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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 14, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 09, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 & 28-29 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 5 & 6 have been amended. Claims 28-29 are new. Claims 9-27 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 08, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, please refer to pp. 8-10 of applicant’s remarks, filed March 09, 2026 have been entered and fully considered. In light of the amendments, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, in light of the amendment(s), a new ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. Therefore, the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-8 & 28-29, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained. Updated rejections based on amended features follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 & 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without” an insulating conduit positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region to separate the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s), specification, or figures. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The specification refers to “conduit 54” but the figures do not contain part number 54, therefore unable to determine where “an insulating conduit” is “positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region…”. Claims 2-8 & 28-29 are also rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites “the high-voltage electrode generates an arc only during an initial portion of operation of the inductive plasma generator to ignite the plasma”, in ll. 2-4, where “an arc only during an initial portion of operation of the inductive plasma generator…” is not disclosed in the specification or the figures provided, therefore the claim contains new subject matter. The new claim language is part of an apparatus, but does not mention “an arc only during an initial portion of operation…”, which is an important limitation in the apparatus of the invention.
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 1-8 & 28-29 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 "an optical collimation system capturing light from the plasma heated sample;" in line 8, without prior disclosure of “the plasma heated sample”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the plasma heated sample” as “a plasma heated sample”. Claims 2-8 & 28-29 are also rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1, which do not rectify the defect.
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 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrisroe (US 2006/0285108 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 21, 2006, hereinafter, Morrisroe), in view of Zapol et al. (US 2018/0243527 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 30, 2018, hereinafter, Zapol), in view of Briglin et al. (US 2024/0047178 A1, Fil. Date Dec. 9, 2021, hereinafter, Briglin), and further in view of Frame et al. (US 2019/0090339 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 21, 2019, hereinafter, Frame).
Regarding independent claim 1, Morrisroe, teaches:
An apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy comprising (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010] & [0187]-[0188]):
an inductive plasma generator receiving electrical power to generate plasma in a plasma region (Figs. 8 & 9A; [0175]-[0176]: discloses RF induction coils (inductive generator) to create plasma);
a sample jet tube for introducing a sample into the plasma region for spectrographic analysis (Figs. 5 & 9A; [0171] & [0176]);
an optical collimation system capturing light from the plasma heated sample (Disclosed in combination: Morrisroe: Fig. 19; [0188] & [0191]: figure illustrates lenses 1950 and 1955 directing/collimating light beams 940; Briglin: [0017]);
PNG
media_image1.png
489
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
632
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
597
668
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
602
776
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
a housing having a base on which the housing may be supported, the housing in turn supporting:
wherein the high-voltage electrode, high-voltage power supply and conductor are enclosed in a portion of the housing removed from operator access during operation of the igniter.
However, Zapol, further teaches:
a housing having a base on which the housing may be supported, the housing in turn supporting (Figs. 2, 3 & 17A; teaches a modular, portable plasma generation system enclosed within a housing 60/322 that features a flat base for resting on a benchtop or cart, which houses the internal plasma assemblies, see Fig. 2 housings 60 resting on a base, Fig. 3 carrying handle 80, and Fig. 17A enclosure 322):
wherein the high-voltage electrode, high-voltage power supply and conductor are enclosed in a portion of the housing removed from operator access during operation of the igniter (Fig. 3; [0309]: teaches safety isolation within the housing, placing the high-voltage power supply and conductors inside an enclosure to remove them from operator access and prevent electrical or RF hazards, see Fig. 3 “High Voltage Faraday Cage 84”, “High Voltage PCB 98” enclosed within the main housing body).
PNG
media_image6.png
618
772
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
602
811
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
606
857
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma emission spectroscopy apparatus of Morrisroe, to include the housing with a base and the isolated high-voltage enclosure taught by Zapol, according to known methods. A POSITA would have been motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons, operator safety, electromagnetic interferences (EMI) shielding, and structural stability. The integration of Frame’s high-voltage power supply and arc-generating electrodes introduces a severe shock hazard. Utilizing Zapol’s isolated enclosure physically removes these specific components from operator access during operation, ensuring standard electrical safety compliance. Spectrometers, such as the one taught by Morrisroe, rely on highly sensitive optical detection equipment. The high-voltage arc discharges taught by Frame generate significant electrical noise. Enclosing these components in an isolated housing portion, such as Zapol’s Faraday cage, prevents RF and electrical interference from disrupting the spectrographic analysis. Further, incorporating Zapol’s housing with a base provides a stable, unified support structure, allowing complex plasma generation and optical collimation systems to be securely mounted as a modular, benchtop-ready analytical device. This supports applying a known technique (Zapol’s high-voltage safety enclosure) to a known device (Morrisroe/Frame’s high—voltage plasma generator) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR), a spectrometer that doesn’t electrocute the operator or electrical interference (EMI).
Morrisroe, in combination with Zapol, are silent in regard to:
a ground surface at ground potential and adjacent to the plasma region;
However, Briglin, in combination with Frame, further teach:
a ground surface at ground potential and adjacent to the plasma region (Disclosed in combination: Briglin: [0051]; Frame: [Abstract], [0017]-[0018], [Claim 1] & [Claim 20]: both teach situation a grounded surface/plane immediately adjacent to the plasma generation and arc regions);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma emission spectroscopy apparatus of Morrisroe and Frame, to include the adjacent ground surface and optical collimation system taught by Briglin, according to known methods. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons: arc discharged predictability and stability, and optimized signal detection. Frame teaches generating an arc between a high-voltage electrode and a grounded surface to ionize the feed gas. Incorporating Biglin’s teaching of placing a ground plane immediately adjacent to the plasma region provides a localized, well-defined target for Frame’s high-voltage arc. The combination ensures the ignition arc strikes in the exact same location every time, improving the repeatability and reliability of the plasma ignition sequence. Further, a POSITA would be motivated to optimize the capture of the resulting analytical light. Incorporating Biglin’s/Morris roe’s optical collimation lenses maximizes the efficiency of light transfer from the plasma to the detector, predictably increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and overall sensitivity of the spectrometer, thus yielding predictable expected results (KSR).
Morrisroe, in combination with Zapol, and Briglin, are silent in regard to:
an igniter providing a gas channel containing a high-voltage electrode;
a high-voltage power supply providing a conductor communicating with the high-voltage electrode to selectively apply a high voltage to the high-voltage electrode to generate an arc in gas passing through the gas channel between the high-voltage electrode and the ground surface; and
an insulating conduit positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region to separate the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region and communicating gas from the gas channel of the igniter to the plasma region;
However, Frame, further teaches:
an igniter providing a gas channel containing a high-voltage electrode (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0017]-[0018], [Claim 1] & [Claim 20]: teaches a plasma generation ignition setup featuring a central high-voltage electrode (cathode rod) housed within a gas channel (cylindrical cavity));
a high-voltage power supply providing a conductor communicating with the high-voltage electrode to selectively apply a high voltage to the high-voltage electrode to generate an arc in gas passing through the gas channel between the high-voltage electrode and the ground surface (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0017]-[0018], [Claim 1] & [Claim 20]: discloses using a high-voltage power supply connected to the electrode to generate a micro-arc to the grounded surface, ionizing the gas flowing through the channel, see Fig. 5 (“High voltage AC/PWM power supply”, “High voltage electrode”, “Gas in”, “Micro-arc from HV electrode to ground”); and
an insulating conduit positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region to separate the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region and communicating gas from the gas channel of the igniter to the plasma region (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0017]-[0018], [Claim 1] & [Claim 20]: teaches placing an insulating conduit (dielectric barrier) that separates the high-voltage electrode from the secondary plasma region while still allowing feed gas to pass through, see Fig. 5 “Dielectric Barrier 6”);
PNG
media_image9.png
798
1314
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ICP-OES apparatus of Morrisroe with the high-voltage plasma arc igniter and dielectric conduit of Frame to provide a more reliable, precise, and fast-starting plasma ignition, as noted by Frame in [0018], sharp electrodes make arc location repeatable and shorten startup time, according to known methods. It would be further obvious to enclose these high-voltage ignition components within an isolated portion of a supported housing, such as the Faraday Cage taught by Zapol, to ensure operator safety and prevent RF/electrical interference with the spectrometer’s sensitive optical detection equipment. By integrating the specific ground plane and optical lens configurations of Briglin and Frame, and the optical lens configurations of Morrisroe and Briglin, would be an obvious optimization to capture the emitted light efficiently, thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010] & [0187]-[0188]) wherein the housing is at ground potential ([0157], [0259], [0272] & [0278]: figure illustrates a schematic ground symbol connected to the RF source/cavity assembly, indicating the system references ground potential).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010] & [0187]-[0188]) wherein the insulating conduit includes at least a portion of flexible polymer tubing greater than twenty centimeters long ([0273] & [0281]: describes using a long length of flexible polymer tubing (“BEV-A-LINE”) to connect a vacuum port to a pump, tubing is part of the gas/vacuum conduit system of the apparatus and also discloses extending the wire to “reach the torch” across an optical bench setup, the insulating conduit is made of “plastic” (polymer) used to insulate the ignition wire).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010] & [0187]-[0188]) further including an argon source ([0247] & [0251]: discloses providing argon gas to the device) providing gas through the gas channel ([0247]: discloses introducing the argon gas into the chamber (gas channel) containing the electrode) during an application of high voltage to the high-voltage electrode ([0175] & [0278]-[0279]: discloses passing current (HV source) through the electrode while gas is flowing to generate the arc).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010] & [0187]-[0188]) further including an electrically insulating escutcheon having a mounting plate allowing passage of the insulating conduit therethrough ([0273] & [0280]: the “interface plate” or “mounting plate” made of insulting material (e.g., quartz, ceramic, or non-conductive polymer) is used to separate conductive parts, the “interface plate” or “mounting plate” has a central orifice or port through which the quartz tube (insulating conduit) passes) and forming a wall of a portion of the housing protected from operator access during operation of the igniter ([0176], [0254] & [0272]-[0273]: discloses operating the setup inside a “shielded screen room” (wall/housing) where the wire extends from the “original harness” (protected portion) out to the torch), the insulating escutcheon separating the insulating conduit from electrically conducting walls of the housing by at least one cm ([0273] & [0280]: quarts tube (insulating conduit) is spaced from conductive mounting blocks or heat sinks with dimensions of separation > 1 cm, to prevent arcing of high-voltage ignition spark to the “shielded screen room” or harness box walls, the insulator (escutcheon) needs to maintain a standoff distance, standard for ICP ignition voltages, with a clearance > 1 cm (standard engineering practice)).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], [0187]-[0188] & [0272]) wherein the insulating conduit includes a portion of high-temperature glass ([0169], [0196], [0278], [0280] & [0283]: discloses constructing the gas-carrying chambers and tubes (conduits) out of “quartz”, a high-temperature glass) proximate to the plasma region ([0169], [0176] & [0272]: discloses that the quartz structure surrounds/contains the plasma).
Claims 5-6 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrisroe, in view of Mills (US 2024/0079988 A1, Fil. Date Mar. 8, 2022, hereinafter Mills), in view of Zapol, in view of Briglin, and further in view of Frame.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], [0187]-[0188], [0273] & [0276]) communicating via a second insulating conduit with the gas channel of the igniter ([0247], [0273], [0281] & [0295]) during a flow of gas through the conduits ([0247]: establishes that the resistance relationship holds true during gas flow).
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
further including an electrically actuated valve to provide gas thereto
wherein the electrical resistance between electrical conductors of the electrically actuated valve and the high-voltage electrode through the second conduit is greater than the electrical resistance between the high-voltage electrode and the ground surface
However, Mills, further teaches:
further including an electrically actuated valve to provide gas thereto ([0318] & [0401])
wherein the electrical resistance between electrical conductors of the electrically actuated valve and the high-voltage electrode through the second conduit is greater than the electrical resistance between the high-voltage electrode and the ground surface ([0049], [0304]-[0309], [0371], [0440], [0455], [0495] & [0515]: teaches insulators to prevent shorting, shorting occurs when current follows an unintended path of lower resistance, the insulating conduit between the electrode and the valve increases the electrical resistance of that path)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate further including an electrically actuated valve…to provide gas thereto, wherein the electrical resistance between electrical conductors of the electrically actuated valve and the high-voltage electrode through the second conduit is greater than the electrical resistance between the high-voltage electrode and the ground surface, of Mills to Morrisroe, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, where Morrisroe discloses a plasma spectroscopy system with automated gas control and high-voltage ignition components that require insulation to prevent arcing, further disclosing a high-power plasma generation system that teaches using solenoid valves (electrically actuated valves) to control gas flow and utilizing electrical insulators or breaks (insulating conduits) in supply lines to prevent shorting between high-voltage components and the rest of the system. Incorporating the solenoid valve and insulating conduit/electrical break teachings of Mills into Morrisroe’s apparatus, would enable precise, automated computer control of the ignition gas while protecting the electronic valve from the high voltage by ensuring the electrical resistance back to the valve is higher than the resistance across the arc gap, forcing the arc to discharge to the ground surface rather than damaging the valve, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 5 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], [0187]-[0188], [0272]-[0273] & [0276])
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
wherein the second insulating conduit follows a curved path having a length of at least two times a distance between the high-voltage electrode and the electrically actuated valve.
However, Mills, further teaches:
wherein the second insulating conduit follows a curved path ([0436] & [0550]) having a length of at least two times a distance between the high-voltage electrode and the electrically actuated valve ([0030], [0436], [0478], [0507], [0523], [0548] & [0550-[0551]: teaches the length of connection components may be increased “to move the electrical break further from the plasma”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second insulating conduit follows a curved path having a length of at least two times a distance between the high-voltage electrode and the electrically actuated valve, of Mills to Morrisroe, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, where Morrisroe discloses a plasma spectroscopy system where the power supply/controls are located “under the optical bench” while the torch is located on the bench. The physical separation requiring connecting lines (conduits) to follow a router path rather than a direct straight line, and Mills discloses a high-power plasma generation system where gas lines are configured with U sections or bends and utilize flexible or braided hoses to accommodate positioning. Further teaches increasing the length of connection components to “move the electrical break further from the plasma” or to provide thermal/electrical isolation. Further configuring the insulating gas conduit of Morrisroe with a curved path such as a loop or U-shape, as taught by Mills, having a length greater (at least 2x) than the direct distance between the valve and electrode, motivated by geometric needs, electrical safety, and/or strain relief, to yield predictable expected results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 28, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], [0187]-[0188], [0273] & [0276])
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
further including a controller controlling the inductive plasma generator and the high-voltage power supply so that the high-voltage electrode generates an arc only during an initial portion of operation of the inductive plasma generator to ignite the plasma.
However, Mills, in combination with Frame, further teach:
further including a controller controlling the inductive plasma generator and the high-voltage power supply (Disclosed in combination: Mills: [0368]-[0369]; Frame: [0046]: both Mills and Frame teach incorporating an automated controller or power generator unit to manage and trigger the high-voltage power supply connected to the ignition electrodes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma spectroscopy apparatus of Morrisroe and Frame to include the temporal controller logic taught by Mills, according to known methods. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons: component preservation and thermal management and reduction of analytical interference. Frame teaches utilizing a high-voltage electrode and a dielectric barrier to generate the ignition arc. As noted by Mills in [0368], sustained high-current ignition power can cause severe thermal damage. Modifying the apparatus to include a controller that only fires Frame’s arc during the initial start-up sequence, as taught by Mills, predictably prevents the rapid erosion of the high-voltage electrode and extends the lifespan of the surrounding dielectric conduit. Morrisroe teaches an optical emission spectrometer that requires stable plasma and low-noise environment for accurate spectrographic analysis. A continuous, high-voltage arc discharge, as taught by Frame, generates substantial electromagnetic interference (EMI) and broadband optical noise. A POSITA would apply Mills’ teaching of turning off the ignition arc one the primary inductive plasma is sustained. This predictable modification ensures that the high-voltage arcing does not contaminate the optical signal or disrupt the sensitive detection equipment during the spectrographic analysis phase, thus yielding predictable expected results (KSR).
However, Mills, further teaches:
so that the high-voltage electrode generates an arc only during an initial portion of operation of the inductive plasma generator to ignite the plasma ([0304] & [0371]: teaches utilizing the ignition system to generate an arc only during the initial start-up phase to ignite the plasma, and subsequently turning off or reducing that ignition power once the primary plasma is formed and sustained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma spectroscopy apparatus of Morrisroe, Zapol, Briglin, and Frame to include the programmed controller logic taught by Mills, according to known methods. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons: component preservation and signal-to-noise optimization. Sustained high-current ignition power can thermally damage the apparatus, as noted by Mills in [0368]. Modifying the controller of Frame to only fire the arc during the initial start-up sequence, as taught by Mills, predictably extends the lifespan of the high-voltage electrode and the surrounding dielectric conduit. Continuous arcing from a high-voltage electrode introduces severe optical and electromagnetic noise. A POSITA would apply Mill’s teaching of turning off the ignition arc once the inductive plasma generator has taken over to ensure a quiet, interference-free environment during the spectrographic analysis of the sample, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrisroe, in view of Zapol, in view of Briglin, in view of Frame, and further in view of De Geyter et al. (US 2022/0339373 A1, Fil. Date Jun. 15, 2020, hereinafter, De Geyter).
Regarding dependent claim 29, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], [0187]-[0188], [0273] & [0276])
Morrisroe, in combination with Zapol, and Briglin, are silent in regard to:
wherein the insulating conduit positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region
However, Frame, in combination with De Geyter, further teach:
wherein the insulating conduit positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region (Disclosed in combination: Frame: [0022]; De Geyter: [0072]: both Frame and De Geyter teach the physical presence of an insulating conduit (dielectric barrier/capillary) separating the high-voltage electrode from the downstream plasma region)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the igniter’s insulating conduit of Frame to incorporate the extended 20 cm+ separation distance taught by De Geyter, according to known methods. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons: prevention of hardware contamination, spatial flexibility, and remote housing. Morrisroe teaches introducing an aerosolized sample into the active plasma region for spectrographic analysis. De Geyter discloses, extending the dielectric conduit prevents aerosol condensate from traveling back inside the capillary. A POSITA would apply De Geyter’s 20 cm extension to Frame’s ignition conduit to create a physical buffer, predictably preventing the aerosolized sample from travelling upstream and contaminating or shorting out the high-voltage ignition electrode. The spectrometer apparatus requires complex, bulky optical components (e.g., lenses, collimators) tightly packed around the plasma chamber. De Geyter teaches that extending the hollow tube allows the orientation of the plasma plume to be easily routed (e.g., via an L-shape) without moving the high-voltage generation hardware. A POSITA would be motivated to utilize this 20 cm extended conduit to allow the high-voltage ignition power supply and electrodes of Frame to be safely housed remotely, such as in Zapol’s isolated Faraday cage, while still providing a reliable, insulated pathway to deliver the ignition arc into the primary plasma chamber, thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Morrisroe, in combination with Zapol, Briglin, and Frame, are silent in regard to:
separates the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region by at least 20 cm.
However, Frame, further teaches:
separates the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region by at least 20 cm ([0075]: teaches extending the dielectric conduit away from the high-voltage needle electrode by lengths of 20 cm, 25 cm, and 30 cm, physically separating the electrode from the resulting downstream plasma region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the igniter’s insulating conduit of Frame to incorporate the extended 20 cm+ separation distance taught by De Geyter, according to known methods. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons: remote ignition, spatial flexibility, and isolation from analytical equipment. De Geyter notes that extending the hollow tube allows the orientation of the plasma plume to be easily changed and directed (e.g., using a flexible or L-shaped tube) without moving the bulky high-voltage generation hardware. A POSITA would utilize this 20 cm extended conduit to allow the high-voltage ignition power supply and electrodes of Frame to be housed remotely, such as in the isolated Faraday cage taught by Zapol, while delivering the ignition gas and arc into the primary plasma chamber of Morrisroe. Spectrometers require tight temperature and electromagnetic control. Separating the high-voltage ignition electrode from the active plasma region by at least 20 cm, as taught by De Geyter, provides a predictable physical and thermal buffer. This ensures the electrical arcing does not physically interfere with or damage the optical collimation lenses described by Briglin and Morrisroe, thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (US2021/0187579A1) discloses a device and method for forming metal plate by using high-energy electric pulse to drive energetic materials. Hsu et al. (US2014/0335285A1) discloses a system of surface treatment via plasma generated by a slim and/or flexible electrode and the method thereof.
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 April 13, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights