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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 39 i objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 39 improperly depends on rejected claim 21. The claim should properly depend from claim 20. . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “wherein the primary body of the helical plate is in the shape of a loop and makes substantially a single rotation or turn between the first leg and the second leg of the helical plate.” It is unclear what “substantially a single rotation or turn” means. For purposes of examination, it is understood that it is in the shape of a loop and makes a (continuous) turn from the first leg to the second leg.
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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the limitation is not disclosed by the reference]
Claims) 1, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morrisroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0255711).
Regarding claim 1, Morrisroe discloses an induction device (Morrisroe, figs. 1-5¶0003, torch; ¶0055, torches …herein can be used to sustain a plasma… one or more types of induction devices) comprising: a helical structure (Morrisroe, ¶55, One or more types of induction devices, eg., a helical induction coil, a flat plate electrode or other suitable devices”) comprising a first aperture(Fig. 7, aperture through coils); and a non-helical structure (Morrisroe, ¶55, One or more types of induction devices, eg., a helical induction coil, a flat plate electrode or other suitable devices”)comprising a second aperture (Fig. 6, aperture through coils),
However, Morrisroe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second apertures define a passageway that is configured to receive a portion of a body of an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) torch , and wherein the passageway defines a longitudinal axis. However, as noted above, Morrisroe does disclose that more than one of these types of induction devices may be used to generate the plasma. Thus, looking at Fig. 5 and 6, showing the helical structure and the non-helical (flat plate) structure, respectively, it would be obvious to have these structure adjacent to each other for creating a better, symmetrical and better controlled plasma, and “wherein the first and second apertures define a passageway that is configured to receive a portion of a body of an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) torch, and wherein the passageway defines a longitudinal axis”, as this is how the structures would obviously be lined up adjacent to each other, with the plasma being generated through them along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 5 & 6, plasma 560 and 660 along the axis).
Regarding claim 16, Morrisroe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction device wherein the helical structure comprises a coil (Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280, the coil in the helical structure is combined with the plate in the combination above).
Claims 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 39, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morrisroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0255711; herein after “Morrisroe”) in view of Morrisroe ‘280 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0085250; herein after “Morrisroe ‘280”).
Regarding claim 2, Morrisroe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction device wherein a non-helical structure comprises a flat plate, but does not further explicitly disclose an induction device wherein the helical structure comprises a helical plate.
Now, Morrisroe ‘280, in his induction plasma torch, teaches a 3-turn flat plate electrode (Morrisroe ‘280, fig. 24). Now, in Morrisroe ‘280, in Example 1 (Morrisroe ‘280, ¶69), a plate induction coil allowed for better cooling, while in Example 2 (Morrisroe ‘280, ¶0070, figs. 22, 23), the plate electrodes allowed for a more substantially symmetrical plasma discharge, and in Example 3 (Morrisroe, ¶72-81) teaches how turns and spacers in induction devices that affect the plasma (as demonstrated in Morrisroe ‘280 ¶83-89, figs. 25- 31). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modified Morrisroe with the teachings of Morrisroe ‘280, in light of Morrisroe ‘280, having the advantages of the flat plate with the coiled spacers, to have a “helical structure compris[ing] a helical plate” such as in fig. 24, a 3-turn induction device, but looped in a coil, added to the teachings of Morrisroe, who teaches having both a helical structure and a flat plate structure for generating plasma (through his helical structure is only a helical coil), to have both a helical plate and a flat plate structures, in order to better control the desired plasma, to have it symmetrical, and to have cooler electrodes, which will less likely lead to failure.
Regarding claim 3, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches a device wherein the helical plate comprises a primary body including the first aperture and first and second legs extending away from the primary body, and wherein the flat plate comprises a primary body including the second aperture and first and second legs extending away from the primary body (Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280, seeing the legs extend from fig. 24, for instance, for the helical plate, and the legs of the flat plate of in Morrisroe ‘280, figs. 7, 8, from one of the flat plate electrodes, for instance, and the aperture extends through the center of each to make an axis for the plasma)
Regarding claim 4, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches a device wherein the first leg of the helical plate and the flat plate are spaced apart axially a first distance, wherein the second leg of the helical plate and the flat plate are spaced apart axially a second distance, and wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280, it can be seen that the distance between the legs and the legs themselves are offset, fig. 7,8, it would depend on what was considered the first leg and the second leg, to work out these distance, but they could be designated to meet the limitations of the claim, just that instead of two flat plate electrodes as in figs. 7-8, one of them would be replaced with a helical plate electrode with the footprint of fig. 24, and the designation would allow for the distances as claimed.).
Regarding claim 5, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as above, and further teaches a device wherein the first distance is the smallest gap between the helical plate and the flat plate and the second distance is the largest gap between the helical plate and the flat plate (Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280, it can be seen that the distance between the legs and the legs themselves are offset, fig. 7,8, it would depend on what was considered the first leg and the second leg, to work out these distance, but they could be designated to meet the limitations of the claim, just that instead of two flat plate electrodes as in figs. 7-8, one of them would be replaced with a helical plate electrode with the footprint of fig. 24, and the designation would allow for the distances as claimed.).
Regarding claim 6, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the first distance is 2 to 3 mm and the second distance is 5 to 6 mm. However, Morrisroe ‘280, in his plasma generation device, teaches a distance L between two plate electrodes of between 1mm and 5 cm (Morrisroe ‘280, ¶0055). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to modify Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280, with a further teaching of Morrisroe ‘280, to have conventional distances between the first and second induction flat plate/helical electrodes, in order to generate plasma in a conventional way, and the feet of these flat electrodes would meet the claim according to the size of the electrodes used, and this all falls well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art, when seeking to work with and control the generated plasma.
Regarding claim 7, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the first leg of the helical plate is axially aligned with the second leg of the flat plate, and wherein the second leg of the helical plate is laterally offset from the flat plate relative to the longitudinal axis. However, it can be seen how in Morrisroe ‘280, figs. 7-8 how the legs of the flat plates are axially aligned with each other, and so it would be with the first leg of each, but with the flat helical electrode, being larger, as in fig. 24, it would require that the supporting leg would be offset from the first plate relative to the longitudinal axis in order to maintains stability with all of its flat helical curves)
Regarding claim 8, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the second leg of the helical plate and the first leg of the flat plate are each configured to be supplied with radio-frequency electric current, and wherein the first leg of the helical plate and the second leg of the flat plate are configured to be connected to ground. However, Morrisroe ‘280 does teach grounding the electrode plate in order to keep control and to keep the device safer (Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280, This is obvious in view of the combination above, in order to make the device stable with two electrodes, ¶¶0004, 0053, “In accordance with certain examples, one part 176 of the electrode 152 may be supplied with the RF power while a second part 178 of the electrode 152 may be tied to a ground 174. In some examples, the electrode may be grounded to the instrument chassis, whereas in other examples, the electrode may be mounted and grounded to a grounding plate, which itself may be grounded in a suitable manner”). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to ensure a safe environment for the electrodes and have them be grounded, as with the electrodes in Morrisroe ‘280, in order to hook up the device in a conventional and safe way.
Regarding claim 9, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a device further comprising a spacer between the first leg of the helical plate and the second leg of the flat plate, wherein the spacer contacts each of the first leg of the helical plate and the second leg of the flat plate. However, Morrisroe ‘280 does teach having spacers between the spacings of the electrodes in order to ensure the plates are separate, and also to control the spacing in order to control the plasma generation (Morrisroe ‘280, ¶72-81, spacers) and thus the different amount of turns and spacings would control the plasma generated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 with further teachings of Morrisroe ‘280, to have a spacers in between the coils and between the plate electrodes, in order to control the turns and spacings of the plasma generation in a conventional way and achieve the expected plasma generation.
Regarding claim 13, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches a device wherein the primary body of the helical plate is in the shape of a loop and makes substantially a single rotation or turn between the first leg and the second leg of the helical plate (Morrisroe, Fig. 5, helical is turning and could be considered a single turn wrapped around).
Regarding claim 14, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the helical plate and the flat plate each have a thickness of about 2 mm. However, Morrisroe ‘280 further teaches having plate thicknesses that meets the claim (Morrisroe ‘280, ¶0049, thickness of plate from about “0.5mm to about 5 mm”). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 with the further teaching of Morrisroe ‘280, in order to have the plate be a typical thickness to generate plasma and to have it be able to be controlled according to a conventional manner.
Regarding claim 15, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the helical plate has a pitch of 4 to 6 mm per rotation. This means that there is 4-6 mm between the helical plates, as each rotation moves forward 4-6 mm. However, it is noted that in Morrisroe ‘280, in his plasma generation device, teaches a distance L between two plate electrodes of between 1mm and 5 cm (Morrisroe ‘280, ¶0055). And thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 with a further teachings of Morrisroe ‘280, to have the plates of the helical plate be distanced from each other as claimed, as is taught is within the range of Morrisroe ‘280 as the distance between the plates, as this would all an equal distance from the plate electrode to the helical. electrode and then all the plates of the helical electrode would be the same distance as well (all the distances would be the same).
Regarding claim 18, Morrisroe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the helical structure and/or the non-helical structure are formed of aluminum. However, Morrisroe ‘280 teaches, in his plasma generating induction device, that the electrodes may be made of aluminum (Morrisroe ‘280, ¶50, aluminum). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Morrisroe with the teachings of Morrisroe ‘280, to use a conventional metal for the electrode, as claimed, in order to use a conventional method of using such electrodes in a conventional way, in order to achieve the predictable result of generating plasma
19. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 20, Morrisroe discloses an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) torch (Morrisroe, fig. 1, ¶15) comprising: an injector (fig. 7, injector 710), configured to receive a flow of a sample fluid (¶0059, introduction of liquid into chamber); a plurality of tubes disposed about the injector and configured to receive and direct a flow of one or more torch gases; and an induction device disposed about at least one of the plurality of tubes (fig. 4, an inner and outer tube), the induction device configured to receive a radio-frequency electric current to inductively energize at least one of the one or more torch gases to produce a plasma proximate a distal end of the ICP torch (Morrisroe, ¶0057), wherein the induction device comprises: a helical structure comprising a first aperture (Morrisroe, ¶0055, “One or more types of induction devices, e.g., a helical induction coil, flat plate electrodes or other suitable devices can be used to sustain the plasm”, aperture through the center of the coils); and a non-helical structure comprising a second aperture ((Morrisroe, ¶0055, “One or more types of induction devices, e.g., a helical induction coil, flat plate electrodes or other suitable devices can be used to sustain the plasm”, apertures through the middle, ¶0058, fig. 6, apertures through the middle), but Morrisroe does not disclose wherein the first and second apertures define a passageway that is configured to receive the at least one of the plurality of tubes, and wherein the passageway defines a longitudinal axis.
However, while in his disclosure Morrisroe discloses that at least one helical electrode and one flat electrode may work together to produce plasma (Morrisroe, ¶55) the actual embodiments of the invention do not. Here, the at least one tube is passing through the two electrode plates (fig. 6). Thus, looking at Fig. 5 and 6, showing the helical structure (fig. 5) and the non-helical (flat plate) structure (fig. 6), and how they would be oriented if next to each other, similar to how the electrode plates are in fig. 5, it would be obvious to have these structure adjacent to each other for creating a better, symmetrical and better controlled plasma, and “wherein the first and second apertures define a passageway that is configured to receive the at least one of the plurality of tubes of an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) torch, and wherein the passageway defines a longitudinal axis”, as this is how the structures would obviously be lined up adjacent to each other, with the plasma being generated through them along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 5 & 6, plasma 560 and 660 along the axis).
Regarding claim 39, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim [[21]]20, as above, and further teaches a torch wherein the plurality of tubes comprise: an intermediate tube disposed about the injector, wherein the injector and the intermediate tube define an auxiliary gas passage configured to receive a flow of an auxiliary gas; and a plasma tube disposed about the intermediate tube, wherein the intermediate tube and the plasma tube define a plasma gas passage configured to receive a flow of a plasma gas (see fig. 4, the gas and the auxiliary gas go through inner and outer tubes, ¶¶0046, 0055).
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morrisroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0255711; herein after “Morrisroe”) in view of Morrisroe ‘280 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0085250; herein after “Morrisroe ‘280”) and further in view of Morrisroe ‘992 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0038992).
Regarding claim 40, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 39, as above, but does not further teach a torch wherein a maximum axial gap between a distal end of the intermediate tube and the helical plate is 4.9 to 5.1 mm. However, as can be seen in Morrisroe fig. 5, the distal end of the intermediate tube 520 is an axial distance from the helical structure 550, and the injector 530 is a certain axial distance from the distal end of the intermediate tube 520 (Morrisroe ‘280 has this as well in fig. 3). However, these distance are not specified within the references. However, in a comparable reference, Morrisroe ‘992 teaches that the distance L between the electrode plates is between 1 mm to about 5 cm (Morrisroe ‘992, fig. 4, ¶55), and given that the distances between the distal end of the injector 146 (in Morrisroe ‘992, fig. 3), the distal end of the intermediate tube 150 and the and the electrode structure are apparent but not specified, it can be seen from Morrisroe ‘992, figs. 4 and 5, that these distances are smaller than distance L. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for an operator using Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 have the claimed distances be present in the invention, as he would look to Morrisroe ‘992 for the dimensions, and keeping within the dimensions as taught in Morrisroe ‘992, the combined invention would meet the claim, here, “a maximum axial gap between a distal end of the intermediate tube and the helical plate is 4.9 to 5.1 mm” (as the gap would only have to be less than this), using the conventional method of spacing the injector, the intermediate tube, and the electrode.
Regarding claim 41, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 39, as above, but does not further teach a torch wherein an axial gap between a distal end of the injector and a distal end of the intermediate tube is 2 to 3 mm. However, as can be seen in Morrisroe fig. 5, the distal end of the intermediate tube 520 is an axial distance from the helical structure 550, and the injector 530 is a certain axial distance from the distal end of the intermediate tube 520 (Morrisroe ‘280 has this as well in fig. 3). However, these distance are not specified within the references. However, in a comparable reference, Morrisroe ‘992 teaches that the distance L between the electrode plates is between 1 mm to about 5 cm (Morrisroe ‘992, fig. 4, ¶55), and given that the distances between the distal end of the injector 146 (in Morrisroe ‘992, fig. 3), the distal end of the intermediate tube 150 and the and the electrode structure are apparent but not specified, it can be seen from Morrisroe ‘992, figs. 4 and 5, that these distances are smaller than distance L. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for an operator using Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 have the claimed distances be present in the invention, as he would look to Morrisroe ‘992 for the dimensions, and keeping within the dimensions as taught in Morrisroe ‘992, the combined invention would meet the claim, here, “an axial gap between a distal end of the injector and a distal end of the intermediate tube is 2 to 3 mm”, using the conventional method of spacing the injector, the intermediate tube, and the electrode.
Claims 11-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morrisroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0255711; herein after “Morrisroe”) in view of Morrisroe ‘280 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0085250; herein after “Morrisroe ‘280”) and further in view of Raaijmakers (U.S. Patent Application Publication).
Regarding claim 11, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a device further comprising an electrode connected to each of the second leg of the helical plate (1), the first leg of the flat plate (2), and the second leg of the flat plate (3). However, Raajimakers teaches, in his method for generating plasma, when he has the helical coil connected to the flat plate, electrical connections at 3 points so that the current can transfer between the helical structure and the flat structure (Raajimakers, fig. 6, see below). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280, with the teachings of Raajimakers, to have electrical connections, electrodes, in three locations, at the first foot of the flat electrode, at the second foot of the flat electrode (which is connected to the first foot of the helical structure) and then an electrode at the second foot of the helical structure to complete the circuit, and this would have been a conventional method to have the current move through the electrodes, achieve the expected result of plasma generation.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Morrisroe in view of Morrisroe ‘280 teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a device further comprising a conductive plate to which the helical plate and flat plate are coupled, wherein the electrodes and the conductive plate are configured as a heat sink to promote cooling of the helical plate and flat plate (Morrisroe ‘280 already teaches that the nature of the flat plate and the connection, see rejection of claim 1, above, allows for more cooling as it can draw away the heat and spread it around).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights