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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed on 01/09/2026. Claims 1-23, 25, 27-33, 35-45 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 25, 45 have been amended; claims 24, 26 and 34 cancelled; claims 35-44 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-23, 25, 27-33 and 45 are examined as follow.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding independent claims 1, 25, 45 – see the Remarks dated 01/09/2026 on pages 12-16)
Applicant alleged that “Sanders does NOT teach "certain dimension of the diameter and the length of jacket 111" as asserted by the Office Action”, and that “Sanders does not recognize that the claimed dimensions are "result- effective."”. Applicant further alleged that the Instant Application explicitly described the criticality of the claimed dimensions of the nozzle jacket in Par.0049 and thus, the Examiner’s routine optimization is not proper, see details on pages 12-16 of the Remarks dated 01/09/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Sanders does NOT teach "certain dimension of the diameter and the length of jacket 111" as asserted by the Office Action”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Sanders Fig.13a shows the nozzle jacket 111. As illustrated in Sanders Fig.13a, the nozzle jacket 111 has the length defined along its central longitudinal axis and the diameter of the distal tip of the nozzle jacket 111, thus, there must be certain dimensions of the diameter and the length of jacket 111. However, Sanders does not explicitly disclose a specific diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111. Regarding the limitation that the nozzle jacket having the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4, as required by the independent claims 1, 25, 45; the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Sanders Figure 13a where the primary reference Sanders teaches certain dimensions of the diameter and the length of the nozzle jacket 111, as explained previously), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
Additionally, in response to Applicant’s arguments that “Sanders does not recognize that the claimed dimensions are "result- effective."”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because according to Par.0135 of Sanders, the dimension of the nozzle jacket 111 (outer nozzle component) directly dictates the performance of the liquid cooling system for the nozzle 110 because Par.0135 of Sanders discloses: “the nozzle 110 can be coupled to an outer nozzle component 111 (such as a nozzle jacket for a non-vented nozzle or a nozzle liner for a vented nozzle) and the opening 966 can be on the outer nozzle component 111 such that it can introduce the coolant flow from the distal coolant channel opening 962 b to a nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 between an exterior surface the nozzle 110 and an interior surface of the outer nozzle component 111.”. The nozzle jacket 111 creates the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 between the exterior of the nozzle 110 and the interior of the nozzle jacket 111, which controls the flow rate, pressure, and heat extraction efficiency of the coolant flow 950. The radial dimension of the space 965 between the nozzle 110 and the jacket 111 determines the velocity of the coolant flow 950. A smaller gap, created by a tighter-fitting jacket, increases the velocity of the coolant, which improves heat transfer, while a larger gap reduces velocity, potentially leading to lower cooling efficiency. The nozzle jacket 111 directs the flow of the coolant to the distal tip of the nozzle 110 before it returns proximally on a different side. Proper dimensioning of this chamber ensures that the coolant flows evenly around the entire circumference of the nozzle, preventing hot spots that can cause uneven wear or premature failure. If the nozzle jacket 111 is improperly sized, it can restrict the flow too much, leading to overheating, or allow too much, causing wasteful or inefficient, high-pressure operation. Specifically, according to Par.00135 of Sanders, the nozzle opening 966 allows coolant to enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 formed between the exterior surface of the nozzle 110 and the interior surface of the nozzle jacket 111. The coolant flows longitudinally along this chamber 965 and eventually exits through another opening 967. Therefore, the length of the nozzle jacket 111 determines the length of the coolant flow chamber 965, thus, that directly affects heat transfer area, coolant time, flow distribution along the nozzle, and cooling of the nozzle tip. To be more specific, if the nozzle jacket is long, it would provide larger heat transfer surface because the longer nozzle jacket means the coolant contacts a larger portion of the nozzle surface. The long nozzle jacket also leads to longer coolant residence time because the coolant must travel a longer distance along the chamber, and also improves cooling of the nozzle tip because coolant arrives at the tip with stable flow, thus, improve the coolant circulation around the tip. In contrast, a shorter nozzle jacket reduces cooling efficiency because of shorter coolant chamber, thus, leads to less surface area for heat exchange; therefore, less heat is removed from the nozzle body. The shorter nozzle jacket also makes the coolant passes through the chamber quickly and exit before absorbing sufficient amount of heat, thus, reduce the cooling effectiveness. Furthermore, if the nozzle jacket is short, the coolant may not reach the distal region effectively, thus, the circumferential channel around the tip receives less coolant flow, and leads to localized overheating. Therefore, the length of the nozzle jacket determines effective cooling path and cooling efficiency of the nozzle. Thus, the diameter and the length of the nozzle jacket 111 are crucial for optimizing heat removal from the nozzle 110 by controlling the velocity, pressure, and distribution of the coolant flow 950, which in turn directly impacts the cooling efficiency of the nozzle, the nozzle’s lifespan and the torch’s performance.
In this case, Sanders discloses certain diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 as explained previously, and having a specific diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameter and length of said nozzle jacket 111 is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 would impact the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, affecting the cooling efficiency at the nozzle. A nozzle jacket with an optimized length and diameter would increase and elongate the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, improving the cooling efficiency; efficient cooling would help to maintain a relatively low temperature that leads to lower erosion rate. Thus, the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Therefore, 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 Sanders diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 by making the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.”
Furthermore, Applicant alleged that the Instant Application explicitly described the criticality of the claimed dimensions of the nozzle jacket in Par.0049 of the Instant Application, specifically, Applicant alleged: “As explained in paragraph [0049] of the instant application, the claimed dimensions of the nozzle jacket are critical to the narrow, lengthened torch tip design that, in combination with the clocking-independent cooling feature, enables bevel cutting.”, see details on page of the Remarks dated. In response to Applicant’s argument that the Instant Application explicitly described the criticality of the claimed dimensions of the nozzle jacket in Par.0049 and thus, the Examiner’s routine optimization is not proper, Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to copy the entire Par.0049 of the Instant Application below:
“In yet another aspect, the consumable components of the plasma arc torch 300 are shaped and dimensioned to enhance bevel cutting. The narrow, lengthened cooling design of the clocking-independent nozzle 310 as described above drives the design of a generally longer and steeper torch 300 capable of delivering a plasma arc closer to parallel relative to the surface of a workpiece being processed, in comparison to prior art liquid-cooled plasma arc torches. FIG. 6 shows a stack-up comparison of a prior art liquid-cooled plasma arc torch 700 with the liquid- cooled plasma arc torch 300 of FIG. 2, according to some embodiments of the present invention. As shown, the shield 340 of the torch 300 is considerably longer than the prior art shield 710 of the prior art torch 700 with the diameter 704 of the end face 705 of the shield 340 significantly reduced (i.e., narrower) in comparison to the end face diameter 714 of the prior art shield 710. Further, the shield 710 of the prior art torch 700 (and other prior art torches) can have a half-cone angle 706 of greater than about 45 degrees, whereas the half-cone angle 708 of the shield 340 of the plasma arc torch 300 (and other torch embodiments of the present invention), which incorporate the non-clocked cooling designs as described above, can be less than about 25 degrees. These smaller angles are a feature of the invention not present in other high-amperage (over 130 amp) liquid-cooled nozzles.”
Therefore, according to Par.0049 of the Instant Application, in order to enhance bevel cutting, the narrow and lengthened cooling design of the clocking-independent nozzle 310 drives the design of a generally longer and steeper torch 300 capable of delivering a plasma arc closer to parallel relative to the surface of a workpiece being processed, in comparison to prior art liquid-cooled plasma arc torches. In order to achieve that, the shield 340 of the torch 300 of the Instant Application is considerably longer than the prior art shield 710 of the prior art torch 700 with the diameter 704 of the end face 705 of the shield 340 significantly reduced (i.e., narrower) in comparison to the end face diameter 714 of the prior art shield 710. Specifically, the shield 710 of the prior art torch 700 (and other prior art torches) can have a half-cone angle 706 of greater than about 45 degrees, whereas the half-cone angle 708 of the shield 340 of the plasma arc torch 300 (and other torch embodiments of the present invention), which incorporate the non-clocked cooling designs as described above, can be less than about 25 degrees, as illustrated in Fig.6 of the Instant Application. Therefore, according to Par.0049 of the Instant Application, the small half-cone angle of the shield (i.e., less than about 25 degrees) would enhance bevel cutting. In this case, Sanders in view of Duan properly teaches the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees as required by the independent claims 1, 25, and 45 – see detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below. Additionally, the primary reference Sanders shows the nozzle jacket 111 is located inside the shield 114 of the torch, as shown in Sanders Figs.13a-13b. Thus, in combination, since the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees as taught by Sanders in view of Duan, the nozzle jacket is shaped and sized to be fit inside of the shield of torch, and the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable, as explained previously. Therefore, 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 Sanders diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 by making the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, Sanders in view of Duan properly teaches all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 24, 45. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-23, 25, 27-33 and 45 are maintained in this Office Action, see detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments are the same for the dependent claims; therefore, the Examiner’s response to arguments regarding the independent claims 1, 25, 45 generally applies to the dependent claims.
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 1-2, 10-13, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0042014 A1, previously cited) in view of Duan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0007256 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sanders discloses a tip (as shown in Sanders Fig.13a) for a liquid cooled plasma arc cutting torch (“for a liquid-cooled plasma arc torch”, Sanders Par.0002) configured for bevel cutting, the tip (as shown in Sanders Fig.13a) comprising:
a nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) defining a central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) extending between a proximal region (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) and a distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) with a plasma exit orifice (plasma emitter is at the distal region of the nozzle 110 in order to emit plasma) disposed along the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) at the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below), the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) comprising:
a hollow nozzle body (body of the nozzle 110 is hollow, as shown in Sanders Fig.13a);
a nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) disposed about an external surface (external surface, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a), the jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) defining
a length along the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) (the nozzle jacket 111 defines the length along the central longitudinal axis) and
a diameter of a distal tip (distal tip of the nozzle jacket 111, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) at the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a);
a coolant inlet (nozzle opening 966, Sanders Fig.13a) and a coolant outlet (965, Sanders Fig.13a) defined between the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) and nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) at the proximal region (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) (Sanders Par.0171 discloses “The nozzle opening 966 allows the coolant flow 950 from the first coolant channel 962 to enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 between an exterior surface of the nozzle 110 and an interior surface of the nozzle jacket 111”, and Sanders Par.0173 discloses “The coolant flow 950 can enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 via the nozzle opening 966, flow proximally through the flow chamber 965, return distally on a different side of the chamber 965, and exit the chamber 965 via the second opening 967”), the coolant inlet (nozzle opening 966, Sanders Fig.13a) configured to receive a liquid coolant flow (coolant flow 950, Sanders Fig.13a & Par.0171, 0173) from a torch body (body of torch 10, Sanders Fig.2) of the plasma arc cutting torch (torch 10, Sanders Fig.2) to cool the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) (Sanders Par.0171 discloses “The nozzle opening 966 allows the coolant flow 950 from the first coolant channel 962 to enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 between an exterior surface of the nozzle 110 and an interior surface of the nozzle jacket 111”) and the coolant outlet (965, Sanders Fig.13a) configured to return the liquid coolant flow (coolant flow 950, Sanders Fig.13a & Par.0171, 0173) to the torch body (body of torch 10, Sanders Fig.2) (Sanders Par.0173 discloses “The coolant flow 950 can enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 via the nozzle opening 966, flow proximally through the flow chamber 965, return distally on a different side of the chamber 965, and exit the chamber 965 via the second opening 967”); and
a plurality of coolant channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) cooperatively defined between the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) and the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a), the plurality of coolant channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) extending axially between the proximal region (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) and the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a); and
a shield (shield 114, Sanders Fig.17) disposed about and substantially surrounding an external surface of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.17)
PNG
media_image1.png
649
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sanders does not disclose:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4,
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees.
Duan teaches a nozzle (nozzle 15, Duan Figs.4 & 5A) for a liquid cooled plasma arc cutting torch (10 is torch tip of the plasma cutting torch, Duan Fig.4 & Par.0009) comprising a shield (shield 20, Duan Figs.4 & 5A):
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield (shield 20, Duan Figs.4 & 5A) is less than 25 degrees (Duan Par.0036 teaches “The shield 20 has a shield body 60 which is defined by a substantially conical interior portion 65 having a shield half-cone angle, b. Shield half-cone angle, b is substantially equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) the nozzle half-cone angle”; additionally, Duan Par.0031 teaches “it is preferred to select a nozzle half-cone angle within a range of about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees”; thus, Duan teaches half-cone angle of the shield is substantially equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) the nozzle half-cone angle, Duan also teaches the nozzle half-cone angle within a range of about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees; therefore, when the nozzle half-cone angle is about 20 degrees, the half-cone angle of the shield is ±5 degrees of the nozzle half-cone angle, which is 15 degrees; therefore, Duan teaches the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees. As shown in Fig.4 of Duan, the interior surface and the exterior surface of the shield 20 are parallel to each other; when two parallel lines are cut by a transversal, corresponding angles are equal; thus, if the shield half-cone angle b of the interior portion of the shield 20 of Duan is less than 25 degrees, the shield half-cone angle of the exterior portion of the shield 20 is also less than 25 degrees. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the overlap at 15 degrees to less than 25 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed angle of less than 25 degrees and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.)
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the overlap at 15 degrees to less than 25 degrees [as calculated and explained above], which overlaps with the claimed half-cone angle of less than 25 degrees and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders, by adding the teachings of the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees, as taught by Duan, because the half-cone angle of the shield depends on the nozzle half-cone angle; by having the shield half-cone angle equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) of the nozzle half-cone angle, when the shield is mounted in a spaced relationship to the nozzle along the longitudinal axis, the substantially conical exterior portion of the nozzle and the substantially conical interior portion of the shield form parallel walls of the passageway for fluids (e.g., shield gas) flowing through the passageway stream out to angularly impinge the ionized plasma gas flow, as recognized by Duan [Duan, Par.0036]. Furthermore, having the nozzle half-cone angle of 20 degrees would limit the likelihood for generating an unstable ionized plasma gas flow, as recognized by Duan [Duan, Par.0031].
Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4
Regarding the limitation that the nozzle jacket having the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Sanders Figure 13a where the primary reference Sanders teaches certain dimensions of the diameter and the length of the nozzle jacket 111), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Sanders discloses certain diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111, and having a specific diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameter and length of said nozzle jacket 111 is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 would impact the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, affecting the cooling efficiency at the nozzle. A nozzle jacket with an optimized length and diameter would increase and elongate the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, improving the cooling efficiency; efficient cooling would help to maintain a relatively low temperature that leads to lower erosion rate. Thus, the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Sanders diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 by making the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 2, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses:
wherein the coolant inlet (nozzle opening 966, Sanders Fig.13a) and the coolant outlet (965, Sanders Fig.13a) are (i) substantially axially aligned along the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, see Sanders annotated Fig.13a in the rejection of claim 1 above) and (ii) circumferentially offset relative to each other (as shown in Sanders Fig.13a).
Regarding claim 10, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses:
wherein the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) includes a distal conical section (distal conical section A, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) that axially extends about 50% of the length of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a), the distal conical section (distal conical section A, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) having (i) a proximal end (proximal end B, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) axially located at about a midpoint (midpoint C, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) of the length of the nozzle jacket (length of the nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) and (ii) a distal end tapered radially inward (D, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) at the distal tip (distal tip of the nozzle jacket 111, see Sanders annotated Fig.13a in the rejection of claim 1 above) of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a).
PNG
media_image2.png
495
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses:
wherein the distal conical section (distal conical section A, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) comprises two angled sections (angled sections I and II, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below), a first angled section (first angled section I, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) radially extending from the midpoint (midpoint C, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) of the length of the nozzle jacket (length of the nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.17) toward a distal end of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.17), and a second angled section (second angled section II, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) extending from the first angled section (first angled section I, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) to the distal tip (distal tip of the nozzle jacket 111, see Sanders annotated Fig.13a in the rejection of claim 1 above) of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.17), wherein the first angled section (first angled section I, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) defines a first angle (angle I, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) relative to the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, see Sanders annotated Fig.13a in the rejection of claim 1 above) and the second angled section (second angled section II, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) defines a second angle (angle II, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) relative to the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, see Sanders annotated Fig.13a in the rejection of claim 1 above), the second angle (angle II, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) being larger than the first angle (angle I, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) such that the second angled section (second angled section II, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) is more tapered than the first angled section (first angled section I, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
495
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, regarding the limitation
wherein the first angle is about 14 degrees and the second angle is about 23.5 degrees.
Regarding the limitation that the first angle is about 14 degrees and the second angle is about 23.5 degrees, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Sanders annotated Fig.17 in the rejection of claim 11 above where the primary reference Sanders teaches certain dimension for the first angle and the second angle), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Sanders discloses certain dimension for the first angle and the second angle, and having a specific dimension for the first angle and the second angle is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the first angle and the second angle is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the first angle and the second angle would impact the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, affecting the cooling efficiency at the nozzle. Optimized first angle and second angle would increase and elongate the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, improving the cooling efficiency; efficient cooling would help to maintain a relatively low temperature that leads to lower erosion rate. Thus, the first angle and the second angle are recognized in the art to be result effective variables.
Therefore, 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 Sanders first angle and second angle by making the first angle is about 14 degrees and the second angle is about 23.5 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 13, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses further comprising
wherein the shield (shield 114, Sanders Fig.17) comprising a distal conical section (distal conical section A, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) with two angled sections (angled sections A and B, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below), each angled section (each of angled sections A and B, Sanders annotated Fig.17 below) having about the same angle as the corresponding section of the nozzle jacket (I and II of nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Sanders annotated Fig.17 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
843
807
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses
wherein the plurality of liquid coolant channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) axially extend at least about 75% of the length of the nozzle jacket (length of the nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a).
Regarding claim 16, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses
wherein each coolant channel (each of the first coolant channel 962 & the second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) has a substantially rectangular cross section (each of the first coolant channel 962 & the second coolant channel 968 has a substantially rectangular cross section, Sanders Fig.13a).
Regarding claim 19, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses:
wherein the plurality of coolant channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) fluidly merge into a circumferential channel (main channel 1020, Sanders Fig.13a) at the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a in the rejection of claim 1 above) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a), the circumferential channel (main channel 1020, Sanders Fig.13a) configured to circumferentially circulate the liquid coolant flow (coolant flow 950, Sanders Fig.13a) about the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a in the rejection of claim 1 above) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) (Sanders Par.0170 discloses “This connection also allows the coolant flow 950 to impinge on the inner surface of the distal end of the cavity 954 such that the coolant flow 950 can reverse direction and travel proximally through the main channel 1020 along an outer surface of the coolant tube 116 toward the torch head 102 (shown in FIGS. 13a and b).”).
Regarding claim 20, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Sanders also discloses:
wherein the circumferential channel (main channel 1020, Sanders Fig.13a) is defined at least in part by a sealing member (1050, 1072, Sanders Fig.13a) disposed between the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) and the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a),
Sanders does not disclose:
the sealing member having a diameter of between about 0.15 inches and about 0.3 inches.
Regarding the limitation that the sealing member having a diameter of between about 0.15 inches and about 0.3 inches, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Sanders Fig.13a where the primary reference Sanders teaches certain dimension for the sealing member 1050, 1072), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Sanders discloses certain diameter of the sealing member, and having a specific diameter of the sealing member is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameter of the sealing member is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the diameter for the sealing member would impact the holding force between the nozzle body and the nozzle jacket, thus, ensuring proper alignment, gas flow, and electrical connections. Optimized diameter of the sealing member would hold the electrode, nozzle, nozzle jacket, coolant channels in the correct concentric position; thus, properly route the coolant around the internal parts. Thus, the diameter of the sealing member is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Sanders diameter of the sealing member by making the sealing member having a diameter of between about 0.15 inches and about 0.3 inches as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claims 3-9, 25, 27-29, 33, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0042014 A1, previously cited) in view of Duan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0007256 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Krink et al. (Pub. No. WO 2010/040328 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach further comprising
a plurality of windows disposed into the hollow nozzle body, each window being circumferentially defined by a pair of adjacent dividers of the hollow nozzle body.
Krink teaches (Krink Fig.3a):
Examiner’s Note: It is noted that Krink (WO 2010/040328 A1) and Krink (US 2011/0284502 A1) are equivalent. Therefore, the US 2011/0284502 A1 is used as a translated version of the WO 2010/040328 A1 for examination convenience purposes.
a plurality of windows (10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) disposed into the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a), each window (each of 10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) being circumferentially defined by a pair of adjacent dividers (4.43, Krink Fig.3a) of the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan, to include a plurality of windows disposed into the hollow nozzle body, each window being circumferentially defined by a pair of adjacent dividers of the hollow nozzle body, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 4, Sanders in view of Duan and Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein each divider (4.43, Krink Fig.3a) is configured to prevent the liquid coolant flow in one window (10.12, Krink Fig.3a) from flowing circumferentially into an adjacent window (10.11, Krink Fig.3a) to restrict bypass of the liquid coolant flow (Krink Par.0071 teaches “At the same time a secondary connection between the areas 10.11 and 10.12 is prevented by the section 4.43 of the projecting region 4.33”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan and Krink, to include the teaching of each divider is configured to prevent the liquid coolant flow in one window from flowing circumferentially into an adjacent window to restrict liquid coolant flow bypass, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 5, Sanders in view of Duan and Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein each coolant channel is disposed in the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) within a corresponding window (10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) such that the coolant channel is located between a pair of the dividers (4.43, Krink Fig.3a) associated with the corresponding window (10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan and Krink, to include the teaching of each coolant channel is disposed in the hollow nozzle body within a corresponding window such that the coolant channel is located between a pair of the dividers associated with the corresponding window, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 6, Sanders in view of Duan and Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein the coolant inlet (4.20, Krink Fig.3a) is in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of windows (10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a), such that the liquid coolant flow received from the coolant inlet (4.20, Krink Fig.3a) is adapted to flow through the at least one coolant channel associated with the corresponding window (10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan and Krink, to include the teaching of the coolant inlet is in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of windows such that the liquid coolant flow received from the coolant inlet is adapted to flow through the at least one coolant channel associated with the corresponding window, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 7, Sanders in view of Duan and Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein the coolant outlet (4.22, Krink Fig.3a) is in fluid communication with at least one of the windows (10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a), such that the liquid coolant flow returned to the coolant outlet (4.22, Krink Fig.3a) is adapted to flow through the at least one coolant channel associated with the corresponding window (10.11 & 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4. The cooling liquid then flows through the area 10.15 formed by the cooling liquid return groove 4.22 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 back to the cooling liquid return WR”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan and Krink, to include the teaching of the coolant outlet is in fluid communication with at least one of the windows such that the liquid coolant flow returned to the coolant outlet is adapted to flow through the at least one coolant channel associated with the corresponding window, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 8, Sanders in view of Duan and Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein one of the plurality of coolant channels (channel B, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) is in fluid communication with one of the coolant inlet (4.20, Krink Fig.3a) or outlet, and two of the plurality of coolant channels (channels A & B, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) are in fluid communication with other one of the coolant inlet (4.20, Krink Fig.3a) or outlet (4.22, Krink Fig.3a), irrespective of a radial orientation between the nozzle jacket (nozzle cap 2, Krink Fig.3a) and the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4. The cooling liquid then flows through the area 10.15 formed by the cooling liquid return groove 4.22 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 back to the cooling liquid return WR”).
PNG
media_image4.png
608
829
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan and Krink, to include the teachings of one of the plurality of coolant channels is in fluid communication with one of the coolant inlet or outlet, and two of the plurality of coolant channels are in fluid communication with other one of the coolant inlet or outlet, irrespective of a radial orientation between the nozzle jacket and the hollow nozzle body, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 9, Sanders in view of Duan and Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein at least one of the plurality of coolant channels (channel A, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) is fluidly insulated from the coolant inlet (4.20, Krink Fig.3a) and the coolant outlet (4.22, Krink Fig.3a), thereby prevented from conducting a fluid flow therethrough (as clearly shown in Krink annotated Fig.3a below, a window (A below) with its corresponding cooling channel is insulated from a cooling inlet (4.20) and a cooling outlet (4.22) via the protruding area (4.43), much like the Instant Application remaining windows (402e, 402d) being insulating from the inlet (324) and the outlet (326) as shown in Instant Application Fig.3a).
PNG
media_image5.png
562
780
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan and Krink, to include the teaching of at least one of the plurality of coolant channels is fluidly insulated from the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet, thereby prevented from conducting a fluid flow therethrough, as taught by Krink, in order to ensure that the shunt of the cooling liquid is prevented in each position of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 25, Sanders discloses a tip (as shown in Sanders Fig.13a) for a liquid cooled plasma arc cutting torch (“for a liquid-cooled plasma arc torch”, Sanders Par.0002) configured for bevel cutting, the tip (as shown in Sanders Fig.13a) comprising:
a nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) defining a central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) extending between a proximal region (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) and a distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a), the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) comprising:
a nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) including an internal surface shaped to form a portion of a plasma plenum (plasma chamber/plenum 109, Sanders Fig.17 & Par.0159) and an external surface (external surface, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) shaped to form a portion of a coolant flow path (cooling channel 1002, Sanders Fig.13a & Par.0169) substantially about the nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a), the external surface (external surface, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) defining a plurality of substantially axial channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) extending from the proximal region (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) to the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a);
a nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) disposed about the external surface (external surface, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) and shaped to cooperatively form the plurality of substantially axial channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) with the nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a), the plurality of substantially axial channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) defining the coolant flow path (Sanders Fig.13a shows the first coolant channel 962 & the second coolant channel 968 define coolant flow path) about the nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) (Sanders Par.0173 discloses “the nozzle opening 966 is configured to be aligned with the first coolant channel 962 of the cartridge frame 112 such that the coolant flow 950 can be introduced into the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 from the first coolant channel 962 via the nozzle opening 966. The nozzle opening 966 can be in fluid communication with the second nozzle opening 967 on the nozzle jacket 111, where the two coolant openings 966, 967 are radially offset from each other (i.e., on different sides of the nozzle 110). The coolant flow 950 can enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 via the nozzle opening 966, flow proximally through the flow chamber 965, return distally on a different side of the chamber 965, and exit the chamber 965 via the second opening 967. In some embodiments, the second opening 967 is aligned with and connected to the second coolant channel 968 disposed in the cartridge frame 112 (shown in FIGS. 13a and b)”; therefore, the first coolant channel 962 & the second coolant channel 968 define coolant flow path about the body of the nozzle 110), the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) defining
a length along the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) (the nozzle jacket 111 defines the length along the central longitudinal axis) and
a diameter of a distal tip (distal tip of the nozzle jacket 111, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) at the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a),
a shield (shield 114, Sanders Fig.17) disposed about and substantially surrounding an external surface of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.17)
PNG
media_image1.png
649
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sanders does not disclose:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4, and
a plurality of windows disposed into the nozzle body, each window being circumferentially defined by a pair of adjacent dividers of the nozzle body to prevent the coolant flow path through one window from flowing circumferentially into an adjacent window,
wherein each axial channel is disposed in the external surface of the nozzle body within a corresponding window such that each axial channel is located between a pair of the dividers associated with the corresponding window and across-sectional width of each axial channel is smaller than across-sectional width of the corresponding window; and
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees
Krink teaches (Krink Fig.3a):
Examiner’s Note: It is noted that Krink (WO 2010/040328 A1) and Krink (US 2011/0284502 A1) are equivalent. Therefore, the US 2011/0284502 A1 is used as a translated version of the WO 2010/040328 A1 for examination convenience purposes.
a plurality of windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) (Krink annotated Fig.3a below shows the red area is the first window and the yellow area is the second window) disposed into the nozzle body (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a), each window (each of the first window and the second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) being circumferentially defined by a pair of adjacent dividers (sections 4.41 and 4.42, Krink Fig.3a) of the nozzle body (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) to prevent the coolant flow path through one window (first window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) from flowing circumferentially into an adjacent window (second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below),
wherein each axial channel (each of areas 10.11 and 10.15, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4. The cooling liquid then flows through the area 10.15 formed by the cooling liquid return groove 4.22 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 back to the cooling liquid return WR”; therefore, Krink teaches the coolant flows through areas 10.11 and 10.15, and thus creates the channels) is disposed in the external surface of the nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) within a corresponding window (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) (Krink annotated Fig.3a below shows the area 10.11 is disposed within the first window, and the area 10.15 is disposed within the second window) such that each axial channel (each of areas 10.11 and 10.15, Krink Fig.3a) is located between a pair of the dividers (sections 4.41 and 4.42, Krink Fig.3a) associated with the corresponding window (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) and a cross-sectional width of each axial channel (each of areas 10.11 and 10.15, Krink Fig.3a) is smaller than a cross-sectional width of the corresponding window (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) (Krink annotated Fig.3a below shows the cross-sectional width of area 10.11 is smaller than the cross-sectional width of the entire first window; and the cross-sectional width of area 10.15 is smaller than the cross-sectional width of the entire second window).
PNG
media_image6.png
951
1233
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders, to include plurality of windows disposed into the nozzle body and each window being circumferentially defined by a pair of adjacent dividers of the nozzle body to prevent the coolant flow path through one window from flowing circumferentially into an adjacent window, and each axial channel is disposed in the external surface of the nozzle body within a corresponding window such that each coolant channel is located between a pair of the dividers associated with the corresponding window and across-sectional width of each axial channel is smaller than across-sectional width of the corresponding window, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Sanders in view of Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees
Duan teaches a nozzle (nozzle 15, Duan Figs.4 & 5A) for a liquid cooled plasma arc cutting torch (10 is torch tip of the plasma cutting torch, Duan Fig.4 & Par.0009) comprising a shield (shield 20, Duan Figs.4 & 5A):
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield (shield 20, Duan Figs.4 & 5A) is less than 25 degrees (Duan Par.0036 teaches “The shield 20 has a shield body 60 which is defined by a substantially conical interior portion 65 having a shield half-cone angle, b. Shield half-cone angle, b is substantially equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) the nozzle half-cone angle”; additionally, Duan Par.0031 teaches “it is preferred to select a nozzle half-cone angle within a range of about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees”; thus, Duan teaches half-cone angle of the shield is substantially equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) the nozzle half-cone angle, Duan also teaches the nozzle half-cone angle within a range of about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees; therefore, when the nozzle half-cone angle is about 20 degrees, the half-cone angle of the shield is ±5 degrees of the nozzle half-cone angle, which is 15 degrees; therefore, Duan teaches the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees. As shown in Fig.4 of Duan, the interior surface and the exterior surface of the shield 20 are parallel to each other; when two parallel lines are cut by a transversal, corresponding angles are equal; thus, if the shield half-cone angle b of the interior portion of the shield 20 of Duan is less than 25 degrees, the shield half-cone angle of the exterior portion of the shield 20 is also less than 25 degrees. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the overlap at 15 degrees to less than 25 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed angle of less than 25 degrees and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.)
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the overlap at 15 degrees to less than 25 degrees [as calculated and explained above], which overlaps with the claimed angle of less than 25 degrees and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Krink, by adding the teachings of the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees, as taught by Duan, because the half-cone angle of the shield depends on the nozzle half-cone angle; by having the shield half-cone angle equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) of the nozzle half-cone angle, when the shield is mounted in a spaced relationship to the nozzle along the longitudinal axis, the substantially conical exterior portion of the nozzle and the substantially conical interior portion of the shield form parallel walls of the passageway for fluids (e.g., shield gas) flowing through the passageway stream out to angularly impinge the ionized plasma gas flow, as recognized by Duan [Duan, Par.0036]. Furthermore, having the nozzle half-cone angle of 20 degrees would limit the likelihood for generating an unstable ionized plasma gas flow, as recognized by Duan [Duan, Par.0031].
Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4
Regarding the limitation that the nozzle jacket having the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Sanders Figure 13a where the primary reference Sanders teaches certain dimensions of the diameter and the length of the nozzle jacket 111), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Sanders discloses certain diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111, and having a specific diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameter and length of said nozzle jacket 111 is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 would impact the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, affecting the cooling efficiency at the nozzle. A nozzle jacket with an optimized length and diameter would increase and elongate the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, improving the cooling efficiency; efficient cooling would help to maintain a relatively low temperature that leads to lower erosion rate. Thus, the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Sanders diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 by making the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 27, Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein each axial channel (each of areas 10.11 and 10.15, Krink Fig.3a) is circumferentially isolated from one another (Krink Fig.3a shows the area 10.11 is circumferentially isolated from the area 10.15, and the area 10.15 is circumferentially isolated from the area 10.11) via the dividers (sections 4.41 and 4.42, Krink Fig.3a) of the windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25).
Regarding claim 28, Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein two windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25) of the plurality of windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25) are in fluid communication with a coolant inlet (cooling liquid supply groove 4.20, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink annotated Fig.3a in the rejection of claim 25 shows the first window is in fluid communication with the cooling liquid supply groove 4.20) or a coolant outlet (cooling liquid return groove 4.22, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink annotated Fig.3a in the rejection of claim 25 shows the second window is in fluid communication with the cooling liquid return groove 4.22) of the nozzle (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a), and wherein the two windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25) are fluidly connected to respective ones of the axial channels (areas 10.11 and 10.15, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink annotated Fig.3a in the rejection of claim 25 shows the first window is fluidly connected with the area 10.11, and the second window fluidly connected with the area 10.15), such that the corresponding coolant inlet (cooling liquid supply groove 4.20, Krink Fig.3a) or outlet (cooling liquid return groove 4.22, Krink Fig.3a) is fluidly connected to two axial channels (areas 10.11 and 10.15, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Fig.3a shows the cooling liquid supply groove 4.20 is fluidly connected with the area 10.11, and the cooling liquid return groove 4.22 is fluidly connected with the area 10.15) irrespective of a circumferential orientation between the nozzle jacket (nozzle cap 2, Krink Fig.3a) and the nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4. The cooling liquid then flows through the area 10.15 formed by the cooling liquid return groove 4.22 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 back to the cooling liquid return WR”; therefore, Krink teaches the coolant flows through areas 10.11 and 10.15, and thus creates the channels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Krink and Duan, to further include two windows of the plurality of windows are in fluid communication with a coolant inlet or a coolant outlet of the nozzle, and the two windows are fluidly connected to respective ones of the axial channels, such that the corresponding coolant inlet or outlet is fluidly connected to two axial channels irrespective of a circumferential orientation between the nozzle jacket and the nozzle body, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 29, Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein one window (first window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25) of the plurality of windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25) is in fluid communication with a coolant inlet (cooling liquid supply groove 4.20, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink annotated Fig.3a in the rejection of claim 25 shows the first window is in fluid communication with the cooling liquid supply groove 4.20) or a coolant outlet of the nozzle, and wherein the one window (first window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25) is fluidly connected to a corresponding axial channel (area 10.11, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink annotated Fig.3a in the rejection of claim 25 shows the first window is fluidly connected with the area 10.11), such that the corresponding coolant inlet (cooling liquid supply groove 4.20, Krink Fig.3a) or outlet is fluidly connected to one axial channel (area 10.11, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Fig.3a shows the cooling liquid supply groove 4.20 is fluidly connected with the area 10.11) irrespective of a circumferential orientation between the nozzle jacket (nozzle cap 2, Krink Fig.3a) and the nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4”; therefore, Krink teaches the coolant flows through area 10.11, and thus creates the channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Krink and Duan, to further include one window of the plurality of windows is in fluid communication with a coolant inlet or a coolant outlet of the nozzle, and the one window is fluidly connected to a corresponding axial channel, such that the corresponding coolant inlet or outlet is fluidly connected to one axial channel irrespective of a circumferential orientation between the nozzle jacket and the nozzle body, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Regarding claim 33, Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, Krink also teaches:
wherein the plurality of windows (first window, Krink annotated Fig.3a above in the rejection of claim 25) comprise a plurality of holes (plurality of recesses 2.6, Krink Fig.3a or Fig.14) formed through the nozzle jacket (nozzle cap 2, Krink Fig.3a).
Regarding claim 45, Sanders discloses a tip (as shown Sanders Fig.13a) for a liquid cooled plasma arc cutting torch (“for a liquid-cooled plasma arc torch”, Sanders Par.0002), the tip (as shown Sanders Fig.13a) comprising:
a nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) defining a central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) extending between a proximal region (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) and a distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) with a plasma exit orifice (plasma emitter is at the distal region of the nozzle 110 in order to emit plasma) disposed along the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) at the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below), the nozzle comprising (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a):
a hollow nozzle body (body of the nozzle 110 is hollow, as shown in Sanders Fig.13a);
a nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) disposed about an external surface (external surface, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a), the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) defining
a length along the central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) (the nozzle jacket 111 defines the length along the central longitudinal axis) and
a diameter of a distal tip (distal tip of the nozzle jacket 111, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) at the distal region (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a);
a coolant inlet (nozzle opening 966, Sanders Fig.13a) and a coolant outlet (second nozzle opening 967, Sanders Fig.13a) defined between the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) and the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a) at the proximal region (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) (Sanders Par.0171 discloses “The nozzle opening 966 allows the coolant flow 950 from the first coolant channel 962 to enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 between an exterior surface of the nozzle 110 and an interior surface of the nozzle jacket 111”, and Sanders Par.0173 discloses “The coolant flow 950 can enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 via the nozzle opening 966, flow proximally through the flow chamber 965, return distally on a different side of the chamber 965, and exit the chamber 965 via the second opening 967”), the coolant inlet (nozzle opening 966, Sanders Fig.13a) configured to receive a liquid coolant flow (coolant flow 950, Sanders Fig.13a & Par.0171, 0173) from a torch body (body of torch 10, Sanders Fig.2) of the plasma arc cutting torch (torch 10, Sanders Fig.2) to cool the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) (Sanders Par.0171 discloses “The nozzle opening 966 allows the coolant flow 950 from the first coolant channel 962 to enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 between an exterior surface of the nozzle 110 and an interior surface of the nozzle jacket 111”) and the coolant outlet (second nozzle opening 967, Sanders Fig.13a) configured to return the liquid coolant flow (coolant flow 950, Sanders Fig.13a & Par.0171, 0173) to the torch body (body of torch 10, Sanders Fig.2) (Sanders Par.0173 discloses “The coolant flow 950 can enter the nozzle coolant flow chamber 965 via the nozzle opening 966, flow proximally through the flow chamber 965, return distally on a different side of the chamber 965, and exit the chamber 965 via the second opening 967”);
a plurality of axial channels (first coolant channel 962 & second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) cooperatively defined between the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a) and the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.13a), each of the plurality of axial channels (each of the first coolant channel 962 & the second coolant channel 968, Sanders Fig.13a) extending between the proximal (proximal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) and distal regions (distal region, Sanders annotated Fig.13a below) of the nozzle (nozzle 110, Sanders Fig.13a), and
a shield (shield 114, Sanders Fig.17) disposed about and substantially surrounding an external surface of the nozzle jacket (nozzle jacket 111, Sanders Fig.17)
PNG
media_image1.png
649
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sanders does not disclose:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4;
a plurality of windows cooperatively defined between the hollow nozzle body and the nozzle jacket and located at the proximal region of the nozzle, the plurality of windows including:
at least a first window in fluid communication with the coolant inlet for receiving the liquid coolant flow from the coolant inlet and flowing the liquid coolant to the nozzle, and
at least a second window in fluid communication with the coolant outlet for returning the liquid coolant flow from the nozzle to the coolant outlet;
wherein the first and second windows are in fluid communication with each other within the nozzle; and
the plurality of axial channels including:
a single axial channel in fluid communication with one of the first or second window; and
a pair of axial channels in fluid communication with another of the first or second window, the pair of axial channels located substantially circumferentially opposite from the single axial channel,
wherein the single axial channel and the pair of axial channels are in fluid communication at the distal region of the nozzle for passing the liquid coolant flow between the first and second windows, such that a desired pressure drop for the liquid coolant flow is established between the single axial channel and the pair of axial channels independent of a circumferential orientation of the hollow nozzle body relative to the nozzle jacket; and
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees.
Krink teaches (Krink Fig.3a):
Examiner’s Note: It is noted that Krink (WO 2010/040328 A1) and Krink (US 2011/0284502 A1) are equivalent. Therefore, the US 2011/0284502 A1 is used as a translated version of the WO 2010/040328 A1 for examination convenience purposes.
a plurality of windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) (Krink annotated Fig.3a below shows the red area is the first window and the yellow area is the second window) cooperatively defined between the nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) and the nozzle jacket (nozzle cap 2, Krink Fig.3a) and located at the proximal region of the nozzle (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a), the plurality of windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) including:
at least a first window (first window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) in fluid communication with the coolant inlet (cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 & 4.21, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink annotated Fig.3a below shows the first window is in fluid communication with the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 & 4.21) for receiving the liquid coolant flow from the coolant inlet (cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 & 4.21, Krink Fig.3a) and flowing the liquid coolant to the nozzle (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4), and
at least a second window (second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) in fluid communication with the coolant outlet (cooling liquid return groove 4.22, Krink Fig.3a) for returning the liquid coolant flow from the nozzle (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) to the coolant outlet (cooling liquid return groove 4.22, Krink Fig.3a) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4. The cooling liquid then flows through the area 10.15 formed by the cooling liquid return groove 4.22 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 back to the cooling liquid return WR”);
wherein the first and second windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) are in fluid communication with each other within the nozzle (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a); and
the plurality of axial channels (areas 10.11, 10.12, 10.15; Krink Fig.3a) including:
a single axial channel (area 10.15, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) in fluid communication with one of the first or second window (second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below); and
a pair of axial channels (areas 10.11 and 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) in fluid communication with another of the first (first window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) or second window, the pair of axial channels (areas 10.11 and 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) located substantially circumferentially opposite from the single axial channel (area 10.15, Krink annotated Fig.3a below),
wherein the single axial channel (area 10.15, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) and the pair of axial channels (areas 10.11 and 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) are in fluid communication at the distal region of the nozzle (nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) for passing the liquid coolant flow between the first and second windows (first window and second window, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) (Krink Par.0070 teaches “The cooling liquid then flows through a groove 5.1 of the nozzle holder 5 into the two areas 10.11 and 10.12 formed by the cooling liquid supply grooves 4.20 and 4.21 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 to the region 10.20 of the cooling liquid chamber 10 surrounding the nozzle bore 4.10, and flows around the nozzle 4. The cooling liquid then flows through the area 10.15 formed by the cooling liquid return groove 4.22 of the nozzle 4 and the nozzle cap 2 back to the cooling liquid return WR”), such that a desired pressure drop for the liquid coolant flow is established between the single axial channel (area 10.15, Krink annotated Fig.3a below) and the pair of axial channels (areas 10.11 and 10.12, Krink Fig.3a) independent of a circumferential orientation of the hollow nozzle body (body of nozzle 4, Krink Fig.3a) relative to the nozzle jacket (nozzle cap 2, Krink Fig.3a).
PNG
media_image6.png
951
1233
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders, to include a plurality of windows cooperatively defined between the hollow nozzle body and the nozzle jacket and located at the proximal region of the nozzle, at least a first window in fluid communication with the coolant inlet for receiving the liquid coolant flow from the coolant inlet and flowing the liquid coolant to the nozzle, and at least a second window in fluid communication with the coolant outlet for returning the liquid coolant flow from the nozzle to the coolant outlet, wherein the first and second windows are in fluid communication with each other within the nozzle and the plurality of axial channels including a single axial channel in fluid communication with one of the first or second window; and a pair of axial channels in fluid communication with another of the first or second window, the pair of axial channels located substantially circumferentially opposite from the single axial channel, wherein the single axial channel and the pair of axial channels are in fluid communication at the distal region of the nozzle for passing the liquid coolant flow between the first and second windows, such that a desired pressure drop for the liquid coolant flow is established between the single axial channel and the pair of axial channels independent of a circumferential orientation of the hollow nozzle body relative to the nozzle jacket, as taught by Krink, in order to allow for effective cooling of the nozzle and prevent thermal overload, as recognized by Krink [Krink, Par.0067].
Sanders in view of Krink teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4;
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees
Duan teaches a nozzle (nozzle 15, Duan Figs.4 & 5A) for a liquid cooled plasma arc cutting torch (10 is torch tip of the plasma cutting torch, Duan Fig.4 & Par.0009) comprising a shield (shield 20, Duan Figs.4 & 5A):
wherein a half-cone angle of the shield (shield 20, Duan Figs.4 & 5A) is less than 25 degrees (Duan Par.0036 teaches “The shield 20 has a shield body 60 which is defined by a substantially conical interior portion 65 having a shield half-cone angle, b. Shield half-cone angle, b is substantially equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) the nozzle half-cone angle”; additionally, Duan Par.0031 teaches “it is preferred to select a nozzle half-cone angle within a range of about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees”; thus, Duan teaches half-cone angle of the shield is substantially equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) the nozzle half-cone angle, Duan also teaches the nozzle half-cone angle within a range of about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees; therefore, when the nozzle half-cone angle is about 20 degrees, the half-cone angle of the shield is ±5 degrees of the nozzle half-cone angle, which is 15 degrees; therefore, Duan teaches the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees. As shown in Fig.4 of Duan, the interior surface and the exterior surface of the shield 20 are parallel to each other; when two parallel lines are cut by a transversal, corresponding angles are equal; thus, if the shield half-cone angle b of the interior portion of the shield 20 of Duan is less than 25 degrees, the shield half-cone angle of the exterior portion of the shield 20 is also less than 25 degrees. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the overlap at 15 degrees to less than 25 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed angle of less than 25 degrees and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.)
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the overlap at 15 degrees to less than 25 degrees [as calculated and explained above], which overlaps with the claimed angle of less than 25 degrees and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Krink, by adding the teachings of the half-cone angle of the shield is less than 25 degrees, as taught by Duan, because the half-cone angle of the shield depends on the nozzle half-cone angle; by having the shield half-cone angle equal to (e.g., ±5 degrees) of the nozzle half-cone angle, when the shield is mounted in a spaced relationship to the nozzle along the longitudinal axis, the substantially conical exterior portion of the nozzle and the substantially conical interior portion of the shield form parallel walls of the passageway for fluids (e.g., shield gas) flowing through the passageway stream out to angularly impinge the ionized plasma gas flow, as recognized by Duan [Duan, Par.0036]. Furthermore, having the nozzle half-cone angle of 20 degrees would limit the likelihood for generating an unstable ionized plasma gas flow, as recognized by Duan [Duan, Par.0031].
Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4
Regarding the limitation that the nozzle jacket having the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Sanders Figure 13a where the primary reference Sanders teaches certain dimensions of the diameter and the length of the nozzle jacket 111), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Sanders discloses certain diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111, and having a specific diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameter and length of said nozzle jacket 111 is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 would impact the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, affecting the cooling efficiency at the nozzle. A nozzle jacket with an optimized length and diameter would increase and elongate the contact surface between the nozzle jacket and the coolant flow, thus, improving the cooling efficiency; efficient cooling would help to maintain a relatively low temperature that leads to lower erosion rate. Thus, the diameter and length of the nozzle jacket is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Sanders diameter and length of the nozzle jacket 111 by making the diameter is less than 0.4 inches, the length is greater than 1.5 inches and a ratio of the length to the diameter is greater than 1.4 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0042014 A1, previously cited) in view of Duan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0007256 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Shipulski et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0144603 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein a diameter of an end face at a distal tip of the shield is about 0.45 inches.
Shipulski teaches a plasma arc cutting system:
wherein a diameter of an end face at a distal tip of the shield is about 0.45 inches (Shipulski Par.0146 teaches “whereas a nozzle shield 1610 in accordance with the current technology can have a diameter of about a half inch”; the Examiner is interpreting the limitation of “about 0.45 inches” to be about (emphasis added) half an inch, being 0.5 inches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan, by adding the teaching of a diameter of an end face at a distal tip of the shield is about 0.45 inches, as taught by Shipulski, in order to optimize the flow of cooling gas, as recognized by Shipulski [Shipulski, Par.0130].
Regarding claim 21, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the plasma arc torch is configured to operate at a current level of above about 120 amps.
Shipulski teaches a plasma arc cutting system:
wherein the plasma arc torch is configured to operate at a current level of above about 120 amps (Shipulski Par.0093 teaches “Moreover, higher operating currents (e.g., greater than 150 Amps) can be achieved due to the drastically increased cooling of the consumables”; that is, in this instance, the range of 150 amps reads on the open-ended range of being above 120 amps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan, by adding the teaching of the plasma arc torch is configured to operate at a current level of above about 120 amps, as taught by Shipulski, in order to ensure the plasma arc is durable to withstand higher currents/temperatures.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0042014 A1, previously cited) in view of Duan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0007256 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Berry (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0122562 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein an axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches.
Berry teaches a cooling channel (140, Berry Fig.4 & Par.0019):
wherein an axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches (Berry Par.0019 teaches “The cooling channels 140 may have a length of about one to three inches (about 2.54 to 7.62 centimeters) or so”; it is noted that about 2.54 to 7.62 centimeters means about 1.0 inches to 3.0 inches; therefore, Berry teaches the length of about 1.0-3.0 inches reads on the open-ended range of the length being greater than 1.2 inches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the cooling channels of Berry from [1.0 to 3.0 inches] to [greater than 1.2 to 3.0 inches] as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Instant Application Par.0017 indicating “In some embodiments, an axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches”; however, applicant does not provide criticality why the axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches is better than other ranges, and applicant does not provide any achievement by having the axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches) and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan, by adding the teaching of axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches, as taught by Berry, in order to provide for more optimal cooling, thereby, keeping the torch and parts from overheating.
Regarding claim 18, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein a width of each coolant channel is less than about 0.2 inches.
Berry teaches a cooling channel (140, Berry Fig.4 & Par.0019):
wherein a width of each coolant channel is less than about 0.2 inches (Berry Par.0019 teaches “the cooling channels 140 may have a width of about 0.065 inches (about 1.65 millimeters) or so but may range in width from about 0.05 to 0.08 inches (about 1.27 to 2.03 millimeters) or so”; therefore, Berry teaches the width of 0.05 to 0.08 inches is less than 0.2 inches; thus, Berry teaches the width is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan, by adding the teaching of the width of each coolant channel is less than about 0.2 inches, as taught by Berry, in order to provide for more optimal cooling, thereby, keeping the torch and parts from overheating.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0042014 A1, previously cited) in view of Duan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0007256 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Fox et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,013,866 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein both the hollow nozzle body and the nozzle jacket are electrically conductive.
Fox teaches a plasma torch (Fox Abstract):
wherein both the hollow nozzle body and the nozzle jacket are electrically conductive (Fox Claim 1 teaches “a conductive nozzle”, and Fox Col. 2 lines 18-20 teaches “the nozzle of the torch 1, the blocks 7 and 8 being held within a brass jacket 9”; it is noted that brass, the material the nozzle jacket is constructed from, is electrically conductive material; thus, Fox teaches both the nozzle body and the nozzle jacket are constructed from electrically conductive material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan, by adding the teachings of the hollow nozzle body and the nozzle jacket are constructed from an electrically conductive material, as taught by Fox, in order to ensure that plasma is optimally created as the electrically conductive material acts as a pathway for the electrical current to reach the desired area and generate the necessary heat or plasma.
Regarding claim 23, Sanders in view of Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the nozzle jacket is constructed from brass.
Fox teaches a plasma torch (Fox Abstract):
wherein the nozzle jacket is constructed from brass (Fox Col. 2 lines 18-20 teaches “the nozzle of the torch 1, the blocks 7 and 8 being held within a brass jacket 9”; thus, Fox teaches the nozzle jacket is constructed from brass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Duan, by adding the teachings of the nozzle jacket is constructed from brass, as taught by Fox, in order to ensure that plasma is optimally created. Additionally, the brass has excellent corrosion resistance, good heat conductivity, machinability, and relatively low cost, making it a durable and reliable material for the nozzle jacket, especially in environments where exposure to moisture or chemicals is likely; the brass allows for a balance between heat transfer and structural integrity.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0042014 A1, previously cited) in view of Krink et al. (Pub. No. WO 2010/040328 A1, previously cited), Duan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0007256 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Berry (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0122562 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 30, Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein an axial length of each axial channel is greater than about 1.2 inches.
Berry teaches a cooling channel (140, Berry Fig.4 & Par.0019):
wherein an axial length of each axial channel is greater than about 1.2 inches (Berry Par.0019 teaches “The cooling channels 140 may have a length of about one to three inches (about 2.54 to 7.62 centimeters) or so”; it is noted that about 2.54 to 7.62 centimeters means about 1.0 inches to 3.0 inches; therefore, Berry teaches the length of about 1.0-3.0 inches reads on the open-ended range of the length being greater than 1.2 inches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the cooling channels of Berry from [1.0 to 3.0 inches] to [greater than 1.2 to 3.0 inches] as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Instant Application Par.0017 indicating “In some embodiments, an axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches”; however, applicant does not provide criticality why the axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches is better than other ranges, and applicant does not provide any achievement by having the axial length of each coolant channel is greater than about 1.2 inches) and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Krink and Duan, by adding the teaching of axial length of each axial channel is greater than about 1.2 inches, as taught by Berry, in order to provide for more optimal cooling, thereby, keeping the torch and parts from overheating.
Regarding claim 31, Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the cross-sectional width of each axial channel is less than 0.2 inches.
Berry teaches a cooling channel (140, Berry Fig.4 & Par.0019):
wherein the cross-sectional width of each axial channel is less than 0.2 inches (Berry Par.0019 teaches “the cooling channels 140 may have a width of about 0.065 inches (about 1.65 millimeters) or so but may range in width from about 0.05 to 0.08 inches (about 1.27 to 2.03 millimeters) or so”; therefore, Berry teaches the width of 0.05 to 0.08 inches is less than 0.2 inches; thus, Berry teaches the width is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Krink and Duan, by adding the teaching of the cross-sectional width of each axial channel is less than 0.2 inches, as taught by Berry, in order to provide for more optimal cooling, thereby, keeping the torch and parts from overheating.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0042014 A1, previously cited) in view of Krink et al. (Pub. No. WO 2010/040328 A1, previously cited), Duan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0007256 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Fox et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,013,866 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 32, Sanders in view of Krink and Duan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the nozzle jacket is constructed from an electrically conductive material.
Fox teaches a plasma torch (Fox Abstract):
wherein the nozzle jacket is constructed from an electrically conductive material (Fox Claim 1 teaches “a conductive nozzle”, and Fox Col. 2 lines 18-20 teaches “the nozzle of the torch 1, the blocks 7 and 8 being held within a brass jacket 9”; it is noted that brass, the material the nozzle jacket is constructed from, is electrically conductive material; thus, Fox teaches both the nozzle body and the nozzle jacket are constructed from electrically conductive material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanders in view of Krink and Duan, by adding the teachings of the nozzle body and the nozzle jacket are constructed from an electrically conductive material, as taught by Fox, in order to ensure that plasma is optimally created as the electrically conductive material acts as a pathway for the electrical current to reach the desired area and generate the necessary heat or plasma.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Currier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0360601 A1) discloses nozzles for a plasma arc torch including a first body having a first end, a second end, and a longitudinal axis; and a second body disposed about a portion of the first body to complement the first body, the second body defining a set of channels formed on an internal surface shaped to form a set of liquid flow passages between the first body and the second body, the second body at least partially defining at least one inlet and at least one outlet to the set of liquid flow passages.
Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0050740 A1) discloses a cartridge for an air-cooled plasma arc torch including a swirl ring having a molded thermoplastic elongated body with a distal end, a proximal end, and a hollow portion configured to receive an electrode. The swirl ring has a plurality of gas flow openings defined by the distal end of the elongated body and configured to impart a swirling motion to a plasma gas flow for the plasma arc torch.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/07/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761