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret claim 13 as having dependency on claim 12 rather than on claim 9.
**Note**: Claims 1 and 9 also contain the term “high velocity” in the respective preambles and contain the same 112 issue as presented above.
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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins et al. (US 8,047,048; hereinafter “Jenkins”).
Regarding claim 9, teaches Jenkins a method (Column 4, Lines 27-49) for high velocity erosion testing (Abstract) of an article (10; Figure 1) in a testing device (Figure 1), the method comprising:
storing propellant (pressurized air; Column 4, Lines 33-44) stored in the container (50; Column 4, Lines 33-44) in a container (50; Figure 1; Column 4, Lines 33-44);
discharging (Column 4, Lines 33-44) the propellant (pressurized air; Column 4, Lines 33-44) from the container (50; Figure 1; Column 4, Lines 33-44) to an applicator (tubing through which pressurized air 44 travels, 78, 44, 42, 48-19, 66, 68 and tubing that connects funnel 68 to the tube 46; See Figure 1);
heating the propellant (Column 4, Lines 17-44);
discharging the propellant (pressurized air; Column 4, Lines 33-44) from the applicator (tubing through which pressurized air 44 travels, 78, 44, 42, 48-19, 66, 68 and tubing that connects funnel 68 to the tube 46; See Figure 1) at a controlled speed (the pressurized air and the media are both mixed in order to be both discharged a particular velocity to the specimen 10; See Figure 1; Column 2, Lines 61-64; Column 4, Lines 27-44); and
exposing the article to high-velocity flow (the pressurized air and the media are both mixed in order to be both discharged a particular velocity to the specimen 10; See Figure 1; Column 2, Lines 61-64; Column 4, Lines 27-44) for a predetermined time period (Column 2, Lines 25-34).
Regarding claim 10, Jenkins teaches comprising, prior to the second discharging step, introducing media into the propellant (Column 4, Lines 27-64).
Regarding claim 11, Jenkins teaches collecting media in an evacuation unit (housing 25 collects evacuated particles of the abrasive media 48 or 49 after said abrasive media particles impact the test specimen 10; See Figure 1),
Regarding claim 12, Jenkins teaches wherein the propellant (pressurized air; Column 4, Lines 33-44) comprises a fluid (air is a gas; Column 4, Lines 33-44) selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, and oxygen, and mixtures thereof (the air contains at least nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen).
Regarding claim 13, Jenkins teaches wherein the fluid (air; Column 4, Lines 33-44), when stored under pressure in the container (Column 4, Lines 33-44), is a gaseous phase (air is a gas; Column 4, Lines 33-44).
Regarding claim 14, Jenkins teaches wherein the predetermined time period exceeds twenty minutes (Column 2, Lines 25-34).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Drew (US 7,347,768).
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins teaches an apparatus (Figure 1) for high velocity erosion testing (Abstract) of an article (10; Figure 1; Column 3, Lines 15-18), the apparatus comprising:
a container (50; Figure 1; Column 4, Lines 33-44);
a propellant (pressurized air; Column 4, Lines 33-44) stored in the container (50; Column 4, Lines 33-44), wherein the propellant (pressurized air) is stored under pressure in the container (Column 4, Lines 33-44);
an applicator (tubing through which pressurized air 44 travels, 78, 44, 42, 48-19, 66, 68 and tubing that connects funnel 68 to the tube 46; See Figure 1), the applicator being in fluid communication with the container (tube 46, tubing that permits flow of pressurized air is in fluid communication with the compressor 50 and regulator 78 are in fluid communication with the compressor 50; See Figure 1), the applicator comprising a heater (42; Figure 1; Column 4, Lines 17-44); and
a controller (21; Figure 1; Column 3, Lines 53-64) for controlling the heater (32); and wherein the applicator (tubing through which pressurized air 44 travels, 78, 44, 42, 48-19, 66, 68 and tubing that connects funnel 68 to the tube 46; See Figure 1) is structured to discharge the propellant at a velocity (the pressurized air and the media are both mixed in order to be both discharged a particular velocity to the specimen 10; See Figure 1; Column 2, Lines 61-64; Column 4, Lines 27-44).
Jenkins teaches the controller but does not expressly teach the controller for controlling the flow of propellant from the applicator.
However, Drew teaches that is known in the art to use a controller (50; Figure 1; Column 4, Lines 28-54) for controlling the flow of propellant (air; Figure 1; Column 4, Lines 28-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Drew’s propellent flow control to be performed by Jenkins controller in order to simulate different air speeds, which leads to different simulated abrasiveness of the test sample; this permits a better understanding of test specimen wearing in different scenarios (See Drew Column 4, Lines 28-54).
Regarding claim 2, Janks teaches wherein the applicator (tubing through which pressurized air 44 travels, 78, 44, 42, 48-19, 66, 68 and tubing that connects funnel 68 to the tube 46; See Figure 1) introduces media (48 or 49; Figure 1) into the propellant (air; Column 4, Lines 30-46).
Regarding claim 3, Jenkins teaches wherein the apparatus (Figure 1) further comprises an enclosure (25; Figure 1) comprising a retainer (12; Figure 1; Column 3, Lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 4, Jenkins teaches wherein the apparatus (Figure 1) comprises an evacuation unit (housing 25 collects evacuated particles of the abrasive media 48 or 49 after said abrasive media particles impact the test specimen 10; See Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Jenkins teaches wherein the enclosure (25; Figure 1) comprises an evacuation unit (25) to collect media introduced by the applicator into the propellant (housing 25 collects evacuated particles of the abrasive media 48 or 49 after said abrasive media particles impact the test specimen 10; See Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins teaches the applicator (tubing through which pressurized air 44 travels, 78, 44, 42, 48-19, 66, 68 and tubing that connects funnel 68 to the tube 46; See Figure 1) comprises a mechanical manipulator (regulator 78 is a mechanical component which controls the flow of pressurized air 44, i.e. manipulates flow passage and thus, air flow; Column 5, Lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins teaches wherein the propellant (pressurized air; Column 4, Lines 33-44) comprises a fluid (air is a gas; Column 4, Lines 33-44) selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, and oxygen, and mixtures thereof (the air contains at least nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen).
Regarding claim 8, Jenkins teaches wherein the fluid (air; Column 4, Lines 33-44), when stored under pressure in the container (Column 4, Lines 33-44), is a gaseous phase (air is a gas; Column 4, Lines 33-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights