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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-15 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 channel" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the first channel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first cylinder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second cylinder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the arc between formed between" in line 3 which is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-15 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldberger et al (U.S. 3,247,014).
Regarding claim 1, Goldberger et al disclose a plasma generating apparatus (col. 1, line 10-15). The apparatus comprises
(1) a vessel 11 for containing solid material 10 and coupled to a gas line 13 (i.e., a chamber … a carrier gas line …, Figure, col. 3, line 46-51);
(2) electrodes 17 and 18 spaced apart and coupled to a vessel 20 to generate electric arc between the electrodes (i.e., an electrode assembly … a first electrode and a second electrode, … to form an arc … a plasma chamber …, Figure, col. 3, line 51-53 & col. 4, line 11-14);
(3) a passage within the electrode 18 for flowing the mixture of the solid material 10 and the gas 13 to the vessel 20 of the plasma generator 15, wherein a metering valve 12 controls the flow rate into the vessel 20 (i.e., a first channel … a controllable rate to the plasma chamber …, Figure, col.2, line 6-7, col. 3, line 46-54, & col. 4, line 33-35).
The metering valve 12 is fully capable of controlling the flow rate of the solid material 10 and the gas 13 to the vessel 20.
Regarding claim 3, Goldberger teaches that the solid material 10 and the gas 13 flow through an opening of the cylindrical electrode 18 (Figure)
Regarding claim 15, Goldberger teaches that a DC voltage is imposed on the electrodes for generating arc (Figure, col. 4,line11-13).
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 1-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberger et al (U.S. 3,247,014) in view of Doolette et al (U.S. 5,227,603).
Regarding claim 1, Goldberger et al disclose a plasma generating apparatus (col. 1, line 10-15). The apparatus comprises
(1) a vessel 11 for containing solid material 10 and coupled to a gas line 13 (i.e., a chamber … a carrier gas line …, Figure, col. 3, line 46-51);
(2) electrodes 17 and 18 spaced apart and coupled to a vessel 20 to generate electric arc between the electrodes (i.e., an electrode assembly … a first electrode and a second electrode, … to form an arc … a plasma chamber …, Figure, col. 3, line 51-53 & col. 4, line 11-14);
(3) a passage within the electrode 18 for flowing the mixture of the solid material 10 and the gas 13 to the vessel 20 of the plasma generator 15 (i.e., a first channel …, Figure, col. 3, line 46-54,).
Goldberger teaches that a metering valve 12 is provided to control the flow rate of the material into the vessel 20 (col.2, line 6-7, & col. 4, line 33-35), which appears to be capable of controlling the flow rate of the solid material 10 and the gas 13 to the vessel 20.
However, if Goldberger does not specifically teach to supply the solid material and the gas at a controllable rate, Doolette et al disclose a plasma generating apparatus (ABSTRACT). Doolette teaches that an electric arc is generated between electrodes 1 and 2/3/4 and a passage 5 within the electrode is for injecting solid material and gas, which is controlled by regulator means 8 for regulating the flow rate of the solid material and the gas to the plasma chamber for properly operating the system (Figure 1, col.46-50, col. 4, line 6-14, line 53-55, & col. 5, line 55-60).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to regulate the flow rate of the solid material and the gas as suggested by Doolette in order to properly operating the device of Goldberger.
Regarding claim 2, Doolette teaches that the electrode 1 and electrodes 2/3/4 are arranged co-axially for improving material treatment (Figure 1, col. 2, line 28-30, & col. 3,line 51-56). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to co-axially arrange the electrodes as suggested by Doolette in order to improve material treatment within the device of Goldberger.
Regarding claim 3, Goldberger teaches that the solid material 10 and the gas 13 flow through an opening of the cylindrical electrode 18 (Figure). Doolette teaches that the cylindrical passage 5 comprises an opening (Figure 1, col.4, line 6-8).
Regarding claim 4, Doolette teaches that an annular gap is formed between the electrode 1 and the electrode 2 (Figures 1-2, col. 3, line 53-55).
Regarding claim 5, Doolette teaches that the arc 14 is formed at the annular gap between the electrode 1 and the electrode 2 (Figure 2, col. 5, line 26-28). It should be noted that “a toroidal plasma” is not a structural limitation, rather a result of operating the device, which does not further limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 6, Doolette teaches that a gap is formed between the electrode 1 and the electrode 2 (Figures 1-2, col. 3, line 53-55).
Regarding claim 7, Goldberger teaches that the solid material 10 and the gas 13 are directed to a centra area of the vessel 20 (Figure, col. 3, line 49-61). It should be noted that “the toroidal plasma” is not a structural limitation, rather a result of operating the device, which does not further limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 8, Doolette teaches that end portion of the passage 5 is within a central area of the annular gap (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Goldberger teaches that the electrodes 17 and 18 comprise conical ends (Figure). Doolette teaches that the electrode 1 is conical form (Figure 1-2, col. 3, line 46-48). Moreover, it has been held that, without persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant; a change in shape is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144). Therefore, having a channel with a conical end is within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Goldberger teaches that the electrodes 17 and 18 comprise conical ends (Figure). Doolette teaches that the electrode 1 is conical form (Figure 1-2, col. 3, line 46-48). Moreover, it has been held that, without persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant; a change in shape is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144). Therefore, having beveled electrode is within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Goldberger teaches that the electrodes 17 and 18 comprise conical ends (Figure). Doolette teaches that the electrode 1 is conical form (Figure 1-2, col. 3, line 46-48). Moreover, it has been held that, without persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant; a change in shape is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144). Therefore, having beveled electrode is within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Goldberger teaches that electrode 17 is movable (Figure, col. 3, line 53-55). Doolette teaches that the electrodes may be consumable and is replenished (col. 3,line 56-59). Moreover, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA1954).
Regarding claim 13, Goldberger teaches that a secondary gas stream is directed to the vessel through a distribution plate 26 (Figure, col. 4, line 1-2). Doolette teaches that additional gas passages 9 and 10 may be provided (Figure 1, col. 4, line 15-22).
Regarding claim 15, Goldberger teaches that a DC voltage is imposed on the electrodes for generating arc (Figure, col. 4,line11-13).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberger et al (U.S. 3,247,014) and Doolette et al (U.S. 5,227,603) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoermann et al (PB-PUB US 2015/0223314).
Regarding claim 14, Goldberger teaches that the electrode 18 is an anode and the electrode 17 is a cathode (col. 4, line 65-66, & col. 6, line 61-62). Doolette teaches that the electrodes (e.g., cathode and anodes) may be consumable (col. 3, line 45-57), but Goldberger/Doolette does not teach the electrode/cathode/anode as being graphite electrodes. However, Hoermann et al disclose a plasma generating apparatus (ABSTRACT). Hoermann teaches that an electric arc 110 is generated between an inner electrode 108 and an outer 107, wherein the electrodes are consumable material comprising graphite for high thermal conductivity with low cost (Figure 1, paragraphs [0014], [0025], & [0035]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize graphite electrodes as suggested by Hoermann in order for the electrodes to high thermal conductivity with low cost within the device of Goldberger/Doolette.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected. Claims 16-35 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights