DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/17/2026 is entered and fully considered.
In view of the amendment the previous rejections are removed and new rejections are made.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment the previous rejections are removed and new rejections are made. The arguments directed to the previous rejection are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 depends from claim 13 which depends from claim 12 which depends from claim 9. The limitations from claim 16 are already required by claim 9. The depending claim therefore does not further limit the claim and is improper.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 4,576,526) in view of TILLERY et al. (US 5,544,811).
Regarding claim 1,
MULLER teaches an apparatus for supplying powder to a thermal spray device abstract. As shown in Fig. 1 the apparatus includes a first and second storage container 1 and 2 (first and second enclosed space) with outlet orifices 3 and 4 connecting to supply devices column 2 lines 30-47. The powder is sent to a buffer chamber 13 (mixing hopper) using vibrating slides 7 and 8 (fluidly connected) column 2 lines 30-47. The hopper then feeds into a nozzle 19 that sprays powder and carrier gas column 2 lines 30-47.
MULLER teaches incorporating the powder delivery into a flame spray device in the claims, but does not provide any detail for the flame sprayer. However, one of ordinary skill would naturally turn to the art to find usable structures for the flame sprayer head. TILLERY teaches a flam sprayer that includes a burner orifice plate 466 with gas chamber 460 separate and juxtapose to the powder nozzle 465, see Figs. 6-8 and column 8 lines 6-40. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the powder supply of MULLER into a flame spray device such as the one described in TILLERY as a known flame spray nozzle configuration.
Regarding claim 5,
TILLERY teaches the powder is injected with a carrier gas as shown in fig. 1 the mixer 13 feeds flows into a transfer duct connected to a carrier gas (pressurized). The entirety of the supply system can be considered the “mixing hopper”.
Regarding claims 14 and 15,
Claims 14 and 15 describe the size and type of particular material (powder) that is used in the system. The examiner notes that the size and type of powder does not necessitate additional structure to the apparatus. Accordingly, the claim limitations directed to the type of powder used are met by using the powder supply, hoppers and nozzles of the prior art as described above.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 4,576,526) in view of TILLERY et al. (US 5,544,811) and BELASHCHENCKO et al. (US 5,932,293).
Regarding claims 2 and 3,
TILLERY teaches a flame sprayer with parallel and concentric powder delivery with the combustion orifice. However, BELASHCHENCKO teaches a configuration of nozzle in which the combustion chamber leading to a tube and orifice is provided such that the angle of powder injectors can be changed to control the dwell time of powder inside the nozzle which controls temperature column 8 lines 32-45. The angle is both oblique and acute to the combustion tube Fig. 1 (oblique to the outlet orifice and acute to the inlet orifice). At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combustion chamber and manipulate the angle of the powder nozzle and combustion port to control the temperature and dwell time of powder being sprayed.
Regarding claim 4,
The position of the combustion port and powder nozzle in BELASHCHENCKO is considered to be within a “tolerance gap” of any arbitrary size.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 4,576,526) in view of TILLERY et al. (US 5,544,811) further in view of BARANOVSKI et al. (US 9,845,206) and WARD et al. (US 3,007,744).
Regarding claim 6,
TILLERY teaches the air control can include a purge valve 180 that is engaged if pressure is too high column 9 lines 57 to column 10 line 3. The reference does not expressly teach using a purge valve in connection with the feeder because the air pressure is only used to mix the powder material in the mixing hopper (after the feeder). However, when providing pressurized gas to a powder delivery system, BARANOVSKI teaches including a pressure equalizing tube 62 to the powder tank to prevent backflow column 3 lines 37-54. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pressure equalizing tube of BARANOVSKI to prevent back flow in TILLERY. When using the equalizing tube of BARANOVSKI the pressure relief system used for the pressurized air is incorporated into the feeder system. Alternatively, WARD teaches including a pressure relief valve 62 positioned at the top of the tank (feeder) in Fig. 1. WARD teaches the pressure control can be used to help control the flow of powder column 2 line 70 to column 3 line 65.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 4,576,526) in view of TILLERY et al. (US 5,544,811) further in view of ANDERSON et al. (US 2005/0284366).
Regarding claims 7 and 8,
TILLERY teaches a spray gun but does not teach mounting the system to a multi-positional gantry. However, ANDERSON teaches that a spray gun mounting system 180 can be used with a spray gun system [0074] including flame-spray [0035]. When paired with a control system the spray gun can be programmed and precisely controlled [0034]-[0035]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mounting system and automated control of the spray gun to obtain reproducible coatings. The spray gun is considered part of the flame spray deposition system. Therefore when the spray gun is mounted on the gantry, the flame spray deposition system is also mounted on the gantry.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 4,576,526) in view of TILLERY et al. (US 5,544,811) further in view of ORISAKA et al. (US 2015/0255778) and ARNOLDY (US 3,735,087).
Regarding claim 9,
MULLER teaches an apparatus for supplying powder to a thermal spray device but does not teach an electro-mechanical feeder having a metering wheel. However, ORISAKA teaches a rotor (wheel) for supplying a fixed amount of powder at high accuracy (metering) abstract. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the rotor of ORISAKA to precisely control the amount of powder being fed to the mixer (hopper) and ultimately to the sprayer. ORISAKA does not expressly teach the rotor is operated by an electric motor (an electro-mechanical system). However, metering wheels are necessarily driven by a motor and ARNOLDY teaches that electric motors can be used and the speed can be easily controlled column 3 lines 5-15. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to run the rotor of ORISAKA using an electric motor (electro-mechanical) because of the ease of speed control.
Regarding claim 10,
TILLERY teaches the powder is injected with a carrier gas as shown in fig. 1 the mixer 13 feeds flows into a transfer duct connected to a carrier gas (pressurized). The entirety of the supply system can be considered the “mixing hopper”.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 4,576,526) in view of TILLERY et al. (US 5,544,811), ORISAKA et al. (US 2015/0255778) and ARNOLDY (US 3,735,087) further in view of BARANOVSKI et al. (US 9,845,206) and WARD et al. (US 3,007,744).
Regarding claim 11,
TILLERY teaches the air control can include a purge valve 180 that is engaged if pressure is too high column 9 lines 57 to column 10 line 3. The reference does not expressly teach using a purge valve in connection with the feeder because the air pressure is only used to mix the powder material in the mixing hopper (after the feeder). However, when providing pressurized gas to a powder delivery system, BARANOVSKI teaches including a pressure equalizing tube 62 to the powder tank to prevent backflow column 3 lines 37-54. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pressure equalizing tube of BARANOVSKI to prevent back flow in TILLERY. When using the equalizing tube of BARANOVSKI the pressure relief system used for the pressurized air is incorporated into the feeder system. Alternatively, WARD teaches including a pressure relief valve 62 positioned at the top of the tank (feeder) in Fig. 1. WARD teaches the pressure control can be used to help control the flow of powder column 2 line 70 to column 3 line 65.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 4,576,526) in view of TILLERY et al. (US 5,544,811), ORISAKA et al. (US 2015/0255778), and ARNOLDY (US 3,735,087) further in view of ANDERSON et al. (US 2005/0284366).
Regarding claims 12 and 13,
TILLERY teaches a spray gun but does not teach mounting the system to a multi-positional gantry. However, ANDERSON teaches that a spray gun mounting system 180 can be used with a spray gun system [0074] including flame-spray [0035]. When paired with a control system the spray gun can be programmed and precisely controlled [0034]-[0035]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mounting system and automated control of the spray gun to obtain reproducible coatings. The spray gun is considered part of the flame spray deposition system. Therefore when the spray gun is mounted on the gantry, the flame spray deposition system is also mounted on the gantry.
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
Claim 16 depends from claim 13 which depends from claim 12 which depends from claim 9. The limitations of claim 16 are already incorporated in claim 9.
MULLER teaches an apparatus for supplying powder to a thermal spray device but does not teach an electro-mechanical feeder having a metering wheel. However, ORISAKA teaches a rotor (wheel) for supplying a fixed amount of powder at high accuracy (metering) abstract. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the rotor of ORISAKA to precisely control the amount of powder being fed to the mixer (hopper) and ultimately to the sprayer. ORISAKA does not expressly teach the rotor is operated by an electric motor (an electro-mechanical system). However, metering wheels are necessarily driven by a motor and ARNOLDY teaches that electric motors can be used and the speed can be easily controlled column 3 lines 5-15. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to run the rotor of ORISAKA using an electric motor (electro-mechanical) because of the ease of speed control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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:
Claim 18 requires a first feeder tube to connect the first feeder (an electro-mechanical feeder with metering wheel driven by motor) to the mixing hopper. As shown in ORISAKA, the metering wheel allows for a desired amount of material to pass through but does not meter into a tube which connects to a mixing hopper.
Depending claims 19 and 20 incorporate the same limitations of claim 18.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights