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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently under examination.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallenbach (US 4,423,855) in view of Air Liquide (GB 668,393).
In regard to claims 1 and 18, Kallenbach (‘855) teaches an ignitor cap for a thermal lance comprising: a proximal end adapted to receive the thermal lance ; a distal end; a housing having a sidewall extending from the proximal end to the distal end and defining a passageway and internal primary fuel and secondary fuel disposed within the passageway of the housing at least a portion of the internal primary fuel in contact with the secondary fuel wherein the distal end of the ignitor cap is substantially sealed (in order to allow for combustion to occur within) and the proximal end of the ignitor cap includes at least one opening such that when the thermal lance is received in the proximal end of the ignitor cap, gas flows from the thermal lance into the proximal end of the ignitor cap axially through the internal primary fuel and out through the at least one opening and along an exterior surface of the thermal lance (Figs. 2 and 10-11 and columns 3-5). However, Kellenbach (‘855) does not specifically teach wherein the gas flows axially through the primary fuel and the secondary fuel, and is then redirected by the sealed distal end of the housing through the primary fuel and the secondary fuel.
In the same field of endeavor, Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches an ignitor cap for a thermal lance comprising: a proximal end; a distal end; a housing having a sidewall extending from the proximal end to the distal end and defining a passageway; internal primary fuel; and secondary fuel disposed within the passageway of the housing with at least a portion of the internal primary fuel in contact with the secondary fuel wherein the distal end of the ignitor cap is substantially sealed (vents D are plugged with a material that forms a seal until combustion) and the proximal end of the ignitor cap includes at least one opening such that when the thermal lance is received in the proximal end of the ignitor cap, gas flows from the thermal lance into the proximal end of the ignitor cap, axially through the internal primary fuel and the secondary fuel and then is redirected by the sealed distal end of the housing such that the combustible materials in the entirety of the ignitor cap would be fully consumed (pages 1-2 and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have the gas flow of Kallenbach (‘855) flow axially through the internal primary fuel and the secondary fuel and then be redirected the sealed distal end of the housing, as disclosed by Air Liquide (GB ‘393), in order to ensure all combustible materials in the entirety of the ignitor cap are fully consumed providing the most efficient operation, as disclosed by Air Liquide (GB ‘393) (pages 1-2).
In regard to claim 2, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the ignitor case comprising in the distal end (Kallenbach (‘855), Figures 10-11) through which a fuse passes (Figure 10 and column 5).
In regard to claim 3, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the ignitor cap wherein a total surface area of the at least one opening is larger than any gap between the fuse and the opening in the distal end since there is a visiable gap between the sleeve and the tube through which redirecgted oxygen flows (Kallenback (‘855), Figure 10).
In regard to claim 4, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the ignitor cap, but does not specifically teach the ignitor cap further comprising a plug covering the distal end of the ignitor cap thereby substantially sealing the distal end of the ignitor cap. Further, Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the ignitor cap further comprising a plug with vents D plugged with a material that forms a seal until combustion, which covers the distal end of the ignitor cap thereby substantially sealing the distal end of the ignitor cap (Figure 1 and page 2). It would have been obvious to use the plug of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) on the distal end of the ignitor cap of Kallenbach (‘855) in order to increase the flow of air and hat after combustion to improve the efficiency of the lance.
In regard to claim 9, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the ignitor further comprising a recess in the proximal end of the housing for receiving the thermal lance (Kallenbach (‘855), Figures 10-11) such that a distal end of the thermal lance is adjacent to or contacts the internal primary fuel and/or the secondary fuel as disclosed by Kallenbach (‘855) (Figure 10).
In regard to claim 10, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the ignitor cap but does not specifically teach the ignitor cap further comprising a porous barrier filling a portion of the passageway of the housing and acting as a divider between the internal primary fuel and/or secondary fuel and a distal end of the thermal lance when the thermal lance is received in the ignitor cap. Further, Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the ignitor cap further comprising a porous barrier filling a portion of the passageway of the housing and acting as a divider between the internal primary fuel and/or secondary fuel and a distal end of the thermal lance when the thermal lance is received in the ignitor cap (Figure 1 and page 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to use the porous barrier of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) in the passageway of Kallenbach (‘855) in order to better control the oxygen through the passageway.
In regard to claim 11, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches wherein primary fuel surrounds the secondary fuel (Figure 1).
In regard to claim 12, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches wherein the internal primary fuel and/or secondary fuel are porous or include openings to allow gas to flow from the proximal end of the ignitor cap to the distal end of the ignitor cap when the ignitor cap is attached to the thermal lance (Figure 1 and page 2).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallenbach (US 4,423,855) in view of Air Liquide (GB 668,393), and further in view of Brandin (US 4,915,618).
In regard to claim 19, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the thermal lance system as set forth above, but Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) fails to specify wherein a tertiary fuel is provided in the thermal lance adjacent the secondary fuel of the ignitor cap.
Brandin (‘618) teaches an ignitor cap for a thermal lance comprising a primary fuel (priming composition) and a secondary fuel and a tertiary fuel provided in the thermal lance adjacent the secondary fuel of the ignitor cap (Figure 1 and column 2). This configuration would improve the ignitor such that the igniter material and the primer may be actuated under pressure of the oxygen supplied into the lance and ignite the priming composition (column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have a primary fuel, a secondary fuel and a tertiary fuel, as disclosed by Brandin (‘618), when operating the thermal lance system, as disclosed by Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393), in order to improve the igniter material such that the primer may be actuated under pressure of the oxygen supplied, as disclosed by Brandin (‘618) (column 1).
In regard to claim 20, Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) teaches the thermal lance system as set forth above, but Kallenbach (‘855) in view of Air Liquide (GB ‘393) does not specifically teach wherein the tertiary fuel has a higher energy density than the secondary fuel and/or a lower initial energy requirement for combustion than components of the thermal lance. However, Brandin (‘618) does teach that the tertiary fuel has an energy density and initial energy requirement and the decision of whether to have the energy density be higher or lower is a finite number of identified predictable solutions (column 3). MPEP 2143 and MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using routine experimentation and design principals to have the energy density of the tertiary fuel be higher than the secondary fuel in order to ensure the primary and secondary fuel are properly supplemented by the tertiary fuel. MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 13-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 5-8, neither Kallenbach (‘855), Air Liquide (GB ‘393), nor Brandin (‘618) specify wherein there would be an attachment ring that includes or defines the at least one opening.
In regard to claim 13, neither Kallenbach (‘855), Air Liquide (GB ‘393) nor Brandin (‘618) specify wherein the secondary fuel is provided in the form of a helix or coil that is positioned between the sidewall of the housing and the secondary fuel and surrounds the secondary fuel.
In regard to claims 14-15, neither Kallenbach (‘855), Air Liquide (GB ‘393) nor Brandin (‘618) specify wherein a sheath protects the internal primary fuel.
In regard to claims 16-17, the applied prior art has the primary fuel on the interior of the housing and therefore would not fairly suggest an external primary fuel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759