DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the entire annular circumference" in lines 4-5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the last portion" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the last portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yakovlevitch et al (US 4,649,257).
With regards to claim 1, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a method for fitting or plugging a first connecting part into a second connecting part of a processing head for thermal material processing (a method of assembling a front end 10 of a plasma gun having gun body 14 and gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 1), comprising:
wherein the first connecting part having, on an encircling outer face, or the second connecting part having, on an encircling inner face, at least one slot, extending around the entire annular circumference, both in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis and in a plane at a different angle to the longitudinal axis (gas distribution ring 12 having a groove 48 that extends around the entire circumference of the outer surface 50, wherein the groove extends perpendicular to and a different angle from the longitudinal axis, Fig. 2), with a slot width and a slot depth which receives an O-ring or profile ring, extending around the entire circumference (gas distribution ring 12 having groove 48 having a width and depth which receives O-ring 52, extending around the entire circumference of the gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 1,2);
connecting the first connecting part to the second connecting part such that the O-ring or profile ring which extends along the slot is initially in contact with a partial circumference of the opposite inner face or opposite outer face (O-ring 52 received by groove 48 partially contacts an inner surface of gun body 14 first at an upper part of rims 53,55 initially while being inserted, Fig. 1,2).
With regards to claim 2, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the O-ring or profile ring is initially deformed or pressed only around a partial circumference or a plurality of partial circumferences, which extend(s) along the slot, before it is deformed or pressed around its entire circumference (O-ring 52 of gas distribution ring 12 received by groove 48 has a flat spot 86 that will contact the inner surface of gun body 14 first when inserted before it is full press when fully inserted, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 7, Yakovlevitch et al discloses where the O-ring or profile ring of the first connecting part or of the second connecting part is in contact, in the fully fitted or plugged-together state of the connecting parts (O-ring 52 of gas distribution ring 12 when fully fitted on an inner surface of gun body 14, Fig. 1), with the opposite inner face or outer face of the other connecting part around the entire extending circumference of said O-ring or profile ring, and thus seals off the space between the inner and outer face (the sealing between the gas distribution ring 12 and gun body 14 creates a rear gas annulus 56, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 8, Yakovlevitch et al discloses wherein, in the fully fitted state, the alignment axially with respect to the longitudinal axis of the connecting parts occurs by way of the contact of a face of the first connecting part and a face of the second connecting part (inner face of gun body 14 is in contact with the outer face of the distribution ring 12 where O-ring 52 resides, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 9, Yakovlevitch et al discloses in the fully fitted state, the alignment or centering radially with respect to the longitudinal axis of the first connecting part with respect to the second connecting part occurs by way of an outer face of the first connecting part with respect to an inner face of the second connecting part (inner face of gun body 14 is in contact with the outer face of the distribution ring 12 where O-ring 52 resides, Fig. 1), which have tight tolerances with respect to one another and are at least partially in contact (the sealing between the gas distribution ring 12 and gun body 14 creates a rear gas annulus 56, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 10, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the first and second connecting part are of a processing head for thermal material processing for thermal plasma (distribution ring 12 and gun body 14 are part of front end of a plasma gun, col 2, lines 65-68, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 11, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the processing head is a plasma torch (distribution ring 12 and gun body 14 are part of front end of a plasma gun, col 2, lines 65-68, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 12, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the first and second connecting part are a wearing part (distribution ring 12 and gun body 14 are part of front end of a plasma gun, col 2, lines 65-68, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 13, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the wearing part is a gas guide (distribution ring 12 has gas inlet orifices and gun body 14 are part of front end of a plasma gun, col 2, lines 65-68, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovlevitch et al as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Namburu (US 9,457,419).
With regards to claim 3, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the contact of the O-ring with the opposite inner face or opposite outer face and the deformation or pressing of the O-ring or profile ring takes place, at the start of the contact, deformation, and pressing, to an extent of between 1/20 to ½ around its circumference.
Namburu teaches the contact of the O-ring with the opposite inner face or opposite outer face and the deformation or pressing of the O-ring or profile ring takes place, at the start of the contact, deformation, and pressing, to an extent of between 1/20 to ½ around its circumference (nozzle 200 has an upstream end 201 with O-ring 203/205 wherein when pressed to fit the rest of torch will have half of the total circumference of O-ring 203/205 contacted, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yakovlevitch et al and Namburu before him or her, to modify the slot and O-ring of Yakovlevitch et al to include the slot and O-ring of Namburu because the combination enhances sealing for a torch part to prevent the ingress of gas.
With regards to claim 4, Namburu teaches wherein the contact of the O-ring with the opposite inner face or opposite outer face pressing of the O-ring takes place, at the start of the contact, deformation, and pressing, around at least two partial circumferences (pressing takes place at the circumference of each o ring in grooves 203 and 205, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 5, Namburu teaches the distance extending along the longitudinal axis between the start of the contact of the O-ring and the start of contact with the last portion extending around the circumference amounts to in the range of at least 1/3 to 2 times the cord size, the diameter of the cord or the O-ring (upstream 210 is 2 times the size of each O-ring, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 6, Yakovlevitch et al and Namburu does not teach the distance extending along the longitudinal axis between the start of the contact of the O-ring and the start of the contact with last portion extending around the circumference amounts to in the range of at least .4mm to 3.0mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the distance between the components of Yakovlevitch et al and Namburu, since the applicant has not disclosed that the range of .4mm to 3.0mm solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the distance between the components as taught Yakovlevitch et al and Namburu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 1.
Examiner’s response: Applicant has amended claim 1 includes “at least one slot,extending around the entire annular circumference, both in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis and in a plane at a different angle to the longitudinal axis”. As understood by the examiner, slot 130 having a slant is what the amended limitation above is trying to define. The slot 130 being angled is best seen in Fig. 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
393
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yakovlevitch et al discloses at least one slot, extending around the entire annular circumference, both in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis and in a plane at a different angle to the longitudinal axis (gas distribution ring 12 having a groove 48 that extends around the entire circumference of the outer surface 50, wherein the groove extends perpendicular to and a different angle from the longitudinal axis, Fig. 2). Applicant argues that Yakovlevitch does not anticipate the amended rejections because it discloses a wave shaped groove (page 5 of Remarks), but this is not convincing. Yakovlevitch clearly discloses a groove 48 that extends perpendicular and in a plane at a different angle to the longitudinal axis as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
532
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached on 5712725567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights