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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-6,9,13,17,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese document (CN 111577304) in view of WO document ‘695 (WO 2020/097695) and WO document (WO 98/07960).
Chinese document ‘304 discloses a plasma drilling machine comprising:
a cutting head (2);
a plurality of plasma torches (21) on the cutting head;
a plurality of nozzles (18) on the cutting head to provide a stream to cool an area of
earth. CN document ‘304 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, CN document ‘304 is silent about providing the stream to cool an area of earth while the plasma torches are active; a plurality of vacuum inlets; and a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of spoils.
WO document ‘695 teaches to use plasma torches and air/water nozzles on a head to direct a stream from the head to impact an area of the earth to cool the area of the earth while the plasma torches are active to create a temperature delta to improve an effect of the plasma torches (see para 0060 of WO ‘695).
WO document ‘960 teaches a plurality of vacuum inlets (83, Fig. 25); and
a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of
spoils (92, Fig. 28).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chinese document ‘304 to have the plurality of nozzles on the cutting head provide a stream to cool the area of the earth while the plasma torches are active as taught by WO document ‘695 since such a modification facilitates fracturing by creating internal thermal stress to the earth.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chinese document ‘304 to include
a plurality of vacuum inlets; and a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of spoils as taught by WO document ‘960 since such a modification facilitates the removal of the spoils.
Re claim 4, the nozzles comprise a high pressure air jet nozzle to direct a stream of air
(see para 0060 of WO ‘695).
Re claim 5, the nozzle comprises a high pressure water jet nozzle to direct the stream.
(see para 0060 of WO ‘695).
Re claim 6, wherein the stream comprises one of: water and steam (see Chinese document ‘304 translation; para 0060 of WO ‘695).
Re claim 9, wherein one or more of the vacuum inlets are at a base of the cutting head (see Fig. 28 of WO document ‘960).
With regards to claim 13, CN document ‘304 lacks start/stop-valves for at least a subset of the plurality of nozzles. Start/stop valves for nozzles are well known and old; therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify CN document ‘304 (as modified above) to include rapid start/stop-valves for at least a subset of the plurality of nozzles to yield the desired cutting operation.
With regards to claims 17,20, the recited method steps are considered obvious in view of the combination of references above.
Claim(s) 1,4-6,9,13,17,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese document (CN 111577304) in view of Frankle et al. (US 4066137) and WO document (WO 98/07960).
Chinese document ‘304 discloses a plasma drilling machine comprising:
a cutting head (2);
a plurality of plasma torches (21) on the cutting head;
a plurality of nozzles (18) on the cutting head to provide a stream to cool an area of
earth. CN document ‘304 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, CN document ‘304 is silent about providing the stream to cool an area of earth while the plasma torches are active; a plurality of vacuum inlets; and a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of spoils.
Frankle et al. teach to use plasma torches and air/water nozzles on a head to direct a stream from the head to impact an area of the earth to cool the area of the earth while the plasma torches are active to create a temperature delta to improve an effect of the plasma torches (col. 6 or Frankle et al.).
WO document ‘960 teaches a plurality of vacuum inlets (83, Fig. 25); and
a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of
spoils (92, Fig. 28).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chinese document ‘304 to have the plurality of nozzles on the cutting head provide a stream to cool the area of the earth while the plasma torches are active as taught by Frankle et al. since such a modification facilitates fracturing by creating internal thermal stress to the earth.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chinese document ‘304 to include
a plurality of vacuum inlets; and a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of spoils as taught by WO document ‘960 since such a modification facilitates the removal of the spoils.
Re claim 4, the nozzles comprise a high pressure air jet nozzle to direct a stream of air
(see col. 6 or Frankle et al.).
Re claim 5, the nozzle comprises a high pressure water jet nozzle to direct the stream.
(see col. 6 or Frankle et al.)
Re claim 6, wherein the stream comprises one of: water and steam (see Chinese document ‘304 translation; col. 6 or Frankle et al.).
Re claim 9, wherein one or more of the vacuum inlets are at a base of the cutting head (see Fig. 28 of WO document ‘960).
With regards to claim 13, CN document ‘304 lacks start/stop-valves for at least a subset of the plurality of nozzles. Start/stop valves for nozzles are well known and old; therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify CN document ‘304 (as modified above) to include rapid start/stop-valves for at least a subset of the plurality of nozzles to yield the desired cutting operation.
With regards to claims 17,20, the recited method steps are considered obvious in view of the combination of references above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15,20,21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,136,886. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both call for a plasma drilling machine (method of plasma drilling) comprising: a cutting head; a plurality of plasma torches on the cutting head; a plurality of nozzles on the cutting head to provide a stream to cool an area of earth while the plasma torches are active; a plurality of vacuum inlets; and a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of spoils.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3-15,20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,591,909. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both call for a plasma drilling machine (method of plasma drilling) comprising: a cutting head; a plurality of plasma torches on the cutting head; a plurality of nozzles on the cutting head to provide a stream to cool an area of earth while the plasma torches are active; a plurality of vacuum inlets; and a tube to combine vacuum streams from the vacuum inlets to create a stream of spoils.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
1/10/2026