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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to because (3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. Fig. 4 mixture 410 is shown in a cloud bubble in the middle of the apparatus and is white instead of the required black ink.
The drawings are also objected to because (n) Symbols. Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate. The elements for which such symbols and labeled representations are used must be adequately identified in the specification. Known devices should be illustrated by symbols which have a universally recognized conventional meaning and are generally accepted in the art. Other symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable. Fig. 4 mixture 410 is shown in a cloud bubble in the middle of the apparatus and one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret such a cloud bubble to be a computer, computer system, or network.
The drawings are objected also objected to because cross-sections are required to utilize hatchings to show materials, see 37CFR1.84 (h)(3). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the language of claim 16 which recites a set of shower holes disposed about the inner orifice must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) because the drawings show the cross sections of the primary and auxiliary passages to be of the . No new matter should be entered.
an inner orifice and a set of shower holes disposed about the inner orifice
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7, 32, 33, and 34 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 32, the examiner finds no motivation to modify the prior art to include directing the second portion of the auxiliary fluid in a reverse direction, aka axially opposite, of the first fluid flow passage.
Regarding claims 3 and 33, the examiner finds no motivation to modify the prior art to include the second fluid flow passage is angled between about 15 degrees and about 75 degrees in relation to the first fluid flow passage.
Regarding claims 7 and 34, the examiner finds no motivation to modify the prior art to include at least one vent passage is oriented substantially perpendicular to the primary passage.
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 1-35 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.
The terms “substantially” and “about” in claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 31, 33, and 34 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “substantially” and “about” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-17 and 32-35 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “the set of at least one auxiliary passage includes at least three distinct auxiliary passages circumferentially disposed about the primary passage in the nozzle body” is unclear if each of the set of auxiliary passages includes three district auxiliary passages or if the total auxiliary passages between the two at least one auxiliary passage is greater than three? The interpretation is that there are a set of at least one auxiliary passages.
Regarding claims 9 and 35, the recitation of wherein the at least one vent passage is fluidly isolated from the first fluid flow passage is unclear because first and second and vent are fluidly connected to each other, therefore they are all fluidly connected. The examiner interprets this as wherein the at least one vent passage is structurally isolated from the first fluid flow passage meaning they are physically not the same passage.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 depends on claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 31, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US11135675B2 Bea.
Regarding claim 1,
Bea teaches,
A nozzle (cutting gas nozzle 1 and 1’ fig. 1b) for a laser processing head (laser machining head 2) for processing a workpiece, the nozzle comprising:
a primary passage disposed in a body of the nozzle, the primary passage (the space between entry 15 and central opening 100 fig. 1b) configured to direct a laser beam (laser beam 3) and a primary fluid (cutting gas) from a proximal end (entry 15) of the body to a distal end (opening 100) of the body to process the workpiece (column 6 lines 9 through 27);
and a set of at least one auxiliary passage (connection opening 16 and annular gap 11) disposed in the body of the nozzle and radially offset from a longitudinal axis of the primary passage (fig. 1b), a distal portion of the at least one auxiliary passage diverts into two fluid flow passages including: a first fluid flow passage (connection openings 16 and annular gap 11) configured to direct a first portion of an auxiliary fluid axially forward toward the distal end of the nozzle body to substantially shroud the laser beam emerging from the primary passage (column 6 lines 9 through 27);
and a second fluid flow passage (see annotated fig. 1b below) configured to direct a second portion of the auxiliary fluid radially inward to mix with the primary fluid in the primary passage (see annotated fig. 1b below, column 6 lines 9 through 44).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 1 (As discussed above), wherein the at least one auxiliary passage has a rectangular cross section (fig. 1b, the cross section as shown for connection openings 16 has a rectangular shape and is truncated by valve seat 14; It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 6,
Bea teaches, figs. 6a through 6d being various modifications to sleeve 10 usable in the embodiment of fig. 1b (column 11 lines 9 through 30).
The nozzle of claim 1 (As discussed above), further comprising a set of at least one vent passage (bores 34 and thin bores 36) extending outward from the primary passage to fluidly connect the primary passage to atmosphere (figs. 6b and 6d)(column 11 lines 47 through 58).
Regarding claims 7 and 34,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 6 (As discussed above), wherein the at least one vent passage is oriented substantially perpendicular to at least one of the primary passage or the first fluid flow passage of the at least one auxiliary passage (figs. 6b and 6d).
Regarding claim 8,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 6 (As discussed above), wherein the at least one vent passage is at a location axially distal relative to the second fluid flow passage (fig. 1b, as bores 34 and thin bores 36 are part of valve sleeve 10 per figs. 6b and 6d, they are axially distal relative to the second fluid flow passage as shown in fig. 1b).
Regarding claims 9 and 35, see 112(b) above,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 6 (As discussed above), wherein the at least one vent passage is fluidly isolated from the first fluid flow passage (fig. 1b shows sleeve 10 being a separate component from external nozzle body 5a and inner nozzle body 5b where external nozzle body 5a contains connection openings 16 and is therefore also separate from bores 34 and thin bores 36 which are part of valve sleeve 10).
Regarding claim 10,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 1 (As discussed above), wherein the nozzle is a double nozzle including an inner body (external nozzle body 5a) and an outer body (inner nozzle body 5b), wherein (i) the inner body includes the second fluid flow passage (see fig. 1b) and (ii) the outer body, in cooperation with the inner body, define the first fluid flow passage (see fig. 1b, 5b is in cooperation with valve sleeve 10 and external nozzle body 5a which defines a part of first fluid flow passage annular gap 11).
Regarding claim 11,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 10 (As discussed above), wherein the nozzle is a triple nozzle that further comprises an insert (valve sleeve 10) disposed within the inner body (fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 12,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 1 (As discussed above),wherein the primary fluid and the auxiliary fluid are gases (claims 1, 2, and 3, column 4 lines 66-67 and column 5 lines 1-4 teach flowing cutting gas).
Regarding claim 15,
Bea teaches,
The nozzle of claim 1 (As discussed above), further comprising an insert (valve stem 10) disposed in the primary passage proximate to the proximal end of the body of the nozzle (fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 31,
Bea teaches,
A nozzle (cutting gas nozzle 1 and 1’ fig. 1b) for a laser processing head (laser machining head 2) for processing a workpiece, the nozzle comprising:
a primary passage disposed in a body of the nozzle, the primary passage (the space between entry 15 and central opening 100 fig. 1b) configured to direct a laser beam (laser beam 3) and a primary fluid (cutting gas) from a proximal end (entry 15) of the body to a distal end (opening 100) of the body to process the workpiece (column 6 lines 9 through 27);
a set of at least one auxiliary passage (connection opening 16 and annular gap 11) disposed in the body of the nozzle (fig. 1b), a distal portion of the at least one auxiliary passage configured to divert into two fluid flow passages including: a first fluid flow passage (connection openings 16 and annular gap 11) configured to direct a first portion of an auxiliary fluid in an axially forward direction toward the distal end of the nozzle body to substantially shroud the laser beam emerging from the primary passage (column 6 lines 9 through 27);
and a second fluid flow passage (see annotated fig. 1b below) configured to direct a second portion of the auxiliary fluid toward the primary passage to mix with the primary fluid in the primary passage (see annotated fig. 1b below, column 6 lines 9 through 44); and a set of at least one vent passage (figs. 6a through 6d being various modifications to sleeve 10 usable in the embodiment of fig. 1b per column 11 lines 9 through 30 and therefore bores 34 and thin bores 36) extending outward from the primary passage to fluidly connect the primary passage to atmosphere (figs. 6b and 6d)(column 11 lines 47 through 58).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11135675B2 Bea in view of US11465237B2 Opitz.
Regarding claim 4,
Bea teaches, The nozzle of claim 1.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bea does not teach: wherein the set of at least one auxiliary passage includes at least three distinct auxiliary passages circumferentially disposed about the primary passage in the nozzle body.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Opitz teaches a nozzle (gas channel system 300 fig. 3) with auxiliary passages and the set of at least one auxiliary passage (see annotated fig. 3 below) includes at least three distinct auxiliary passages circumferentially disposed about the primary passage in the nozzle body (see annotated fig. 3 below).
Therefore, the use of at least three distinct auxiliary passages circumferentially disposed about the primary passage in the nozzle body would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bea with the gas channel design of Opitz for the purpose of directing gas flow for debris removal (column 1 lines 23 through 52).
PNG
media_image2.png
673
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11135675B2 Bea
Regarding claim 13,
Bea teaches, The nozzle of claim 1.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bea does not teach: wherein the primary passage has a cross-sectional area of between 0.78 mm2 and 19.6 mm2, and the auxiliary passage has a cross-sectional area of between 5.5 mm2 and 40 mm2.
Bea does teach a nozzle 6 that is set to coverage to valve seat 14 to create a variable gap where nozzle opening 25 with a cross sectional area is located in fig. 1b.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of adjusting a flow rate and location of a gas.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by adjusting the nozzle opening of Bea.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of adjusting the nozzle opening of Bea to maintain a cross-sectional area of between 0.78 mm2 and 19.6 mm2, and the auxiliary passage has a cross-sectional area of between 5.5 mm2 and 40 mm2
The results would have been predictable, and since Bea teaches adjusting a flow rate and location of a gas to be of a desired location and amount to facilitate cutting of different workpiece thicknesses (Bea column 5 lines 63 through 67 and column 6 lines 1 through 27).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, applicant has not disclosed that a cross-sectional area of between 0.78 mm2 and 19.6 mm2, and the auxiliary passage has a cross-sectional area of between 5.5 mm2 and 40 mm2 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the nozzle 6 that is set to coverage to valve seat 14 to create a variable gap where nozzle opening 25 with a cross sectional area is located in fig. 1b as taught by Bea, because it provides for adjusting a flow rate and location of a gas to be of a desired location and amount to facilitate cutting of different workpiece thicknesses (Bea column 5 lines 63 through 67 and column 6 lines 1 through 27) and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Bea.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Bea to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s).
Regarding claim 14,
Bea teaches, The nozzle of claim 1.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bea does not teach: wherein a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the primary passage to a cross-sectional area of the auxiliary passage is less than about 8.
Bea does teach a nozzle 6 that is set to coverage to valve seat 14 to create a variable gap where nozzle opening 25 with a cross sectional area is located in fig. 1b.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of adjusting a flow rate and location of a gas.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by adjusting the nozzle opening of Bea.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of adjusting the nozzle opening of Bea to maintain wherein a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the primary passage to a cross-sectional area of the auxiliary passage is less than about 8.
The results would have been predictable, and since Bea teaches adjusting a flow rate and location of a gas to be of a desired location and amount to facilitate cutting of different workpiece thicknesses (Bea column 5 lines 63 through 67 and column 6 lines 1 through 27).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, applicant has not disclosed that wherein a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the primary passage to a cross-sectional area of the auxiliary passage is less than about 8 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the nozzle 6 that is set to coverage to valve seat 14 to create a variable gap where nozzle opening 25 with a cross sectional area is located in fig. 1b as taught by Bea, because it provides for adjusting a flow rate and location of a gas to be of a desired location and amount to facilitate cutting of different workpiece thicknesses (Bea column 5 lines 63 through 67 and column 6 lines 1 through 27) and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Bea.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Bea to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s).
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11135675B2 Bea in view of US5477026A Buongiorno.
Regarding claim 16,
Bea teaches, The nozzle of claim 15.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bea does not teach: wherein the insert comprises at least one foot, an inner orifice and a set of shower holes disposed about the inner orifice.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Buongiorno teaches a nozzle apparatus 10 with auxiliary passages 36 the insert (tip 18) comprises at least one foot (threads 27 act as a foot to hold tip 18 column 4 lines 48 through 65), an inner orifice (front surface 53 fig. 3) and a set of shower holes (passages 51) disposed about the inner orifice (fig. 3).
Therefore, the use of an inner orifice and a set of shower holes disposed about the inner orifice would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to exchange the valve sleeve 10 of Bea with the tip 18 Buongiorno for the purpose to flow gas onto a working area to shield said working area and cool the tip to also increase the tips working life (Buongiorno column 5 lines 45 through 55).
Regarding claim 17,
Bea teaches, The nozzle of claim 16, further comprising a mixing chamber disposed in the primary passage between the inner orifice of the insert and an exit orifice of the nozzle (See annotated fig. 1b below).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bea does not teach: further comprising a mixing chamber disposed in the primary passage between the inner orifice of the insert and an exit orifice of the nozzle as disclosed in claim 16 and 15 of the instant application, and further does not teach wherein the mixing chamber is in fluid communication with the first fluid flow passage of the auxiliary passage.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Buongiorno teaches a nozzle apparatus 10 with auxiliary passages 36 with an insert (tip 18), and an inner orifice (front surface 53 fig. 3) and further teaches a mixing chamber disposed in the primary passage between the inner orifice of the insert and an exit orifice of the nozzle (see annotated fig. 1 below), wherein the mixing chamber is in fluid communication with the first fluid flow passage of the auxiliary passage (see annotated fig. 1 below).
Therefore, the use of a mixing chamber disposed in the primary passage between the inner orifice of the insert and an exit orifice of the nozzle as disclosed in claim 16 and 15 of the instant application, and further does not teach wherein the mixing chamber is in fluid communication with the first fluid flow passage of the auxiliary passage would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to exchange the valve sleeve 10 of Bea with the tip 18 of Buongiorno for the purpose to flow gas onto a working area to shield said working area and cool the tip to also increase the tips working life (Buongiorno column 5 lines 45 through 55).
PNG
media_image3.png
734
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
777
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18
Bea teaches, The nozzle of claim 18 which is interpreted by the examiner to be of claim 17.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Bea does not teach: further comprising a vent chamber located between the mixing chamber and the exit orifice, the vent chamber having a smaller volume than that of the mixing chamber.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Buongiorno Specifically, Buongiorno teaches a nozzle apparatus 10 with auxiliary passages 36 with an insert (tip 18), and an inner orifice (front surface 53 fig. 3) and further teaches a vent chamber located between the mixing chamber and the exit orifice, the vent chamber having a smaller volume than that of the mixing chamber (see annotated fig. 1 below where the vent chamber is the lower part of the space between narrow front opening 56 and outlet opening 23).
Therefore, the use of a vent chamber located between the mixing chamber and the exit orifice, the vent chamber having a smaller volume than that of the mixing chamber would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to exchange the valve sleeve 10 of Bea with the tip 18 of Buongiorno for the purpose to flow gas onto a working area to shield said working area and cool the tip to also increase the tips working life (Buongiorno column 5 lines 45 through 55).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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 at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights