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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 04/10/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112b rejections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections by Severance (US 2011/0031224), Everett (2001/0007320), Cook (US 2016/0113102), and Hoffa (US 2013/0264317) have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 8, that Severance fails to disclose features disclosed in Applicant’s specification.
The office respectfully notes that the scope of the claim and the validity of the rejection of record is based upon the language presented in the claims, not in applicant’s specification. Any arguments directed towards an asserted failure to teach a feature in applicant’s specification, as opposed to the claim language presented, is moot.
Applicant asserts, page 9, that channel 53 of Severance fails to disclose the “at least one fluid channel disposed in the body …” of line 12-14a.
The office respectfully notes that the rejection of record relies upon channel 46 of Severance to discloses the cited limitation. Further, either of fluid passage 46 or the channel of fluid flow 53 could have been mapped to the instant limitation, as the scope of the instant limitation is broader than applicant’s asserted scope.
Applicant asserts, page 9, that Everett fails to teach the features asserted above, including fluid passages, in the context of Severance. The instant assertions are a piecemeal analysis of the rejection of record.
The office respectfully repeats the above responses of how Severance does disclose the features, and notes that the rejection of record does not rely upon Everett for the features relied upon from Severance.
The office further notes that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant asserts, page 10, that Cook fails to disclose the fluid passages fails to teach the features asserted above, including fluid passages, in the context of Severance. The instant assertions are a piecemeal analysis of the rejection of record.
The office respectfully repeats the above responses of how Severance does disclose the features, and notes that the rejection of record does not rely upon Everett for the features relied upon from Severance.
The office further notes that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant asserts, page 10-11, that Hoffa fails to disclose the fluid passages fails to teach the features asserted above, including fluid passages, in the context of Severance. The instant assertions are a piecemeal analysis of the rejection of record.
The office respectfully repeats the above responses of how Severance does disclose the features, and notes that the rejection of record does not rely upon Hoffa for the features relied upon from Severance.
The office further notes that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024, 09/05/2025, 09/09/2025, 03/06/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severance (US 2011/0031224) in view of Everett (US 2001/0007320) and Cook (US 2016/0113102).
Claim 1
Severance discloses:
“A consumable cartridge for a liquid-cooled plasma arc torch (Abstract; Fig2, torch 10), the consumable cartridge comprising:
a cartridge frame including:
a body (best seen Fig1/2, interior of torch 10 between main body 12 and nozzle 14) … , the body including a central longitudinal axis, a proximal portion and a distal portion (Fig1/2, central axis, proximal-right portion, distal-left portion);
a torch engagement interface surface (Fig2 annotated, first and second interface surfaces) located at the proximal portion of the body and configured to removably engage a torch head to the consumable cartridge (Fig2 annotated, first and second interface surfaces, see threading to show removable engagement), the torch engagement interface comprising at least one fluid opening (Fig1/2, fluid flow 53 channels) configured to be substantially aligned with a corresponding opening of the torch head upon engagement between the consumable cartridge and the torch head (alignment arrangement best seen Fig1/2); and
at least one fluid channel (Fig1/2, fluid passage 46) disposed in the body and extending between the proximal portion and the distal portion (alignment arrangement best seen Fig1/2), the at least one fluid channel in communication with the fluid opening on the torch engagement interface (Fig2, see flow arrows; Para28);
an electrode (Fig1/2, electrode 20) and a nozzle (Fig1/2, nozzle 14) coupled to the body of the cartridge frame (arrangement best seen Fig1/2; Para28); and
…”
PNG
media_image1.png
276
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Severance is silent to the application of an “electrically insulating material” and that of a shield as claimed.
Everett teaches (Fig1A, insulator body 16) that it is known in the art to form the torch cartridge body from as an electrically insulator body, and provides the advantage of electrical insulating the plasma torch body with the outer shell. Everett and Severance are in the same field of endeavor of plasma torches and are reasonably related to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Severance to apply the known in the art electrically insulator body as taught by Everett, as such a substitution would be one known in the art material selection for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Severance with a working and known electrically insulator body as taught by Everett.
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett is silent to the shield as claimed.
Cook teaches: “… a shield (Fig1a, shield 124) coupled to the distal portion of the body of the cartridge frame and disposed concentrically about the central longitudinal axis (arrangement best seen Fig1a/5, shield 124; Para41).” Everett, Severance, and Cook are in the same field of endeavor of plasma torches and are reasonably related to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett to apply the known in the art shield as taught by Cook, as such a shield provides the advantage of using a known in the art component alignment features to secure the lower torch assembly and to shield the nozzle, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett with a working and known torch shield and component alignment/securement features as taught by Cook.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid channel comprises a plurality of fluid channels located in the cartridge frame between the proximal portion and the distal portion (Severance: Fig1/2, see flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28).”
Claim 11
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 2, wherein the at least one fluid opening includes a plurality of fluid openings for conducting respective ones of a plurality of fluid flows in and out of the consumable cartridge (Severance: Fig1/2, see flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28).”
Claim 12
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 11, wherein the plurality of fluid openings are in fluid communication with respective ones of the plurality of fluid channels disposed in the cartridge frame (Severance: Fig1/2, see flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28), a longitudinal axis of each of the fluid channels being radially offset in relation to the central longitudinal axis of the cartridge frame (Severance: Fig1/2, radial offset of fluid channels).”
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 12, wherein the plurality of fluid channels comprises at least one of a first fluid channel configured to direct a liquid coolant flow to at least one of the nozzle (Severance: Fig1/2, see flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28; Abstract) or shield and a second fluid channel configured to a direct a shield gas flow to the shield (Everett: Para46, shielding gas 30 to shield).”
Claim 14
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 12, wherein the plurality of fluid channels comprises: a coolant supply channel, disposed in the body of the cartridge fame, configured to conduct a liquid coolant flow received from the torch head to contact at least one of the nozzle (Severance: Fig1/2, see coolant flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28; Abstract) or shield (Everett: Para46, shielding gas 30 to shield) coupled to the cartridge frame; and a coolant return channel, at least a portion of which disposed in the body of the cartridge frame (Severance: Fig1/2, see coolant flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28; Abstract), configured to conduct at least a portion of the liquid coolant flow from the at least one of the nozzle or shield to the torch head (Severance: Fig1/2, see coolant flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28; Abstract).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein the consumable cartridge, including the cartridge frame, the electrode, the nozzle and the shield, is replaceable as a single unit (Severance: Para24, consumable life; Fig1/2, torch 10 and main body 12 separate from nozzle 14, electrode 20 assembly and pieces 16 and holder 18 via threaded portion).”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein the electrode is at least partially surrounded by an interior surface of the nozzle (Severance: arrangement of electrode 20 best seen Fig1/2).”
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, further comprising: a jacket substantially surrounding the nozzle (Severance: Fig2, nozzle 14 surrounded by jacket); and a coolant flow chamber defined between an exterior surface of the nozzle and an interior surface of the jacket (Severance: Fig1/2, see coolant flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28; Abstract).”
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, further comprising: a liner (Severance: Fig 1, liner near reference character 50) located between the electrode and the nozzle and disposed within a hollow interior of the nozzle (Severance: Fig 1, liner near reference character 50 located between electrode 20 and nozzle 14); and a vent passage cooperatively defined by the nozzle and liner (Severance: Fig1/2, passage 38), the vent passage in fluid communication with a vent opening in the consumable cartridge (Severance: Fig2, see flow arrows).”
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid opening includes a shield gas opening for receiving a shield gas flow from the torch head (Everett: Para46, shielding gas 30 to shield) or a liquid coolant opening for receiving a liquid coolant flow from the torch head (Everett: Para14/60, passage 114 gas shielded or water injection).”
Claim 15
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein the cartridge frame comprises a central channel disposed about the central longitudinal axis of the cartridge frame (Severance: Fig1/2, channel 46), the central channel configured to perform at least one of (i) conduct a fluid flow from the torch head to the electrode (Severance: Fig1/2, channel 46; Para28) or (ii) pass an electrical current from the torch head to the electrode (Severance: Abstract; Fig12).”
Claim 16
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 15, wherein at least a portion of at least one of the electrode or nozzle is disposed in the central channel of the cartridge frame (Severance: Fig1/2, electrode 20, nozzle 14, channel 46).”
Claim 17
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein the torch engagement interface surface is configured to radially secure the consumable cartridge to the torch head in a predetermined orientation (Severance: see arrangement in Fig1/2).”
Claim 19
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid channel is one of a liquid coolant channel configured to supply a liquid coolant to the nozzle (Severance: Fig1/2, see flow arrows between channel 53/46, opening 26 and exit 28; Abstract) or a gas channel configured to supply a shield gas to the shield (Everett: Para46, shielding gas 30 to shield).”
Claim 20
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 1, wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one fluid channel is located radially offset relative to the central longitudinal axis of the body of the cartridge frame (Severance: Fig1/2, radial offset of fluid channels).”
Claim(s) 7-9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severance (US 2011/0031224) in view of Everett (US 2001/0007320) and Cook (US 2016/0113102), and in further view of Hoffa (US 2013/0264317)
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook is silent to the swirl ring as claimed.
Hoffa teaches: “… a swirl ring (Para60; Fig1, swirl ring 120) having a central opening with the electrode disposed therein (Para60; Fig1, electrode 105 within swirl ring 120), wherein the nozzle at least partially surrounds both the electrode and the swirl ring (Para60; Fig1, nozzle 110).” The swirl ring of Hoffa provides the advantage of causing the plasma gas flow to swirl. Everett, Severance, Cook, and Hoffa are in the same field of endeavor of plasma torches and are reasonably related to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook to apply the known in the swirl ring as taught by Hoffa, as such a swirl ring provides the advantage of causing the plasma gas flow to swirl, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook with a working and known swirl ring to swirl the plasma gas flow as taught by Hoffa.
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett, Cook, and Hoffa discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 7, further comprising an electrode insulator located in a hollow interior region of the nozzle and positioned between the electrode and the nozzle to electrically isolate the electrode and the nozzle from each other (limitation is within the scope of the modification discussed in the context of Claim 1. Everett: insulator body 16).”
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett, Cook, and Hoffa discloses: “The consumable cartridge of claim 8, wherein the electrode, the swirl ring, the electrode insulator and the nozzle are engaged to one another (Everett: insulator body 16; Hoffa: Para60; Fig1, swirl ring 120, electrode 105, nozzle 110 engagement) via one of press fit or snap fit (Hoffa: Para60).”
Claim 18
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook is silent to the RFID cavity as claimed.
Hoffa teaches: “a cavity disposed in the proximal portion of the cartridge frame, the cavity configured to house a radio- frequency identification (RFID) tag for communicating with a reader device of the torch head (Fig2, RFID tag 202; Para70/78/79).” Hoffa further teaches that this arrangement provides the advantage of setup information / operating parameters can be automatically programmed into the thermal processing system by the processor/controller for use. Everett, Severance, Cook, and Hoffa are in the same field of endeavor of plasma torches and are reasonably related to the problem of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook to apply the known in the application of the FRID tag as taught by Hoffa, as such an application of an RFID tag provides the advantage of setup information / operating parameters can be automatically programmed into the thermal processing system by the processor/controller for use, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Severance by the teachings of Everett and Cook with a working and known RFID tag to provide setup information / operating parameters can be automatically programmed into the thermal processing system by the processor/controller for use as taught by Hoffa.
Conclusion
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights