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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parenteau et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0186438) in view of Gadow et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0170099).
In the case of claim 1, Parenteau teaches a method for manufacturing a screen cylinder comprising a cylindrical screening medium in the form of a screen cylinder 10 comprising a plurality of circumferentially-spaced, axially/longitudinally extending bars 12 having slots 20 therebetween wherein each individual bar 12 had an inflow/outer surface 32 and an outflow/attachment end side 30 (Abstract, Page 2 Paragraph 0025 and Figures 1 and 2A). Parenteau further teaches that the individual bars 12 comprised a first slot surface 34 and a second slot surface 36 with the inflow/outer surface 32 in between the slot surfaces (Pages 3-4 Paragraph 0038 and Figure 3).
Furthermore, Parenteau teaches having applied a wear resistant/hard coating 60 onto the inflow/outer surface 32 (Page 8 Paragraph 0066) and that the wear resistant/hard coating 60 was applied by thermal spraying including high-velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) spraying (Page 8 Paragraph 0067).
Though Parenteau teaches having sprayed the wear resistant coating onto the inflow surface of the bars Parenteau does not teach that a spray nozzle was passed multiple times along the length of the screening medium wherein an angle of the spray nozzle in a circumferential direction relative to the inflow side of the screening medium was varied during coating.
Gadow teaches a device and method for coating the cylindrical internal cavities of a workpiece by thermal spraying (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0002 and 0003). Gadow teaches that suitable thermal spraying processes included high-velocity open/oxygen flame spraying (Page 4 Paragraph 0069) using a nozzle/burner 24 (Page 3 Paragraph 0062). Gadow teaches that the burner/nozzle was passed along the surface being coated multiple times in order to achieve a required coating thickness (Page 4 Paragraph 0070). Gadow further teaches having varied the angle of the nozzle/burner in a circumferential direction relative to the surface being coated by varying the impact angle between the axis of the burner/nozzle and the internal surface being coated in order to form a uniform coating (Page 2 Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0038).
Based on the teachings of Gadow, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the thermal spraying of Parenteau as taught by Gadow in order to form a uniform wear resistant/hard coating of a desired thickness on the inflow/outer surface.
As for claim 2, as was discussed previously, the thermal spraying of Parenteau and Gadow as high velocity thermal spraying.
As for claims 3 and 4, Parenteau teaches that the wear resistant/hard coating comprised tungsten carbide or chromium carbide (Page 8 Paragraph 0067).
As for claim 5, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have performed multiple spray passes and varied the angle of spraying during formation of the wear resistant coating of Parenteau in view of Gadow. However, neither reference specifically teaches having varied the angle of the spray after a spray pass of the nozzle. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A. Furthermore, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP section 2144.04.IV.C.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal order to varying the spray angle during deposition of the wear resistant coating of Parenteau in view of Gadow in order to achieve a uniform coating of a desired thickness and coverage.
As for claim 6, Parenteau teaches that the individual bars 12 of the screen cylinder 10 were attached to the inner circumference of support rings 14 at attachment ends 30 (Page 3 Paragraphs 0035-0036 and Figure 1, 2A and 2B). Parenteau further teaches that the cylinder 10 was an outward flowing screen (Page 3 Paragraph 0037) and because the surfaces 32 of the bars 12 faced inward of the cylinder 10 surfaces 32 were inflow surfaces facing the inflow direction. Parenteau further teaches that surface 32 of each bar had a transition area/edge approximate the second slot surface 36 and ridge/edge approximate the first slot surface 34 as show in Figure 3 (Page 3 Paragraph 0038). Furthermore, as show in Figure 3 first slot surface 34 extends higher than the second slot surface 36 and therefore the ridge/edge of surface 32 approximate the first slot surface 34 was located radially more toward the inflow direction than the transition area/edge approximate the second slot surface 36.
Furthermore, as was discussed previously in the rejection of claim 5, it would have been obvious to have determined the order in which the spray angle was varied in order to form a uniform coating with a desired thickness.
As for claim 7, as was discussed previously, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal angle variation for the spray angle of Parenteau in view of Gadow through routine experimentation in order to form a uniform wear resistant coating with a desired thickness.
As for claim 8, Gadow teaches that during coating the workpiece was rotated relative to the burner/nozzle (Page 4 Paragraph 0070).
As for claim 9, Parenteau teaches that the wear resistant/hard coating 60 had a thickness of 5 to 300 microns (Page 9 Paragraph 0068), which overlapped with the claimed range of 75 to 300 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
As for claim 10, Parenteau teaches that the wear resistant/hard coating 60 was applied to the outer surface 32, the first slot surface 34, the second slot surface 36 or combination thereof (Page 8 Paragraph 0066). Therefore, the teachings of Parenteau encompass an embodiment wherein the coating was only applied to the outer/inflow surface and not to the first and second slot surfaces.
In the case of claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 through 7.
As for claims 12 and 13, they are rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 3 and 4, respectively.
As for claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claim 2.
As for claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claim 10.
As for claims 16 and 7, they are rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claim 7. Furthermore, Gadow teaches that the spray angle was varied between 90 and 10 degrees (Page 2 Paragraph 0032), which overlapped with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 17 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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 WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712