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 § 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 1-5 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 recites the limitation "spray gas" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "powdered material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1, the limitation “characterized in that” does not conform to US practice. The bounds of the limitations that follow are unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "high-speed gas" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2, line 5, the limitation “a high-speed gas” appears to be an improper double inclusion for the limitation “spray gas” in claim 1. Does the limitation put forth an additional powdered material?
The term “high” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What range of values qualify as a “high” speed?
In claim 2, line 6, the limitation “a powder” appears to be an improper double inclusion for the limitation “powdered material” in claim 1. Does the limitation put forth an additional powdered material?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does the limitation refer back to the accelerated mixture?
The term “high” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What range of values qualify as a “high” speed?
The term “mostly” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mostly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is the term intended to mean a majority, or a large degree or amount? If the latter, what amount qualifies as a large amount of aluminum or aluminum alloy?
The term “high” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What range of values qualify as a “high” speed?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does the limitation refer back to the accelerated mixture?
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mester (US 3,899,131) in view of Cape (US 3,441,215).
Regarding claim 1, Mester discloses a device for gas dynamically spraying powdered material comprising a nozzle comprising:
a spray gas supply duct (162),
a chamber (121) for mixing spray gas and powdered material to form an accelerated mixture (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The chamber is capable of performing the claimed function), connected, through an upstream end (166), to the spray gas supply duct (162) (Figure 3),
a spray duct (25) for the accelerated mixture connected to a downstream end of the mixing chamber (Figures 1 and 3),
the spray gas supply duct (162) is U shaped (Figure 3) with a first arm oriented along a first axis (A first arm extends along the y axis to the mixing chamber connection) and a second arm oriented along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (A second arm is oriented along the x axis from the faceplate), the first arm being connected to the upstream end (Figure 3), the spray duct for the accelerated mixture rectilinearly extends along the first axis and comprises a spray opening (Figure 3; The duct comprises an exit that feeds into the t-coupling), and
a powdered material supply duct (126) connected to the mixing chamber (Figure 3), characterised in that the powdered material supply duct extends along a third axis perpendicular to the first axis and to the second axis (The duct extends along an axis that goes into the page), but fails to disclose a spray torch extending along the second axis and connected to the second arm of the spray gas supply duct.
Mester discloses that an air supply extends along the second axis and is connected to the second arm of the spray gas supply duct.
Cape discloses a device wherein a spray torch (15, 16) extends along a second axis and is connected to a spray gas supply duct (9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mester with the disclosures of Cape, providing the spray torch of Cape as the air supply, thereby providing the spray a spray torch extending along the second axis and connected to the second arm of the spray gas supply duct, as the configurations were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of an air supply for pressure spraying of the powder.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mester in view of Cape and Payne (US 7,959,093).
Regarding claim 2, Mester in view of Cape discloses a method for coating a metal piece by dynamically spraying powder, implemented by a device for dynamically spraying powder according to claim 1, the method comprising the following steps of:
injecting high-speed gas into the spray torch (Cape, Column 2, lines 36-43), injecting a powder into the powdered material supply duct (Column 2, lines 6-9)
spraying the mixture formed by the high-speed gas and the powder via the spray duct onto the surface to be coated (Column 2, lines 52-57), but fails to disclose positioning a surface to be coated facing the spray opening (126) (Figure 2), but fails to disclose positioning a surface to be coated facing the spray opening (126) (Figure 2).
Payne discloses a method that includes positioning a surface to be coated (102) facing the spray opening (126) (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mester in view of Cape with the disclosures of Payne, providing the powder spray device of Mester in view of Cape to be implemented as prescribed by Payne, in order to provide for application of the device to a known method of spraying.
Regarding claim 3, Mester in view of Cape and Payne discloses the coating method according to claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the high-speed gas is a cold gas.
Payne discloses a method wherein the high-speed gas is a cold gas (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with the disclosures of Payne, providing the gas to be a cold gas, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Regarding claim 4, Mester in view of Cape and Payne discloses the coating method according to claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the powder is mostly comprised of aluminium or aluminium alloy.
Payne discloses a device wherein the powder is mostly comprised of aluminum or aluminum alloy (Column 5, lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with the disclosures of Payne, providing the powder to be mostly made of aluminum or aluminum alloy, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mester in view of Cape and Strock (EP 3453778).
Regarding claim 5, Mester in view of Cape discloses a method for repairing an annular contact flange for an aircraft turbomachine implemented by a dynamic spray device according to claim 1, comprising:
injecting high-speed gas into the spray torch (Cape, Column 2, lines 36-43), injecting a powder into the powdered material supply duct (Column 2, lines 6-9)
spraying the mixture formed by the high-speed gas and the powder via the spray duct a part (Column 2, lines 52-57), but fails to disclose positioning a part of an annular contact flange to be repaired facing the spray opening, or the annular contact flange installed on a turbomachine.
Strock discloses a method that includes positioning a part of an annular contact flange (substrate) to be repaired facing a spray opening (26) (Paragraph 49 and Figures 1-2), the annular contact flange installed on a turbomachine (Paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mester in view of Cape with the disclosures of Strock, providing the powder spray device of Mester in view of Cape to be implemented as prescribed by Strock, in order to provide for application of the device to a known method of spraying.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights