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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 18 has been amended.
Claims 18-36 are pending and examined as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 18,20,25-29,32,38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders (US2008/0217305) in view of Twarog et al (US2008/0083711).
With regards to claim 18, Sanders discloses a consumable assembly for a plasma arc torch, the consumable assembly (a plasma arc torch 100 which includes torch head 145, Fig. 1) comprising:
a generally cylindrical metallic assembly body extending along a longitudinal axis through the metallic assembly body from a first end to a second end (rear portion 275 being part of nozzle 115 wherein the nozzle 115 is made of copper, Fig. 5a, paragraph 0088, lines 2-4), the metallic assembly body defining a heat sink (nozzle 115 is conductive and made of metal and therefore can be considered a heat sink, paragraph 0088, lines 2-4), the metallic assembly body having a plurality of swirl holes through the metallic body shaped to impart a flow pattern within or around the heat sink (ports 290 in the rear portion 275 configured to pass at least a portion of a cooling gas flow between the flange 280 and the cooling gas flow channel 165B during operation of the torch, paragraph 0091, lines 4-6);
a nozzle having a base and in physical communication with the first end of the heat sink of the metallic assembly body to enhance cooling performance of the nozzle via thermal conduction (nozzle 115 having a base and in physical communication with the rear portion 275, Fig. 5B); and
an electrode disposed within a portion of the heat sink and a portion of the nozzle (electrode 110 disposed within the shield 120 and nozzle 115, Fig. 1).
Sanders does not disclose a separate nozzle having a base and in physical communication with the first end of the heat sink.
Twarog et al a separate nozzle having a base and in physical communication with the first end of the heat sink (nozzle 204 having a base and in physical communication with the first end of swirl ring 380, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sanders and Twarog et al before him or her, to modify the nozzle and body of Sanders to include a separate nozzle and body of Twarog et al because the separate nature of the torch body of Twarog et al allows for easy replacement of a consumable part of a plasma arc torch.
With regards to claim 20, Sanders teaches wherein the electrode is a spring electrode (electrode 110 can include an internal electrical contact surface 170 adapted to interact with a circumscribing radial spring element 150, paragraph 0074, lines 4-7).
With regards to claim 25, Sanders teaches a shield connected to the metallic assembly body (shield 120 connected to body 115, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 26, Sanders teaches wherein the shield is connected to the metallic assembly body via a shield insulator (shield 120 is connected to body 115 through isolator part 210, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 27, Sanders teaches wherein the shield insulator is press fit to at least one of the shield and the base of the nozzle (isolator part 210 is pressed to the shield 120 and side of fin 180C, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 28, Sanders teaches wherein the shield insulator is electrically insulative (isolator part 210 is electrically isolated and therefore insulated, paragraph 0073, lines 8-12).
With regards to claim 29, Sanders teaches wherein the shield insulator is thermally conductive (shield 120 can be made of a conductive material and since the isolator part 210 is electrically isolated it allows current to pass through, paragraph 0095, lines 1-2).
With regards to claim 32, Sanders teaches a sleeve disposed about a portion of the electrode (isolator sleeve 210 disposed about a portion of electrode 110, Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 38, Sanders discloses wherein the nozzle is formed of substantially pure copper (the nozzle 115 can be made of a conductive material (e.g., copper)).
With regards to claim 39, Twarog et al teaches wherein the cylindrical metallic assembly body is substantially free of copper.
Claim(s) 19,21,23,24,31,35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders and Twarog et al as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Matus (US2005/0109736).
With regards to claim 19, Sanders and Twarog et al does not teach wherein the nozzle and the electrode are integrally formed as a part of within a consumable cartridge.
Matus discloses wherein the nozzle and the electrode are integrally formed as a part of within a consumable cartridge (nozzle portion 62 and electrode 42 are assembly into a one-piece consumable assembly, paragraph 0027, lines 6-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sanders, Twarog et al and Matus before him or her, to modify the nozzle and electrode of Sanders and Twarog et al to include the integral electrode and nozzle of Matus because the integral nature of the torch body of Matus allows for easy replacement of a consumable part of a plasma arc torch.
With regards to claim 21, Matus teaches a cartridge cap (shield cap 64, Fig. 2), the cartridge cap extending within the base of the nozzle toward the set of swirl holes (shield cap 64 passes over nozzle portion 62 and swirl ring 50, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 23, Matus teaches a retaining cap directly connected to the metallic assembly body (shield cap 64 directly connected to shield 74, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 24, Matus teaches wherein the nozzle and the electrode are connected to the retaining cap via the metallic assembly body (nozzle portion 62 and electrode 42 are connected to shield cap 64 via the shield 74, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 31, Sanders, Twarog et al and Matus does not teach wherein the shield has a heat capacity to current ratio of about 2-4 W/m-°K-A. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the shield of Sanders and Matus, since the applicant has not disclosed that the has a heat capacity to current ratio of about 2-4 W/m-°K-A solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the shield of Sanders, Twarog et al and Matus.
With regards to claim 35, Matus teachesa cap insert connected to the second end of the metallic assembly body (shield 74 is snap-fit engaged to end 76 of shielding cap 64, Fig. 2), the cap insert configured to orient the electrode and retain the electrode within the metallic assembly body (shield 74 snap fits to orient the electrode 42 and retain the electrode 42 within the shield 74, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 36, Matus teaches a seal disposed within the cap insert (O-ring 73 between tab 70 of tip 58 to seal assembly, col 4, lines 45-48).
Claims 22,30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders and Twarog et al as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Klasson (US 3,794,806).
With regards to claim 22, Sanders and Twarog et al does not teach wherein the metallic assembly body is anodized.
Klasson teaches wherein the metallic assembly body is anodized (collar 84 is preferably made of aluminum with an anodized coating, col 2, lines 71-74).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sanders, Twarog et al and Klasson before him or her, to modify the metallic assembly body of Sanders and Twarog et al to the anodized metal of Klasson in order to electrically insulate the torch if it accidentally touches against a metal object.
With regards to claim 30, Klasson teaches wherein the shield insulator includes anodized aluminum (collar 84 is preferably made of aluminum with an anodized coating, col 2, lines 71-74).
With regards to claim 33, Klasson teaches wherein the sleeve includes an anodized layer formed to electrically isolate the electrode from the base of the nozzle (collar 84 is preferably made of aluminum with an anodized coating, col 2, lines 71-74).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders and Twarog et al as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Jones et al (US 2002/0117483).
With regards to claim 34, Sanders and Twarog et al does not teach wherein the sleeve includes a set of flow surfaces.
Jones et al teaches wherein the sleeve includes a set of flow surfaces (insulating sleeve 119 has gas distributing holes 51, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sanders, Twarog et al and Jones et al before him or her, to modify the sleeve of Sanders to include holes as taught by Jones et al because the holes as taught by Jones et al provide enhanced air flow in a torch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose the amended feature of claim 18.
Examiner’s response: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach “a separate nozzle having a base and in physical communication with the first end of the heat sink”. Twarog et al teaches a separate nozzle having a base and in physical communication with the first end of the heat sink (nozzle 204 having a base and in physical communication with the first end of swirl ring 380, Fig. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761