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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 1-5, 8-15, 17-19 and 20-25, claim a vacuum plasma gun and which is critical component for the invention. However, there is no antecedent basis for the vacuum plasma at any place. The specification fails to disclose how the vacuum is created and where the pump is connected and controlled. Moreover, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Appropriate revision is required.
However, during several interviews by examiner applicant’s Attorney Robert W Mueller has clearly stated that the novelty of the device is vacuum process of the coating gun. However, the vacuum process was not stated in the specification. Hence, examiner objects the specification for not disclosing the vacuum process of the plasma coating gun.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 17-19, 20-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 17 recites the limitation Vacuum plasma gun in the preamble but not disclosed anything related to vacuum plasma components in the specification or in the drawings. Hence, the limitation vacuum plasma gun is objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8-15, 17-19, 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: 1) vacuum chamber 2) vacuum pumping 3) vacuum controller 4) Plasma creation under vacuum (partial pressure). Hence, claims 1-5, 8-15, 17-19, 20-25 are rejected.
Referring to the independent claims 1, 17 A vacuum plasma gun has been claimed but components related to vacuum creation have not shown which are critical for this invention. Hence, claims 1, 17 and depending claims 2-5, 8-15, 18, 19, 21-25 are rejected.
Referring to the method claim 17 recites the limitation “a method of controlling plasma arc in a vacuum plasma gun comprising”. However, claim 17 do not teach a controller and steps to control the plasma arc. Instead the method claim discloses various components involved in the method.
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that claims are understood by considering those elements (which are mentioned above) which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the reflected goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication US2014/0326703 A1 by Motlz et al (Moltz) in view of US pub 2012/0240771 A1 by Gindrat et al (Gindrat).
Referring to the claim 1 Motz teaches: A plasma gun (Fig 1 and abstract) comprising:
a rear gun body section (See Fig 1 cathode assembly 1 forms the rear section: abstract) the plasma gun comprising an electrode (Fig 1 item 5 electrode/cathode: paragraph [0027] and [0028]); and
a cascade section configured to connect to the rear gun body section (See Fig 1 The extended section beyond 7 rear end is cascade section paragraph [0028]) , wherein the cascade section comprises a plurality of neutrodes (item 8') arranged to form a neutrode stack (neutrode stack is 8 and see paragraph [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Moltz is silent on the vacuum plasma gun. However, Gindrat (Fig 1 item 3 plasma generator [0035]) teaches a low pressure plasma spray using a gun (See Paragraphs [0006] and paragraphs [0033], [0036])
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant application to incorporate Gindrat's vacuum plasma gun teachings of a low pressure plasma generation in to the Moltz's plasma gun by introducing low pressure region in the cascade section in order to create a partial vacuum region for creating a low pressure plasma.
Referring to the claim 2 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, Moltz further teaches wherein a single gas is supplied as an only plasma gas source (See abstract and claim 1 where Moltz teaches single gas atleast and see paragraph where the pressure of Ar increasing in order to increase the voltage).
Referring to the claim 3 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, Motz further teaches wherein an operational voltage of the gun is greater than 65 volts. (See paragraph [0035] where Moltz teaches using various voltages above 60 Volts).
Referring to the claim 4 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, Moltz further teaches further comprising a nozzle (Not shown in fig but see paragraph [0029]) coupled to an end of the neutrode stack, whereby the neutrode stack separates the electrode from the nozzle (see Fig 1 where neutrode stack 8 is shown paragraphs [0028] [0029] suggests nozzle joins at the edge of the neutrode stack in order to introduce in to plasma channel for introducing the coating powder for ionization).
Referring to the claim 5 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, Moltz further teaches wherein each of the plurality of neutrodes (Fig 1 item 8 neutrode stack) 'has a disk shape with a central bore (See Fig 1 item 3 plasma channel bore paragraph [0029]), and wherein the plurality of neutrodes is arranged so the central bores form a central plasma bore of the neutrode stack. (See Fig 1 and paragraphs [0028] and [0029]).
Referring to the claim 8 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 5, Moltz further teaches wherein each of the plurality of neutrodes includes a plurality of cooling channels surrounding the central bore (Fig 1 item 3 central bore and item 8' plurality of neutrode assembly 4 has cooling channels item 11 formed around the neutrode assembly paragraph [0029]).
Referring to the claim 9 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 8, Moltz further teaches wherein the plurality of cooling channels comprises axial bores extending through the disk (See Fig 1 cooling channels 11 along disks of neutrode stack 4 paragraph [0029]).
Referring to the claim 10 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 9, Moltz further teaches wherein the axial bores are delimited within the neutrodes. (See Fig 1 central section where the axial bores are within the neutrode assembly paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
Referring to the claim 11 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 10, Moltz further teaches wherein the axial bores have a generally circular geometry through the neutrodes. (See Fig 1 the cooling channels 11 are cylindrical bores see paragraph [0029]).
Referring to the claim 22 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, wherein a central bore (See Fig 1 item 3 paragraph [0028]) extends through the neutrode stack (neutrode stack 8 paragraph [0028]) and the insulators (Fig 1 item 9) are configured to separate the air or gas gap between adjacent neutrodes from the central bore. (See paragraph [0028]).
Referring to the claim 23 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, Gingdart further teaches which is configured for operation in reduced pressure environments using at least one of vacuum plasma spray (VPS), low pressure plasma spray (LPPS, LVPS) or reduced pressure vacuum spray (RPPS) processes. . (See Gindrat teaches a LPPS see paragraph [0006] and [0033] and claim 3 teaches LPPS).
Claims 12-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moltz in view of Gindrat as applied to claim1, above, and further in view of US3343027 by Frohlich.
Referring to the claim 12 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 9, both are silent on wherein the axial bores are recesses open to an outer periphery of the neutrodes.
However, Frohlich teaches, wherein the axial bores have parallel side walls and a bottom wall generally perpendicular to the side walls (Frohlich teaches outer surface of the electrode 6" Is cooled by the gas flow. For that reason, this surface is enlarged by blunt cooling ribs 27 which extend in the longitudinal direction and are uniformly distributed over the periphery Col 6 lines 31-35 also see Fig 7 electrode 6 has blunt cooling ribs as part of the electrode which form recesses open to an outer periphery of electrode 6 similar to Figs 2C and 2D of Applicants specification).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate Frohlich teaching and modify Moltz system for the purpose of increased cooling by increasing the surface area of the electrode exposed to the cooling gas (See Frohlich Col 6 lines 31-35).
Referring to the claim 13 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat and Frohlich reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 12, but both are silent on wherein the axial bores have parallel side walls and a bottom wall generally perpendicular to the side walls.
However Frohlich teaches wherein the axial bores have parallel side walls and a bottom wall generally perpendicular to the side walls. (See Fig 7 electrode 6 has the ribs/recesses 27 has parallel side walls with a generally perpendicular bottom wall similar to Fig 2C and 2D of applicant's specs).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate Frohlich teaching and modify Moltz system for the purpose of increased cooling by increasing the surface area of the electrode exposed to the cooling gas (See Frohlich Col 6 lines 31-35).
Referring to the claim 14 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, Moltz further teaches on wherein the plurality of neutrodes comprises disk shaped bodies having central axial bores (See Fig 1 item paragraph graph [0031]), but both are silent on outer peripheral surfaces and pluralities of recesses surrounding the central axial bores.
However, Frohlich teaches wherein the plurality of neutrodes, outer peripheral surfaces and pluralities of recesses surrounding the central axial bores. (See Frohlich further teaches the outer surface of the electrode 6' is cooled by the gas flow. For that reason this surface is enlarged by blunt cooling ribs 27 which extended in the longitudinal direction and are uniformly distributed over the periphery of electrode 6 surrounding the central axial bore similar to Figs 2C and 2D of applicants' specs).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate Frohlich teaching and modify Moltz system for the purpose of increased cooling by increasing the surface area of the electrode exposed to the cooling gas (See Frohlich Col 6 lines 31-35).
Referring to the claim 15 Moltz reference as modified by Gindrat reference teaches the vacuum plasma gun according to claim 1, Motlz further teaches, a plurality of axial cooling channels in the neutrode stack (Fig 1 item 3 central bore and item 8' plurality of neutrode assembly 4 has cooling channels item 11 formed around the neutrode assembly paragraph [0029]). But Moltz fail to teach wherein the plurality of neutrodes are arranged so that the pluralities of recesses are aligned to form the cooling channels.
However, Frohlich teaches, the outer surface of the electrode 6' is cooled by the gas flow. For that reason this surface is enlarged by blunt cooling ribs 27 which extended in the longitudinal direction and are uniformly distributed over the periphery of electrode 6 surrounding the central axial bore similar to Figs 2C and 2D of applicants' specs).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate Frohlich teaching and modify Moltz system for the purpose of increased cooling by increasing the surface area of the electrode exposed to the cooling gas (See Frohlich Col 6 lines 31-35).
Conclusion
Claims 1-5, 8-15 are rejected over prior art.
Claims 6, 7, 16, 20 are cancelled by applicant.
The prior of art made of record and not relied upon is considered to pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the notice of references cited PTOL 892 attached here with. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5.30 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, Regis J Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2844 03/21/2026