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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 11, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment of December 11, 2025, filed with the RCE submission, has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 1-20 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, line 15 refers to expelling the metallic composition and propellant from a nozzle “by means of a first stream”, however, it is confusing and indefinite as to what first stream is referred to. At line 9 of claim 1, “a first stream” is already referred to, and so it is unclear if “a first stream” of line 15 is supposed to be “the first stream”—that is, is the same first stream as in line 9, or whether a different stream is referred to. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that either the same or different stream is referred to, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter,
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend, and are therefore also rejected.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz et al (US 2968083) in view of Reimer (US 4632309) and as evidenced by Zhou (US 2008/0003251).
Claims 1, 2: Lentz teaches a method of sealing a surface (note column 1, lines 1-20, figures 1, 2). A metal oxide composition is provided (note column 2, lines 35-45, column 6, lines 25-35, note alumina, for example). Zhou evidences that the metal oxides can be considered as a metallic composition (note 0007, where metallic materials are indicated as materials containing a metal, including oxides). In Lentz, a propellant is further provided (note compressed air, column 3, lines 1-10, column 6, lines 1-25). The metallic composition is heated to above the melting point of the composition to provide at least partially liquid composition (note column 2, lines 35-70). The at least partially liquid composition is accelerated towards the surface by means of the propellant (note figure 1, column 6, lines 1-25, note the compressed air, column 3, lines 1-10). The at least partially liquid composition is applied to the surface to be sealed, which surface to be sealed comprises at least one surface defect to be sealed (as desired by claim 2) (note figures 1, 2, column 5, lines 33-65, for example, note the openings in wall 11a through which vapors can escape, column 4, lines 1-15, 30-45, column 3, lines 1-20).
As to providing the metallic composition as a stream from a metallic composition source, and the propellant as a stream from a propellant source, combining the metallic combining the metallic composition stream and the propellant stream to form a first stream, that is a mixture of the at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the metallic composition source and the propellant source by means of a first stream via a hose, Lenz describes providing the metallic composition and compressed air from a nozzle (head 22) (note the spraying through an oxy-acetylene flame, which flame metals the metallic particles) (note figure 1, column 3,lines 1-10, column 6, lines 1-25).
Reimer further describes a method and apparatus for projecting molten particles (describing using thermoplastic particles, for example, but not limited to that) (note column 1, lines 5-10, column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 2, figure 1). The process/apparatus includes providing a source of particles to be sprayed (note hopper 12) and a compressed air propellant source (note source 11) (note figure 1, column 3, lines 50-68). Propellant (compressed air) from the source 11 combines with the particles at eductor 12A, where then both the compressed air and particles pass along a supply hose 26 to the gun/nozzle 10 (so the nozzle is in fluid communication with the particle source and the propellant source via a hose, where as to the propellant source for example, there are additional connections, such as further hoses, but the hose 26, for example, is part of the system for this connection) (note figure 1, lines 60-68), this can be considered a providing a composition stream from a composition source (hopper 12) where the stream comprises the composition particles. The particle/propellant material/composition stream passes through the nozzle and passes into a chamber 84 in the nozzle where the particles are heated to above the melting point to provide at least partially liquid particles, where the heat is provided from a flame from oxygen and fuel (here propane), giving a flame spraying (note figure 1, column 9, lines 30-68). Furthermore, a propellant stream (comprising propellant) from a propellant source (source 11) is also separately provided through hose 28 into the nozzle, where the composition stream with melted particles combines with the propellant stream to form a first stream that comprises a mixture of the at least partially liquid composition particles and the propellant (note column 9, lines 30-50, figure 1, where the propelling air entrains/combines with the moving powder particles). The at least partially liquid particle/composition/composition stream/first stream is expelled from the nozzle with accelerating the at least partially liquid particle/composition towards the surface/object to be coated by means of the propellant (note figure 1, column 9, lines 30-50). The nozzle (noting chamber 84) is in fluid communication with the composition source and propellant source by means of the first stream via a hose (where as worded the nozzle has the first stream which communicates with the composition source and the propellant source, so by means of first stream the nozzle communicates, since to get the composition and propellant to the nozzle/first stream requires the materials to communicate with the nozzle, and this can be by the hose that can be considered as the loop of hoses 15, 22, 26 and 28 in figure 1, or at least would be suggested as the compressed air/propellant source has to connect to the nozzle and the material source), and additionally if a different “first stream” is referred to in the “via a hose” section, then the flow of compressed air/propellant can be considered a first stream that also communicates with the composition source and propellant source and nozzle via hoses as described for figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lentz as evidenced by Zhou to provide the metal spraying includes providing the metallic composition from a metallic composition source, to form a composition stream with metallic composition and the propellant from a propellant source in the form of a stream with propellant, heating the metallic composition above the melting point to melt the metallic composition giving at least partially liquid metallic composition, combining the metallic composition and propellant stream to form a first stream which comprises a mix of both the liquid metallic composition and propellant, accelerating the liquid metallic composition towards the surface by means of the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the metallic composition source and the propellant source by means of the first stream via a hose as suggested by Reimer with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable spraying since Lentz describes providing spraying with a oxygen-acetylene (fuel) flame spray gun/nozzle, where compressed air propellant and metallic particles (composition) are passed through the nozzle to spray where the composition is to be heated above the metallic point to give at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant accelerates the composition towards the surface to be coated, which would require a source of propellant and a source of the metallic composition to provide the materials for use, and Reimer describes the details of how an oxygen-fuel flame spray gun/nozzle system can be provided for use where a source of particles (composition) to be a sprayed and compressed air (propellant) is provided, where provide the spraying includes providing the composition from a composition source, to form a composition stream with composition and the propellant from a propellant source in the form of a stream with propellant, heating the composition above the metaling point to melt the metal giving at least partially liquid composition, combining the composition and propellant stream to form a first stream which comprises a mix of both the liquid composition and propellant, accelerating the liquid towards the surface by means of the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the composition source and the propellant source by means of a first stream via a hose, thereby giving a suggested process and system for using a flame spray gun to melt and propel the desired composition using compressed air propellant.
Claim 3: In Lentz, the surface at least partially defines a volume defining a container, that comprises a fluid substance (gaseous material), for example, (figures 1, 2, column 3, lines 1-10, column 4, lines 1-15, column 5, lines 35-65, note the furnace walls for example, which would hold zinc including zinc vapors, or if empty of zinc, air, as a container).
Claim 4: In the Lentz, the at least one surface defect to be sealed is the source of a leak from which matter comprising the fluid substance may escape (note figures 1, 2, column 5, lines 35-65, for example, note the openings in wall 11a through which vapors can escape, and even if empty of zinc, air would escape since there is an opening).
Claim 6: The propellent would be heated in the process as the compressed air, for example, passes through the hot flame in Lentz (column 3, lines 1-10) and in Reimer (note column 9, lines 40-50, figure 1).
Claim 8: In Lentz, the composition would be heated by the flame of the gun (note column 3, lines 1-10). Reimer also indicates heating the composition particles by a formed flame (note column 9, lines 40-50).
Claim 11: In Lentz the partially liquid metallic composition cools on contact with the surface to form a solid metallic composition seal (note figures 1, 2, column 2, lines 60-70, column 3, lines 1-10).
Claim 12: In Lentz, the at least partially liquid composition is applied to the surface as a constant stream (see Figure 1, column 4, lines 30-45).
Claim 16: In Lentz, the propellant provides sufficient propulsion to force the composition into deformities in the surface, such as the surface defect/crack/openings in wall 11a (note figures 1, 2, column 4, lines 30-40, column 6, lines 15-30).
Claim 18: In Lentz, the propellant can be air (compressed air) (note figures 1, 2, column 6, lines 15-30, column 3, lines 1-10). Reimer also notes propellant as compressed air (note column 9, lines 40-50, figure 1).
Claims 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Reimer, and as evidenced by Zhou as applied to claims 1-4, 11, 12, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Bleakley (US 2092150).
Claims 6, 7, 8: as to further providing that the propellant is heated and the composition further heated by contact with the propellant, or for claim 8, the composition also heated by other than the propellant, as discussed for claim 1 above, Lentz describes how there can be heating (such with oxyacetylene flame) of the composition (so other heating for claim 8) and propelling with compressed air (note column 3, lines 1-10, column 6, lines 15-25). Reimer also notes how there can be heating with the flame and propelling with compressed air (note column 9, lines 40-50, figure 1). Bleakley describes how there can be spraying of molten metal material (page 1, column 1, lines 1-10), where it is provided to provide an oxy-acetylene (note page 2, column 2, lines 1-20), where such a gas mixture combusts to a flame and melts the metal (note page 5, column 1, lines 25-45), where a further primary air stream is provide for carrying the molten metal and preventing it from chilling en route to the surface (note page 5, column 1, lines 25-45, page 3, column 1, lines 25-45, providing a propellant air), where this primary air is heated in the gun (page 5, lines 35-45, absorbs excess heat and becomes heated carrier gas) and would be understood to further act to provide heat to the metallic composition from the contact during the spraying (since the heated condition for carrier gas stream prevents chilling en route, note page 5, lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lentz in view of Reimer, and as evidenced by Zhou to use heated propellant as described by Bleakley that would also provide heat from propellant to the metallic composition by contact since Lentz and Reimer provide how molten material can be sprayed using air propellant, where Bleakley gives a similar system as discussed above where it is indicated how propellant air can be heated to also prevent the chilling of the metal en route allowing desirable molten conditions.
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Reimer, and as evidenced by Zhou as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Borom (US 5897921).
Claims 10, 11, 14 and 17: as to accelerating the propellant to the surface and contacting the surface before accelerating the metallic composition (claim 9), provide a separate stream of heated propellant to the surface during the application of the metallic composition (claim 10), and the metallic composition at least partially melting applied solid composition, coalesces with the previously applied composition and cools to form solid composition (claim 13), and the preheating the surface (claim 17), Lentz describes how a desired thickness is to be built up with adherence to prevent spalling (column 4,lines 30-45). Borom describes thermally spraying a coating in multiple layers, building up coating, where molten material would be sprayed on a surface while rotating, where the molten material impacts the surface, cools to solidify, then is reheated with a torch/gun without coating material, then the next layer of molten coating is applied, where the combination of the heating and the molten coating heat provide localized melting of the previously applied layer so that the coatings weld themselves to each other (coalesce) giving enhanced bonding, and then cool to solidify (note column 3, line 40-50, column 4, lines 20-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lentz in view of Reimer, and as evidenced by Zhou to provide coating in passes, to build up coating, with a preheating of the previously applied coating with a similar spray system including the propellant (without the molten composition) so that the heating and the new application of molten material for a new layer melts the previously applied solid metallic components, coalesces (welds) the new layer with the previously applied material, and cools to form a solid metallic composition as suggested by Borom, which as discussed above, would indicate that this would provide a desirable enhanced bonding, where Lentz wants to desirably build up and adhere coating, giving the features of claim 13, and this would further suggest the features of claim 9, 10 and 17, as Borom would show providing a heated spray gun (without coating) for heating using the spray, and thus suggest benefits of providing a spray using the spray system with propellant (where the propellant is heated at least from the overall contact with the heated material for melting the metal, such as the arc, or heated to provide the desired heat to the surface) and thus providing the accelerating and contact of claim 9, that would occur before the application of coating (of the second layer) on the surface, and for claim 10 providing the separate treatment of heated propellant and spraying to the surface while also performing the coating (as Borom shows a continuous process, note figure 1), which depending on the size of the substrate would suggest that there can be preheating occurring at an earlier point on the substrate while coating applied to a later point in a predictable and acceptable fashion, and for claim 17 also shows the suggested preheating (where the surface can be that with the first layer, for example).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Reimer, and as evidenced by Zhou as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Strock et al (US 2008/0226879).
Claim 15: As to the composition velocity, Lentz describes thermal spraying (column 3, lines 1-10, with a spray gun, figures 1, 2, column 6, lines 1-15, giving flame spraying, for example), where Strock describes a process for applying a coating by using a heated gas stream that can include thermal spraying processes (including with electric arc, flame spraying, etc.) (0013), where molten droplets are sprayed to form a coating (0014), where it is indicated that the coating droplet velocity can be 25-50 m/s, for example, in the claimed range (0014) of claim 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lentz in view of Reimer, and as evidenced by Zhou to provide that the coating is applied using a velocity of the liquid composition of 25-50 m/s as suggested by Strock with an expectation of predictably acceptable results since Lentz is spraying molten coating and Strock indicates conventional velocity for such spraying as discussed above.
Claim 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccio et al (US 4751113) in view of Reimer (US 4632309).
Claims 1-4: Riccio teaches a process to seal a surface (where the process includes a resin seal layer, and also a uniform layer of copper metallic material, which can also be considered a seal layer as indicated by applicant in the specification at 0073 of layer as sealing, and would protect the surface against fouling so sealing against such fouling as well) (note abstract, column 1, line 60 to column 2, line 10, column 3, lines 50-60, where the surface can be the hull, IF, or the resin layer 3, for example, as in figure 2), where the process includes providing a metallic composition (copper or copper alloy) (column 2, lines 55-60, column 3, lines 50-55, column 4, lines 10-20), heating the composition above the melting point of the metallic composition to provide at least partially liquid metallic composition and spraying (accelerating) the liquid metallic composition towards the surface by thermal spraying to apply a coating of the liquid metallic composition on the surface (claim 1, figure 2, column 3, lines 50-60, column 4, lines 20-30). As to providing a propellant and accelerating the liquid metallic composition to the substrate by means of the propellant, Riccio teaches that thermal spraying can include melting wire or powder with an electric or oxyacetylene arc (so high temperature to heat to melt) and using compressed air or inert gas to propel (so propellant) the molten particles towards the substrate at high velocity (so propellant provided and accelerating the liquid composition towards the surface of the substrate) (column 2, lines 10-30, and since Riccio teaches thermal spraying, and describes this as a form of thermal spraying in the description of the invention process, it is understood that this is included as a taught method of thermal spraying or at the least as a suggested method of providing the thermal spraying desired by Riccio that would be suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with an expectation of predictably acceptable results since thermal spraying desired and this would be a known method of thermal spraying). Riccio would further teach or suggest that the surface at least partially defines a volume defining a container that at least comprises a fluid substance (which would include gas) (as desired for claim 3), since it is a taught the that the coating would be applied to boat or ship hulls (abstract), and a boat or ship and its hulls can be considered a container (that forms the ship, and holds gas (since would hold goods/people and also contain air – so not filled with water)). Riccio would further teach or at least suggest that the surface to be sealed includes a surface defect to be sealed, since it teaches that repairs can be made to a damaged area by grit blasting the damaged area (so at a surface area to be blasted, so understood to be a defective area in the surface, or at least include this) (column 5, lines 40-45) (as desired by claim 2). Further, as to the features desired by claim 4, Riccio notes how areas of the hull can be exposed to heavy mechanical wear or erosion (column 3, lines 55-60), and the coating used for repair (column 5, lines 40-45), which would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that areas to be repaired by the process can be such areas exposed to the mechanical wear as areas that would have problems, and such wear area would further be understood to be a source of a leak (since continued wear would remove the substrate locally, giving a hole that would leak for a boat/ship). Riccio notes using marine surfaces in general, including metal such as steel (note column 1, line 60 through column 2, line 10). Furthermore, leaks would allow material in the hull to escape including air in the hull.
As to providing the metallic composition as a stream from a metallic composition source, and the propellant as a stream from a propellant source, combining the metallic combining the metallic composition stream and the propellant stream to form a first stream, that is a mixture of the at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the metallic composition source and the propellant source by means of a first stream via a hose, as discussed above, Riccio teaches that thermal spraying can include melting powder with an oxyacetylene (oxygen-fuel) arc (so high temperature to heat to melt) and using compressed air or inert gas to propel (so propellant) the molten particles towards the substrate at high velocity (so propellant provided and accelerating the liquid composition towards the surface of the substrate) (column 2, lines 10-30, and since Riccio teaches thermal spraying, and describes this as a form of thermal spraying in the description of the invention process, it is understood that this is included as a taught method of thermal spraying or at the least as a suggested method of providing the thermal spraying desired by Riccio).
Reimer further describes a method and apparatus for projecting molten particles (describing using thermoplastic particles, for example, but not limited to that) (note column 1, lines 5-10, column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 2, figure 1). The process/apparatus includes providing a source of particles to be sprayed (note hopper 12) and a compressed air propellant source (note source 11) (note figure 1, column 3, lines 50-68). Propellant (compressed air) from the source 11 combines with the particles at eductor 12A, where then both the compressed air and particles pass along a supply hose 26 to the gun/nozzle 10 (so the nozzle is in fluid communication with the particle source and the propellant source via a hose, where as to the propellant source for example, there are additional connections, such as further hoses, but the hose 26, for example, is part of the system for this connection) (note figure 1, lines 60-68), this can be considered a providing a composition stream from a composition source (hopper 12) where the stream comprises the composition particles. The particle/propellant material/composition stream passes through the nozzle and passes into a chamber 84 in the nozzle where the particles are heated to above the melting point to provide at least partially liquid particles, where the heat is provided from a flame from oxygen and fuel (here propane), giving a flame spraying (note figure 1, column 9, lines 30-68). Furthermore, a propellant stream (comprising propellant) from a propellant source (source 11) is also separately provided through hose 28 into the nozzle, where the composition stream with melted particles combines with the propellant stream to form a first stream that comprises a mixture of the at least partially liquid composition particles and the propellant (note column 9, lines 30-50, figure 1, where the propelling air entrains/combines with the moving powder particles). The at least partially liquid particle/composition/composition stream/first stream is expelled from the nozzle with accelerating the at least partially liquid particle/composition towards the surface/object to be coated by means of the propellant (note figure 1, column 9, lines 30-50). The nozzle (noting chamber 84) is in fluid communication with the composition source and propellant source by means of the first stream via a hose (where as worded the nozzle has the first stream which communicates with the composition source and the propellant source, so by means of first stream the nozzle communicates, since to get the composition and propellant to the nozzle/first stream requires the materials to communicate with the nozzle, and this can be by the hose that can be considered as the loop of hoses 15, 22, 26 and 28 in figure 1, or at least would be suggested as the compressed air/propellant source has to connect to the nozzle and the material source), and additionally if a different “first stream” is referred to in the “via a hose” section, then the flow of compressed air/propellant can be considered a first stream that also communicates with the composition source and propellant source and nozzle via hoses as described for figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riccio to provide the metal spraying includes providing the metallic composition from a metallic composition source, to form a composition stream with metallic composition and the propellant from a propellant source in the form of a stream with propellant, heating the metal composition above the metaling point to melt the metal giving at least partially liquid metal composition, combining the metal composition and propellant stream to form a first stream which comprises a mix of both the liquid metal composition and propellant, accelerating the liquid metal towards the surface by means of the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the metallic composition source and the propellant source by means of the first stream via a hose as suggested by Reimer with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable spraying since Riccio describes providing spraying with oxygen-acetylene (fuel), where compressed air propellant and metallic molten metal particles are provided to be sprayed, which would require a source of propellant and a source of the metallic composition (particles) to provide the materials for use, and Reimer describes the details of how an oxygen-fuel flame spray gun/nozzle system can be provided for use where a source of particles (composition) to be a sprayed and compressed air (propellant) is provided, where provide the spraying includes providing the composition from a composition source, to form a composition stream with composition and the propellant from a propellant source in the form of a stream with propellant, heating the composition above the metaling point to melt the metal giving at least partially liquid composition, combining the composition and propellant stream to form a first stream which comprises a mix of both the liquid composition and propellant, accelerating the liquid towards the surface by means of the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the composition source and the propellant source by means of a first stream via a hose, thereby giving a suggested process and system for using a flame spray gun to melt and propel the desired composition using compressed air propellant.
Claim 5: As to the surface to be sealed being partially submerged in aqueous fluid, at the least since a ship/boat hull is to be treated, it would be suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically modify Riccio to provide that the ship/boat hull could be partially in water as a common location for such ship/boats, and treatment would be acceptably done with the area to be treated above water or shielded from water noting how specifically damaged areas can be treated (note Riccio, column 5, lines 40-45).
Claim 8: as to the metallic composition heated by other than contact with the heated propellant, Reimer suggests the heating of the composition particles to be sprayed with the flame (note column 9, lines 40-60).
Claim 11: It would be understood that the liquid metallic composition would cool on contact with the substrate since as described the coating forms roughness/undercuts, so no longer liquid, and since no further heating indicated as provided (note Riccio, column 4, lines 20-35).
Claim 12: it would be understood that the particles would be applied as a constant stream of particles so as to cover the surface as shown in figure 2 of Riccio.
Claim 16: there would be sufficient propulsion when using the propellant to force the liquid metallic composition into deformations/defects/cracks in the surface (note how the sprayed coating of Riccio forced into undercuts and roughness (note column 4, lines 20-35 of Riccio).
Claim 18: Riccio provides that the propellant can be air (compressed air) (column 2, lines 20-25). Reimer also describes compressed air propellant (column 9, lines 40-50, figure 1).
Claim 19: Riccio provides that the metallic composition can be a metal alloy (column 4, lines 15-20, note copper-nickel alloy).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccio in view of Reimer as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Bleakley (US 2092150).
Claims 6, 7: as to further providing that the propellant is heated and the composition further heated by contact with the propellant, Bleakley describes how there can be spraying of molten metal material (page 1, column 1, lines 1-10), where it is provided to provide an oxy-acetylene (note page 2, column 2, lines 1-20), where such a gas mixture combusts to a flame and melts the metal (note page 5, column 1, lines 25-45), where a further primary air stream is provide for carrying the molten metal and preventing it from chilling en route to the surface (note page 5, column 1, lines 25-45, page 3, column 1, lines 25-45, providing a propellant air), where this primary air is heated in the gun (page 5, lines 35-45, absorbs excess heat and becomes heated carrier gas) and would be understood to further act to provide heat to the metallic composition from the contact during the spraying (since the heated condition for carrier gas stream prevents chilling en route, note page 5, lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riccio in view of Reimer to use heated propellant as described by Bleakley that would also provide heat from propellant to the metallic composition by contact since Riccio and Reimer provideshow molten material can be sprayed using air propellant, where Bleakley gives a similar system as discussed above where it is indicated how propellant air can be heated to also prevent the chilling of the metal en route allowing desirable molten conditions.
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccio in view of Reimer as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Borom (US 5897921).
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 17: as to accelerating the propellant to the surface and contacting the surface before accelerating the metallic composition (claim 9), provide a separate stream of heated propellant to the surface during the application of the metallic composition (claim 10), and the metallic composition at least partially melting applied solid composition, coalesces with the previously applied composition and cools to form solid composition (claim 13), and the preheating the surface (claim 17), Riccio describes how multiple layers or passes of molten composition can be applied and it is desired to securely bond the layers to each other (column 4, lines 20-35). Borom describes thermally spraying a coating in multiple layers, where molten material would be sprayed on a surface while rotating, where the molten material impacts the surface, cools to solidify, then is reheated with a torch/gun without coating material, then the next layer of molten coating is applied, where the combination of the heating and the molten coating heat provide localized melting of the previously applied layer so that the coatings weld themselves to each other (coalesce) giving enhanced bonding, and then cool to solidify (note column 3, line 40-50, column 4, lines 20-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riccio in view of Reimer to provide a preheating of the previously applied coating with a similar spray system including the propellant (without the molten metal composition) so that the heating and the new application of molten material for a new layer melts the previously applied solid metallic components, coalesces (welds) the new layer with the previously applied material, and cools to form a solid metallic composition as suggested by Borom, which as discussed above, would indicate that this would provide a desirable enhanced bonding, where Riccio wants to desirably adhere the layers together, giving the features of claim 13, and this would further suggest the features of claim 9, 10 and 17, as Borom would show providing a heated spray gun (without coating) for heating using the spray, and thus suggest benefits of providing a spray using the spray system with propellant (where the propellant is heated at least from the overall contact with the heated material for melting the metal, such as the arc, or heated to provide the desired heat to the surface) and thus providing the accelerating and contact of claim 9, that would occur before the application of coating (of the second layer) on the surface, and for claim 10 providing the separate treatment of heated propellant and spraying to the surface while also performing the coating (as Borom shows a continuous process, note figure 1), which depending on the size of the substrate would suggest that there can be preheating occurring at an earlier point on the substrate while coating applied to a later point in a predictable and acceptable fashion, and for claim 17 also shows the suggested preheating (where the surface can be that with the first layer, for example).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccio in view of Reimer as applied to claims 1-4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Strock et al (US 2008/0226879).
Claim 15: As to the composition velocity, Riccio describes thermal spraying (abstract), where Strock describes a process for applying a coating by using a heated gas stream that can include thermal spraying processes (including with electric arc, flame spraying, etc.) (0013), where molten droplets are sprayed to form a coating (0014), where it is indicated that the coating droplet velocity can be 25-50 m/s, for example, in the claimed range (0014) of claim 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riccio in view of Reimer to provide that the coating is applied using a velocity of the liquid composition of 25-50 m/s as suggested by Strock with an expectation of predictably acceptable results since Riccio is spraying molten coating and Strock indicates conventional velocity for such spraying as discussed above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Riccio in view of Reimer as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Japan 60-94677 (hereinafter ‘677).
Claim 20: As to using metal alloys of materials such as bismuth alloys, Riccio describes using copper or copper alloys as the metal alloy applied by thermal spraying for antifouling for ship hulls (note abstract, column 5, lines 45-60). However, ‘677 describes thermal spraying metal material for antifouling purpose in the water (description translation pages 1, 4), where the metal materials can include copper, bismuth, lead, tin, cadmium, etc, and can be used in combinations of two or more materials, which would include alloys (note description translation, pages 3-5, including lead with bismuth, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riccio in view of Reimer to provide using alloys of bismuth, tin or lead, for example as suggested by ‘677 with an expectation of predictably acceptable antifouling results even in the repaired areas, because Riccio describes how copper alloys can be used for ship hulls, and ‘677 would indicate how as well as copper material being sprayed for antifouling, materials, such as bismuth, lead, tin, cadmium, etc. can be sprayed for antifouling, and can be applied in combinations of materials, which would be understood to include alloys similarly as Riccio allows copper or copper alloys, and would be protected from antifouling as well as coating is worn in use of the ship hull.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccio in view of Reimer and ‘677 as applied to claim 20 above, and further as evidenced by Bischofberger et al (US 2015/0247475).
Claims 14: as to the at least partially liquid metal composition at a temperature not greater than 200 degrees C (claim 14), as discussed for claim 20 above, Riccio in view of Reimer and ‘677 would indicate how bismuth alloys would be suggested to be used, and metals such as bismuth, lead, tin and cadmium which can be used in combination can be provided as the metal material to apply for antifouling purposes. Riccio also would indicate providing molten material for the metal alloy spraying (note column 3, lines 50-55, column 4, lines 20-30). Bischofberger evidences that there are many conventionally known bismuth alloys with low melting points, including Rose’s metal with bismuth, lead and tin and melting point of 98 degrees C, Wood’s metal with bismuth, lead, tin and cadmium and melting point of 71 degrees C, Lipowitz’s metal with bismuth , lead, tin and cadmium and melting point of 70 degrees C, etc. (0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riccio in view of Reimer and ‘677 to optimize the specific material used for the specific application from the possible materials taught by ‘677 and the known bismuth alloys as evidenced by Bischofberger and as a result a known alloy with a melting point under 100 degrees C, such as Rose’s metal, Wood’s metal or Lipowitz’s metal would be selected as providing the use of known materials with the materials desired by ‘677. Since the metal alloy is to be melted for spraying, it would have been obvious to heat the melting point of the alloy and not significantly higher so that only the energy needed for melting is provided, and this would give the metal alloy during spraying at a temperature of less than 100 degrees C, in the claimed range, from the melting point of the alloys.
Claim 4 is optionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccio in view of Reimer as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Japan 64-65499 (hereinafter ‘499, Please note ‘499 also published as Japan 0682160B2, which Espacenet provided as the translation for ‘499, and used here).
Claim 4, further as to the surface defect as an actual leak, Riccio does not specifically indicate to provide the thermal spraying of the metallic composition onto an active leak,
However, ‘499 describes how a surface of a container with an active leak (crack through which contaminants can leak) can be repaired by applying a metal/metal alloy such as stainless steel coating to cover the cracks by thermal spraying, where the surface can be metal or ceramic, with metal preferred for a metal coating, for example, and then with a further resin coating to complete the seal (note abstract, pages 1-2 of description translation, figure 2, expected that contaminants leak out given the use of remote control to reduce radiation exposure, contain material, and the purpose of sealing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riccio in view of Reimer to inspect for active leaks such as cracks, and if present, then provide thermal spraying such a leak area with the molten metal coating process described by Riccio above as a known thermal spraying process, giving a patched surface, then providing the initial resin sealing coating of Riccio to the surface (which would then also seal the repair coating), followed by the metallic coating layer described by Riccio as suggested by ‘499 to provide a repaired surface that would allow further use of the container device, since Riccio describes how its container system can be exposed to heavy wear, etc., and ‘499 shows how there can be cracks/leaks in containers which would be active leaks as contaminants would be able to come out (which in Riccio would allow air to actively come out of/escape the container), which can be repaired by thermal spraying a metal/metal alloy coating over the crack followed by resin coating for sealing, where Riccio would already want to apply a resin sealing coating to the overall surface (note column 3, lines 30-35), and thus would allow for repair by using the thermal spraying process of Riccio on the crack (giving a thermal spraying of the crack), to be followed by the resin coating of Riccio and then the overall thermal spray coating of Riccio to provide further protection to the repaired surface. It would further be understood that there would be sufficient propulsion when using the propellant to force the liquid metallic composition into the cracks (deformations, surface defects) in the surface (note the sprayed coating in Riccio forced into undercuts and roughness, and further since it does this, there would be “sufficient propulsion” to force the liquid composition into deformations in the surface, which would include the crack/leak when spraying the crack/leak as suggested by ‘499) (note column 4, lines 20-35 of Riccio).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,215,429 (hereinafter ‘429) in view of Reimer (US 4632309). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘429 provides all the features required for present claims 1-4, 16, for example plus additional features not prevented by the present claims (such as the active leak features), except for the metallic composition source and propellant source, use of the composition/propellant streams, with heating, combining, accelerating and expelling as claimed, and the hose connection. However, at least a metallic composition source and propellant source would be suggested to be provided, since a metallic composition and propellant must be provided from somewhere to be used.
Reimer further describes a method and apparatus for projecting molten particles (describing using thermoplastic particles, for example, but not limited to that) (note column 1, lines 5-10, column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 2, figure 1). The process/apparatus includes providing a source of particles to be sprayed (note hopper 12) and a compressed air propellant source (note source 11) (note figure 1, column 3, lines 50-68). Propellant (compressed air) from the source 11 combines with the particles at eductor 12A, where then both the compressed air and particles pass along a supply hose 26 to the gun/nozzle 10 (so the nozzle is in fluid communication with the particle source and the propellant source via a hose, where as to the propellant source for example, there are additional connections, such as further hoses, but the hose 26, for example, is part of the system for this connection) (note figure 1, lines 60-68), this can be considered a providing a composition stream from a composition source (hopper 12) where the stream comprises the composition particles. The particle/propellant material/composition stream passes through the nozzle and passes into a chamber 84 in the nozzle where the particles are heated to above the melting point to provide at least partially liquid particles, where the heat is provided from a flame from oxygen and fuel (here propane), giving a flame spraying (note figure 1, column 9, lines 30-68). Furthermore, a propellant stream (comprising propellant) from a propellant source (source 11) is also separately provided through hose 28 into the nozzle, where the composition stream with melted particles combines with the propellant stream to form a first stream that comprises a mixture of the at least partially liquid composition particles and the propellant (note column 9, lines 30-50, figure 1, where the propelling air entrains/combines with the moving powder particles). The at least partially liquid particle/composition/composition stream/first stream is expelled from the nozzle with accelerating the at least partially liquid particle/composition towards the surface/object to be coated by means of the propellant (note figure 1, column 9, lines 30-50). The nozzle (noting chamber 84) is in fluid communication with the composition source and propellant source by means of the first stream via a hose (where as worded the nozzle has the first stream which communicates with the composition source and the propellant source, so by means of first stream the nozzle communicates, since to get the composition and propellant to the nozzle/first stream requires the materials to communicate with the nozzle, and this can be by the hose that can be considered as the loop of hoses 15, 22, 26 and 28 in figure 1, or at least would be suggested as the compressed air/propellant source has to connect to the nozzle and the material source), and additionally if a different “first stream” is referred to in the “via a hose” section, then the flow of compressed air/propellant can be considered a first stream that also communicates with the composition source and propellant source and nozzle via hoses as described for figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘429 to provide the metal spraying includes providing the metallic composition from a metallic composition source, to form a composition stream with metallic composition and the propellant from a propellant source in the form of a stream with propellant, heating the metal composition above the metaling point to melt the metal giving at least partially liquid metal composition, combining the metal composition and propellant stream to form a first stream which comprises a mix of both the liquid metal composition and propellant, accelerating the liquid metal towards the surface by means of the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid metallic composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the metallic composition source and the propellant source by means of the first stream via a hose as suggested by Reimer with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable spraying since ‘429 describes providing an application of a metallic composition using a propellant and heating the composition to above melting giving an at least partly liquid composition and accelerating that towards the surface by means of the propellant (so spraying) and where the propellant can be air (note claim 19), and Reimer describes the details of how an spray gun/nozzle system can be provided for use where a source of particles (composition) to be a sprayed and compressed air (propellant) is provided, where provide the spraying includes providing the composition from a composition source, to form a composition stream with composition and the propellant from a propellant source in the form of a stream with propellant, heating the composition above the metaling point to melt the metal giving at least partially liquid composition, combining the composition and propellant stream to form a first stream which comprises a mix of both the liquid composition and propellant, accelerating the liquid towards the surface by means of the propellant, and expelling the at least partially liquid composition and the propellant from a nozzle, the nozzle in fluid communication with the composition source and the propellant source by means of a first stream via a hose, thereby giving a suggested process and system for using a flame spray gun to melt and propel the desired composition using compressed air propellant. Present claims 5-8 are provided by claims 2-5, respectively, of ‘429. Present claims 9-14 are provided by claims 7-12, respectively, of ‘429. Present claim 15 is provided by claim 14 of ‘429. Present claims 17-18 are provided by claims 18-19, respectively, of ‘429. Present claims 19-20 is provided by claims 21-22, respectively of ‘429.
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 16 and 18-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/689,221 (reference application, hereinafter ‘221) is withdrawn due to the change in scope to the claims.
The US PG Publication of 18/689,221 is US 2025/0129463.
Offer et al (US 10041163) notes plasma sprayed a patching/sealing coating on a defect of a substrate (note abstract), where the coating material can have metal or metal alloy (note column 12, lines 45-68).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered.
As to the rejections using Lentz as the primary reference and Riccio as the primary reference, applicant argues against the use of the secondary reference to Reimer, arguing that in Reimer, only the body is equivalent to the claimed nozzle, and the body ejects only solid powdered material, as the melting occurs in the hood, and so does not satisfy the limitation that an at least partially liquid composition is expelled from the nozzle. The Examiner disagrees. Chamber 84 where melting occurs can be considered part of the nozzle as a passageway through which the particles pass before expelling out of the spray gun/nozzle. As to the further argument that the claim now requires the hose to feed the propellant and metallic composition to the nozzle, and further that it is required for the metallic composition to be at least partially melted when passing along the hose with the propellant, which would not be provided by Reimer, the Examiner disagrees. As to the hose feeding the propellant and metallic composition to the nozzle, as now discussed in the rejections above, in Reimer, there can be a composition stream entering the nozzle (through hose 26) and also a propellant containing stream entering the nozzle (through hose 28), where these streams combine in the nozzle (at chamber 84) forming a first stream, and where the composition is heated giving liquid composition and the combined mixture of streams has propellant and liquid composition, where the composition is accelerated and where there is expelling of the first stream from the nozzle, where the nozzle is in fluid communication with the composition source and the propellant source by a hose, by means of the first stream via a hose where the combined hose of 15, 22, 26, 28 provide the materials to the nozzle and by means of the first stream, since the stream is formed in the nozzle by combination of the streams going into the nozzle via a hose, so the first stream also communicates with the hose, and sources. As worded it is not required that the first stream be in the hose, since fluid communication by means of the first stream via a hose would allow communication of the initial materials in the hose and the first stream communicating with the hose in “fluid communication” which would just require a connection of the materials used with the first stream. “Via” a hose does not require the hose to contain the combined first stream. Additionally, if a different “first stream” is referred to in the “via a hose” section, then the flow of compressed air/propellant can be considered a first stream that also communicates with the composition source and propellant source and nozzle via hoses as described for figure 1.
As to the double patenting rejection, this is maintained as the same position as to the arguments as to Reimer as discussed above apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718