Ex Parte Molz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2019

14361958 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/361,958 05/30/2014
7055 7590 02/15/2019
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald J. Molz
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P45528 6496
EXAMINER
THOMAS, BINU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD J. MOLZ, DA VE HAWLEY, and
RICHARD MCCULLOUGH
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to maintain rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed May 30, 2014; Non-Final
Office Action ("Non-Final Act.") dated July 19, 2017; Appellants' Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 19, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
dated February 23, 2018; and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed
April 23, 2018.
2 Appellants identify Oerlikon Metco (US) Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates replaceable nozzle tips for
thermal spray guns. Spec. ,r 6. Claim I-the sole independent claim on
appeal-reads as follows:
1. A thermal spray gun comprising an internal
cathode section, an internal anode section and at least one of:
at least one removable nozzle tip for spraying a coating
material and being disposed in front of the cathode section and
the anode section;
at least one replaceable nozzle tip for spraying a coating
material and being disposed in front of the cathode section and
the anode section; and
at least one interchangeable nozzle tip for spraying a
coating material and being disposed in front of the cathode
section and the anode section,
wherein said nozzle tip has a connecting interface that
extends inside the thermal spray gun and is installable via
rotation in one direction and removable via rotation in an
opposite direction, and
wherein the nozzle tip comprises an engageable portion
configured to be externally gripped while the cathode section
and the anode section remain disposed inside the thermal spray
gun and that, when installed, at least one of:
extends outside the thermal spray gun and is directly
accessible from outside the thermal spray gun for removing,
replacing and/or interchanging said nozzle tip without manual
disassembly of at least part of the thermal spray gun; and/or
is directly grippable from outside the thermal spray gun
for removing, replacing and/or interchanging said nozzle tip
without manual disassembly of at least part of the thermal spray
gun.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
REJECTIONS 3
I. Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dellassio4 and Hanus. 5
II. Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Dellassio, Hanus, and Szymanski. 6
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 1, 7, and 8 as a group, and separately argue
each of claims 2, 5, and 6. Claims 7 and 8 stand or fall with claim 1. Claims
2, 5, and 6 are separately addressed.
Claim 1
Relevant to Appellants' arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Dellassio discloses a thermal spray gun having an internal cathode 15 and a
nozzle assembly 24 which includes replaceable nozzle tip/anode 27. Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Dellassio Figs. 1, 2). We reproduce Dellassio's Figures
1 and 2 below.
3 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 set forth in the Final Office Action have
been withdrawn. Advisory Action, dated February 24, 2017.
4 US 4,688,722, issued August 25, 1987 ("Dellassio").
5 US 2007/0084834 Al, published April 19, 2007 ("Hanus").
6 US 6,698,617 Bl, issued March 2, 2004 ("Szymanski").
3
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
63
66
. ···1
; ---- ... , !.?
I .r1 ......
••. /vVV\l•o, -~---;?~?
....+--\----!~-' ___ f
F/G /
{Figure 1 is a longitudinal sectional view of a plasma gun. Dellassio 2:60.}
4
34
JS
FlG.2
{Figure 2 is a longitudinal sectional view of a nozzle assembly. Id. 2:62.}
4
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
Dellassio provides o-rings 55, 74 and a threaded retainer ring 67 for
detachably mounting the nozzle tip to the spray gun. See Dellassio Figs. 1,
2. The Examiner states that Dellassio does not explicitly teach the nozzle tip
being installed or removed via rotation, and lacks an engageable portion
configured to be externally gripped for facilitating nozzle removal and
replacement. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Hanus discloses an
alternative nozzle tip configuration comprising a threaded spray tip having
external surfaces configured for engagement with a wrench to facilitate
installment and removal of the tip by rotation. Id. at 4. In light of the
foregoing disclosures, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dellassio's replaceable nozzle
tip with threads and external gripping surfaces to facilitate changing the
nozzle tip and thereby reduce down time. Id.
Appellants argue that, "[a]s DELLASSIO employs an anode 27 that
functions as a nozzle tip, it cannot be argued that Fig. 1 [ of Dellassio] shows
a nozzle tip that can be gripped while the cathode section and the anode
section remain disposed inside the thermal spray gun." App. Br. 8.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner
finds that Dellassio' s nozzle tip includes an anode section located within the
spray gun, the anode section being provided at the rear portion of the tip.
Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 14. See also Dellassio 3:57---60 ("The rear portion 29
of the bore diverges rearwardly and cooperates with cathode member 15 to
sustain an arc in plasma-forming gas flowing through the nozzle member.").
Appellants do not dispute that finding. Nor do Appellants explain why
Dellassio' s anode section would not be disposed within the spray gun when
the nozzle tip is gripped for removal. To the extent that Appellants'
5
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
argument is intended to imply that Dellassio' s anode section cannot remain
in the spray gun after the nozzle tip/anode is removed, we note that claim 1
lacks such a recitation.
With regard to the combination of Dellassio and Hanus, Appellants
argue that Hanus relates to a plasma torch rather than a thermal spray gun,
that Hanus does not provide a cathode within the torch assembly, and that
neither Dellassio nor Hanus recognizes the problem addressed by the
claimed invention. App. Br. 9-11. However, the Examiner relies on
Dellassio, not Hanus, for disclosure of claimed cathode configuration in a
thermal spray gun. Hanus is relied upon solely to show an alternative
configuration for removable attachment of a nozzle tip to a device. Ans. 11.
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the finding that Hanus' s threaded
engagement would have constituted a known alternative to Dellassio' s o-
rings and threaded retaining ring for accomplishing detachable connection of
a nozzle tip.
We view Appellants' comment concerning the problem addressed as
an argument that the references relied upon are directed to non-analogous
art. Such argument is unpersuasive. The Inventors' stated problem to be
addressed is that of providing "a thermo spray gun with interchangeable
nozzle tips." Spec. ,r 6. Dellassio is within that same field of endeavor. See
Dellassio 1:4--7. Hanus is directed to the problem of providing replaceable
nozzle tips on a plasma device. See Hanus ,r,r 33, 34.
The remainder of Appellants' arguments are directed to Dellassio
alone, regarding features that the Examiner finds are taught by the combined
disclosures of Dellassio and Hanus. For example, Appellant argues that
Dellassio's nozzle tip: is not installable and removable via rotation; does not
6
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
include a portion that extends outside the spray gun or is grippable from
outside the spray gun; and does not permit nozzle removal without first
removing the retaining ring. App. Br. 8-9, 11. See also Reply Br.
generally. These arguments do not address the Examiner's rejection which
is based on the combined teachings of Dellassio and Hanus and, for that
reason, are not persuasive. To the extent that Appellants contend that
Dellassio' s retaining ring would have existed even with the proposed
modification in light of Hanus, we are not persuaded that such retaining ring
would be precluded by Appellants' claims. Claim 1 recites the capability of
gripping the nozzle tip for removal "without manual disassembly of at least
part of the thermal spray gun." (Emphasis added). Even if nozzle removal
required removal of a retainer ring, "at least part" (i.e. other components) of
Dellassio' s spray gun still would not be disassembled in the process of
gripping and removing the nozzle tip.
For the foregoing reasons, Rejection I as applied to claim 1 is
sustained.
Claims 2, 5, and 6
Claim 2 recites that the nozzle tip is mechanically coupled to the
anode section. The Examiner finds that this feature is met by Dellassio' s
nozzle tip because the nozzle tip is integral with an anode section located
toward the rear portion of the tip. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 14. See also
Dellassio 3:57---60 ("The rear portion 29 of the bore diverges rearwardly and
cooperates with cathode member 15 to sustain an arc in plasma-forming gas
flowing through the nozzle member."). Appellants state that "because
DELLASSIO employs an anode 27 that also functions as a nozzle tip ... it
cannot reasonably be argued that DELLASSIO teaches a nozzle tip that is
7
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
mechanically coupled to the anode section of the thermal spray gun." App.
Br. 12. However, Appellants neither dispute nor address the Examiner's
finding that Dellassio' s rearward portion 29 of the nozzle tip serves as an
anode section. Nor do Appellants provide persuasive evidence that would
require the phrase "mechanically coupled" to be construed as precluding
integrally formed sections. As such, Appellants do not reveal error in the
Examiner's reasoning.
Appellants similarly argue, without explanation, that because
Dellassio' s nozzle tip also serves as the anode, Dellassio' s nozzle tip is not
"removable from the thermal spray gun with the anode section," as is recited
in claim 5. App. Br. 12. The Examiner reads claim 5 as being met when
removing the nozzle tip also removes the anode section, which Dellassio' s
structure accomplishes. See Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 14--15. Appellants do
not persuasively challenge the Examiner's interpretation of claim 5 and,
therefore, do not identify error.
With regard to claim 6, Appellants unpersuasively contend that
because Dellassio' s nozzle tip functions as the anode, it cannot be viewed as
including an anode section. App. Br. 13. Appellants' statement does not
show error in the Examiner's above-noted finding that Dellassio's nozzle tip
27 includes a rearward anode section 29.
Rejection I as applied to each of claims 2, 5, and 6 also is sustained.
Re} ection II
With regard to Rejection II, the Examiner finds that Szymanski
teaches providing an automated robot for changing disposable nozzles and,
therefore, provides a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to associate a
8
Appeal2018-005272
Application 14/361,958
robot system with Dellassio's spray gun to automate changeover of spray
nozzles. Non-Final Act. 5.
Appellants acknowledge Szymanski teaches a robot for installing
nozzle tips, but argues that Szymanski relates to silicon sealant devices
rather than thermal spray guns. App. Br. 14. Appellants' argument directed
to Szymanski in isolation is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's
reasoning which is based on the combined teachings of Dellassio and
Szymanski.
Rejection II is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-12 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9