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 .
Applicant amended Claims 17-22, 24-26, and 28-32. Applicant added Claim 33. A new matter rejection is presented below.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2022, 05/15/2024, 05/16/2024, 07/11/2024, 05/02/2025, and 05/23/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 08/25/2025, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Hadidi et al. US 6362449 B1 are maintained and new rejections over NPL Mac Rae have been made necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 33 recites in Line 2 “is heated solely thermal energy.” It would appear Applicant intends to insert the word “by” between the words “heated” and “solely.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-22, 24-26, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites in Lines 7-8 “plasma formed is arranged at a distance from the non-ferrous metal to be melted such that the plasma cannot contact the non-ferrous metal to be melted” (emphasis added). Applicant’s Specification recites at Page 3, Lines 8-10 “heating of the metallic melt material can be achieved solely by means of the thermal energy of the hot gas stream and by thermal radiation emitted by the plasma.” This recitation does not positively disclose that the material to be melted cannot be heated by the plasma or cannot come into contact with the plasma. In other words, Applicant has disclosed the lack of contact with plasma as an embodiment of the claimed invention. There is not support in the original disclosure for the newly amended limitation of Claim 17 that “plasma cannot contact the non-ferrous metal to be melted.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-22, 24-26, and 28-33 are rejected for their ultimate dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-19, 21, 25-26 and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadidi et al. US 6362449 B1 in view of Hugo DE 102009041444 A1 and NPL Mac Rae.
Regarding Claims 17 and 33, Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches an apparatus for melting non-ferrous metals comprising a device for forming a plasma (Abstract), the device being arranged in such a way that the plasma formed is arranged at a distance from the metal material to be melted (Fig. 3). A hot gas stream can be formed with the plasma that is aligned in the direction of the material to be melted (Fig. 3). Hadidi et al. ‘449 does teaches a pouring port for pouring off molten material from the furnace (Column 7 Lines 15-17) but does not expressly teach a melting tank or crucible is arranged in the melting furnace to receive the molten metal.
However, Hugo ‘444 teaches a crucible placed within a plasma torch metallurgical furnace [0039],(Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a crucible within the melting furnace of Hadidi et al. ‘449 in order to control the melting and solidification speed of molten material based on the teachings of Hugo ‘444 at [0039-0040].
Regarding the newly amended inclusion of “non-ferrous metal” in independent Claim 17, the claims are drawn to an apparatus and not to a method. Therefore, the material to be melted is herein recited as an intended use. Nonetheless, the reactors of the prior art are capable of melting non-ferrous metals.
Regarding the newly amended limitation that the plasma cannot contact the material to be melted, Hadidi et al. ‘449 does not expressly teach that the plasma cannot contact the material to be melted.
However, notwithstanding the 112(a) rejection above, NPL Mac Rae teaches a nontransferred arc mode suitable for melting metals which dissipates energy in the gas phase via resistance heating such that the metal material to be melted is melted only with hot gas and not by the plasma (Pages 90-93).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a nontransferred plasma arc mode in order to provide resistance heat to the material to be melted in order to control heating at a lower temperature based on the teachings of NPL Mac Rae at (Pages 90-93). The use of a nontransferred plasma arc mode in the system of Hadidi et al. ‘449 modified with the inclusion of a crucible as taught by Hugo ‘444 at [0039-0040], meets the newly amended limitations of Claim 1 that the plasma formed is arranged at a distance from the non-ferrous metal to be melted such that the plasma cannot contact the non-ferrous metal to be melted, and the newly added limitations of Claim 33 that the non-ferrous metal to be melted is heated solely by thermal energy from the hot gas stream and the thermal radiation emitted by the plasma.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the inclusion of gas mixtures with the plasma at (Colum 6, Lines 18-30) in order to volatize and or melt the material in the chamber (Column 7, Lines 13-14), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for the formation of a free gas stream or plasma stream in the furnace chamber of the melting furnace which can use its hot gases and radiation energy for heat transfer and melting of a respective metal.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches its device is provided with a microwave generator which generates standing microwaves and resonator connected thereto (Column 5 Lines 2-12), which is designed as a waveguide and has at least one reflection plate for generated microwaves (Column 3, Lines 22-26), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches at (Colum 6, Lines 4-17),(Fig. 5) the hot gas flow is directed in the direction of the melt material via a dielectric tube (30), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for at least one flow guide element.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches an embodiment with at least two plasma torches (Column 3, Lines 52-55), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for more than one supply for plasma gas being connected to the housing of the device.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches controlling the volumetric flow of plasma gases at (Column 6, Lines 34-41), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 28, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches argon gas as plasma or further gas (Column 6, Lines 23-26), meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches at (Column 8, Lines 18-21) a 915 MHz microwave frequency falling within the range of the instant Claim of 500 MHz to 5000 MHz, and 100 kW electrical power, falling within the range of the instant Claim for a 5k W to 3000 kW, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches a gas mixture is used as a plasma gas (Column 6, Lines 24-26), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 does not expressly teach a recirculation system for hot gas withdrawn from the melting furnace.
However, Hugo ‘444 teaches a gas recycling device in connection with a plasma torch furnace in order to recycle hot gas [0043], (Fig. 2) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add a gas recycling device to the plasma torch furnace of Hadidi et al. ‘449 in order to improve the balance of energy and achieve energy efficiency based on the teachings of Hugo ‘444 at [0043], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 does not expressly teach the device is fixed to the furnace body in a pivotable device.
However, Hugo ‘444 teaches a movement device (meeting the limitation for a pivotable device) in connection with a plasma torch furnace in order to continuously pass plasma over the material to be melted [0039], (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add a movement device (meeting the limitation for a pivotable device) to the plasma torch furnace of Hadidi et al. ‘449 in order to tangentially provide a plasma flame to the material to be melted based on the teachings of Hugo ‘444 at [0027], meeting the limitation of the instant Claim.
Claims 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadidi et al. US 6362449 B1 in view of Hugo DE 102009041444 A1 and NPL Mac Rae as applied to Claims 17-19, 21, 23, and 25-26, 28-32 above further in view of Uhm et al. US 20050163696 A1.
Regarding Claims 20 and 22, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches an electric power supply but does not detail the inclusion of an ignition electrode.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Uhm et al. ‘696 teaches a microwave plasma torch having an electrical ignition device with an ignition electrode electrically insulated from a housing, the plasma being formed in the region of standing microwaves inside the resonator in front of the at least one reflection plate with plasma gas flowing there, and the plasma being formed in the housing [0027],(Fig. 2), the arrangement of tip of the ignition electrode within the plasma tube (Fig. 2) meets the limitation for a radiation trap [0025-0027].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the microwave plasma torch electrode assembly of modified Hadidi et al. ‘4449 as set forth in Uhm et al. ‘696 in order to control the melting of material within the furnace chamber based on the teachings of Uhm et al. ‘696 at [0027], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Hadidi et al. ‘449 teaches the limitations set forth above. Hadidi et al. ‘449 further teaches an electric power supply but does not detail the inclusion of an ignition electrode.
However, Uhm et al. ‘696 teaches its device is formed with two electrodes (44, 45, Fig. 2) which are arranged at a distance from one another and between which a plasma gas flows in the direction of the material to be melted and creating an electric arc discharge [0025-0027].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the microwave plasma torch electrode assembly of modified Hadidi et al. ‘444 as set forth in Uhm et al. ‘696 in order to control the melting of material within the furnace chamber based on the teachings of Uhm et al. ‘696 at [0027], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited references require the material to be melted make contact with the plasma arc. However, the prior art teaching “plasma being directed into the chamber where a material is heated” does not necessitate that the plasma arc makes direct contact with the material to be melted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a nontransferred plasma arc mode in order to provide resistance heat to the material to be melted in order to control heating at a lower temperature based on the teachings of NPL Mac Rae at (Pages 90-93). As set forth above, Applicant does not provide sufficient support in the original disclosure that the plasma in the claimed apparatus can never make contact with the melt material or the melt. The reference to Page 3 of the instant Specification makes clear that the plasma not coming into contact with the melt material or the melt is but one embodiment. Applicant does not provide sufficient support that the plasma cannot make contact with the melt or material because Applicant teaches at Page 3, Lines 17-22 that the plasma can be mixed with a secondary gas and emit radiation energy in the direction of the melt material.
Applicant’s claims are drawn to an apparatus, not to a method. The reactor of Hadidi et al. modified with the inclusion of a crucible and non-transferred plasma torch mode would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct. Such an apparatus overlaps and encompasses the apparatus for melting of the instant claims. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 203494881 U teaches a plasma pyrolysis melting furnace featuring a crucible and non-transferred plasma arc.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712