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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment files June 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-29 remain pending in the application. Claims 9-27 are withdrawn, independent claim 1 has been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed April 28, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, please refer to pp. 9-11 of Applicant remarks, filed June 15, 2026, have been entered and fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant in their submitted response has presented the argument that the references Morrisroe (US 2006/0285108), in view of Zapol (US 2018/0243527), in view of Briglin (US 20240047178), and further in view of Frame (US 2019/0090339), does not teach, suggest, or disclose all the limitations currently recited in independent claim 1, “the igniter separated from the plasma region by an insulated conduit,” “an igniter providing a gas channel containing a high-voltage electrode” that is separated from the plasma by the dielectric barrier of Fig. 5 of Frame, and amended features, “an electrical arc that can ignite an inductively generated plasma while positioning dangerous voltage away from the plasma region using an insulating conduit.”
The Examiner, respectfully disagrees based on two reasonings. First, Applicant contends that because Frame suggests plasma generated by an arc, there is no reason to combine it with Morrisroe’s inductively generated plasma, asserting that the latter “does not require an arc.” This argument is incorrect based on the disclosures of the primary reference, Morrisroe. Morrisroe teaches that its radio frequency induction coils are “configured to create plasma 940 after the gas is ionized using an arc, spark, etc.” ([0176]). Therefore, an initial arc or spark is a documented prerequisite to seed the inductively coupled plasma (ICP) in the primary reference. This combination does not attempt to replace the ICP with an arc-generated plasma, rather, it applies the established arc-generation structure of Frame to provide the ignition spark that Morrisroe requires.
The second reason, where the Applicant further argues that Frame fails to teach an insulating conduit separating the electrode from the plasma region along the path of gas flow. However, Frame relies on fluid dynamics through insulated spaces to propagate the arc to the downstream plasma region. Frame discloses a “ceramic insulator 12” ([0103]) and “dielectric barrier tube 5” ([0094]) that function as the required insulating conduit. Furthermore, Frame details that the “thermal plasma is propagated in use towards the open end 105 of the plasma torch 101 by the dynamics of the flowing feed gas” ([0114]). When Frame’s arc igniter is integrated to supply the necessary spart for Morrisroe’s ICP, the high-voltage electrode is logically arranged upstream within Morrisroe’s existing insulated gas tubes. The flowing feed gas carries the spark from the isolated, recessed high-voltage electrode down through the insulated conduit and into the main RF coil region to ignite the primary plasma. This teaches the amended feature(s) of keeping the dangerous high-voltage separated from the main plasma region while utilizing the gas flow channel to communicate the ignition spark.
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.
Claims 1-8 & 28-29 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 1 recites “in a plasma region absent the presence of an electrical arc;” in ll. 4-5, where “absent the presence of an electrical arc…” 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 “absent the presence of an electrical arc…”, which is an important limitation in the apparatus of 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.
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 "in a plasma region absent the presence of an electrical arc;" in ll. 4-5, without prior disclosure of “the presence of an electrical arc;” resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the presence of an electrical arc;” as “a presence of an electrical arc;”. 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
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, & 28 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 (c):
an inductive plasma generator receiving electrical power to generate plasma in a plasma region absent the presence of an electrical arc (Figs. 8 & 9A; [0175]-[0176]: discloses an ICP generator where the main plasma region is sustained by RF induction coils (inductive generator) to create plasma, rather than a direct continuous arc);
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 a plasma heated sample (Fig. 19; [0188] & [0191]: figure illustrates lenses 1950 and 1955 directing/collimating light beams 940;
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, by incorporating the base-supported housing and the isolated enclosed high-voltage safety cage enclosure taught by Zapol, according to known methods. Morrisroe discloses the foundational plasma emission spectroscopy apparatus but does not detail a housing having a base on which the housing may be supported, the housing in turn supporting components, as well as a the high-voltage electrode, high-voltage power supply, and conductor being enclosed in a portion of the housing removed from operator access during operation. Zapol teaches a system featuring a main console enclosure with a flat base to support the device, which houses and supports a High Voltage Faraday Cage and High Voltage PCB to safely isolate high-voltage components from operator access. 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. 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. A POSITA would have been motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons, operator safety, electromagnetic interferences (EMI) shielding, and stable structural stability and foundation for the spectroscopic equipment while improving operator safety by shielding users from dangerous high voltages during plasma generation. This combination represents 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 of similar devices by applying standard electrical enclosure and housing features to yield predictable results (KSR), a spectrometer that doesn’t electrocute the operator or electrical interference (EMI), securely supported device that enables safer handling of the high-voltage power supply and conductor.
Morrisroe, in combination with Zapol, are silent in regard to:
a ground surface at ground potential and adjacent to the plasma region;
However, Briglin, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Briglin in view of Frame by implementing
a ground surface at ground potential and adjacent to the plasma region ([0051] & [0063]: teaches 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 Zapol, by incorporating the adjacent ground surface and optical collimation system taught by Briglin, according to known methods. Morrisroe and Zapol teaches base-supported plasma spectroscopy devices with high-voltage enclosures, but does not detail configurations for a ground surface at ground potential and adjacent to the plasma region. Incorporating Briglin’s teaching of a plasma generating device that includes a ground plane immediately adjacent to the generated plasma region to act as a ground reference for the electrical traces. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination for the following predictable reasons: arc discharged predictability and stability, optimized signal detection, stabilizing the plasma generation and define the electrical boundaries within the chamber, improving the overall efficiency of the spectrographic analysis. 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. This modification represents a substitution of one known grounding structure for another, to provide a reliable ground potential adjacent to the plasma region. Incorporating Biglin’s/Morrisroe’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 separating the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region along the path of gas flow through the insulating conduit 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], [0091], [0094]-[0095], [0098]-[0099], [0103], [0113]-[0114], [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], [0114], [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 separating the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region along the path of gas flow through the insulating conduit 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], [0094]-[0095], [0114], [Claim 1], & [Claim 20]: teaches an insulating block/conduit (dielectric barrier) that separates the high-voltage electrode while utilizing the flowing feed gas path to propagate the ignited spark downstream to the main plasma region, 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 apply the insulated high-voltage plasma arc igniter and dielectric conduit of Frame to the inductively coupled plasma (ICP-OES) apparatus of Morrisroe 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. The combination of Morrisroe, Zapol, and Briglin do not detail an integer providing a gas channel containing a high-voltage electrode, an arc generated in gas passing through the channel, and an insulating conduit separating the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region along the path of gas flow. Frame teaches an ignition setup utilizing a high-voltage electrode with an annular cavity to initiate an arc discharge against a grounded tube, all separated by a ceramic insulator block functioning as an insulating conduit where flowing feed gas propagates the thermal plasma towards the open end. Furthermore, Morrisroe acknowledges that is inductively coupled plasma requires ionization using an “arc, spark, etc.” to initiate. The motivation for this combination is to provide a reliable, controlled arc discharge mechanism that safely isolates the high-voltage electrode from the primary analysis plasma while utilizing the flowing gas to communicated the ignited spark downstream This combination represents the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement. 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) establishing a robust ICP ignition sequence.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], & [0187]-[0188]) wherein the housing ([0188]) is at ground potential ([0089]-[0090], [0106], [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 4, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010] & [0187]-[0188])
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
further including an argon source providing gas through the gas channel during an application of high voltage to the high-voltage electrode.
However, Frame, further teaches:
further including an argon source ([0105]: identifies argon as the specific feed gas source supplied to the cavity where the arc ignition occurs) providing gas through the gas channel during an application of high voltage to the high-voltage electrode ([0114]: teaches that the feed gas is actively flowing through the cavity/channel exactly when the high-voltage electrical power is applied to the cathode to generate the arc).
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 ignition sequence of Morrisroe to include the argon feed gas flowing through the channel during the high-voltage arc generation as taught by Frame. Morrisroe discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy but lacks an argon source providing gas through an igniter’s gas channel during an application of high voltage to a high-voltage electrode from the plasma region. Frame discloses a feed gas source of argon supplying gas through a cylindrical annular cavity containing a cathode rod while a high-voltage electrical power signal generates an arc discharge within the flowing gas. The motivation for this combination is to provide a readily ionizable medium that feeds the downstream primary plasma, improving the overall ignition efficiency of the system. This modification represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable result of an argon-supported arc discharge that initiates the primary inductively coupled plasma (KSR).
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
However, Zapol, further teaches:
further including an electrically actuated valve (Fig. 3; [0007], [0185], [0188], [0225]-[0226], [0229]-[0230], [0377], [0385], [0449], [0454], [0457], [0462], [0471], [0477], [0595], [0609], [0651]-[0652], [0727], & [Claim 5]: visual disclose and label of Proportional Valve 102, teaches the use of an electronically actuated proportional valve for regulating gas flow within the system)
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 gas feed system of the prior combination by incorporating the electrically actuated proportional valve of Zapol upstream of the feed gas connector of Frame, separated by an isolating conduit. The combination of Morrisroe and Frame discloses a plasma emission spectroscopy apparatus with a high-voltage igniter gas channel, but does not detail an electrically actuated valve communicating via a second insulating conduit such that the electrical resistance back to the valve is greater than the resistance to the ground surface. Zapol teaches the use of an electrically actuated valve, a proportional valve, connected via standard insulated gas routing pathways to safely control and deliver gas flow. The motivation to combine these references is to automate the feed gas delivery while inherently ensuring the high-voltage cathode arcs across the path of least electrical resistance to the proximate grounded tube rather than tracking back up the gas line and damage the upstream valve electronics. This modification represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the expected predictable result of a safely isolated, electronically controlled gas delivery system with electrical resistance differential during gas flows that isolates valve conductors from high-voltage arc discharges (KSR).
Morrisroe, in combination with Zapol, are silent in regard to:
communicating via a second insulating conduit with the gas channel of the igniter 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 during a flow of gas through the conduits.
However, Frame, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Frame in view of Zapol by connecting Zapol’s (Fig. 3) automated valve upstream to Frame’s feed gas connector.
communicating via a second insulating conduit with the gas channel of the igniter to provide gas thereto ([0101]: connecting Zapol’s automated valve upstream to Frame’s feed gas connector would inherently require a standard insulating gas conduit (tubing) to route the gas into the igniter channel) 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 during a flow of gas through the conduits ([0114]: the electrical resistance is an inherent property of the combined structure because the upstream valve is separated by an insulating gas line, the electrical resistance back to the valve is high, causing the arc to naturally strike the path of least resistance (small gap to the grounded tube 3)).
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 ignition sequence of Morrisroe by incorporating the arc-generating gas channel architecture of Frame. Morrisroe discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy with a high-voltage igniter gas channel, but does not detail an igniter providing a gas channel to receive an upstream gas flow. Frame teaches an ignition setup utilizing an insulating ceramic block and a high-voltage electrode seated within a designated gas channel to initiate an arc. The motivation for this combination is to provide a reliable, controlled arc discharge mechanism that safely isolates the high-voltage electrode from the primary analysis plasma while communicated the ignited gas downstream. The combination of Morrisroe and Frame discloses a plasma emission spectroscopy apparatus with a high-voltage igniter gas channel, but does not detail an electrically actuated valve communicating via a second insulating conduit such that the electrical resistance back to the valve is greater than the resistance to the ground surface. Zapol teaches the use of an electrically actuated valve, a proportional valve, connected via standard insulated gas routing pathways to safely control and deliver gas flow. This modification represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable result of an insulated gas channel ready to receive automated gas flow. The motivation to combine these references is to automate the feed gas delivery while inherently ensuring the high-voltage cathode arcs across the path of least electrical resistance to the proximate grounded tube rather than tracking back up the gas line and damage the upstream valve electronics. This modification further represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the expected predictable result of a safely isolated, electronically controlled gas delivery system with electrical resistance differential during gas flows that isolates valve conductors from high-voltage arc discharges (KSR).
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).
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
wherein the insulating conduit includes a portion of high-temperature glass proximate to the plasma region.
However, Frame, further teaches:
wherein the insulating conduit ([0094]: provides the baseline insulating conduit used to electrically insurable and separate the high-voltage components) includes a portion of high-temperature glass proximate to the plasma region ([0094] : specifies the use of Borosilicate glass (standard high-temperature glass) for the insulating conduit, and is arranged coaxially around the tube where the thermal plasma is generated, placing it directly proximate to the 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 ignition and gas conduit sequence of Morrisroe by incorporating the Borosilicate glass insulating conduit architecture of Frame. Morrisroe discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy, but lacks an insulating conduit separating an igniter that includes a portion of high temperature glass proximate to the plasma region. Frame teaches this limitation by disclosing an insulating conduit, noting that a dielectric barrier tube acting as an insulator coaxially surrounding and proximate to the central thermal plasma can be composed of Borosilicate glass. The motivation for this combination is to provide a thermally resistant, electrically insulating barrier that can safely withstand the extreme temperatures of the adjacent plasma without melting or structurally degrading, thereby improving the operational lifespan of the device. This modification represents the substitution of a known high-temperature insulating material into a known plasma device, yielding the predictable variation of an ignition conduit capable of enduring sustained exposure to proximate plasma heat (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 during operation of the inductive plasma generator to ignite the plasma.
However, Frame, further teaches:
further including a controller controlling the inductive plasma generator and the high-voltage power supply ([0046], [00049], [0082], & [0113]: teaches a central controller module that actively controls and directs the power supply sending signals to the high-voltage components)
The Examiner is combining Frame in view of Morrisroe by implementing Morrisroe’s arc/spark initiating the main induction coils’ plasma generation ([0176]).
so that the high-voltage electrode generates an arc during operation of the inductive plasma generator to ignite the plasma ([0114]: details the controller firing the high-voltage power supply to generate an arc that ignites 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 modify the inductively coupled plasma apparatus of Morrisroe by incorporating the automated controller and high-voltage arc ignition sequence taught by Frame. Morrisroe discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy with an inductive plasma generator requiring an arc or spark for ignition, but lacks a controller specifically controlling the inductive plasma generator and the high-voltage power supply so that the high-voltage electrode generates an arc during operation to ignite the plasma. Frame teaches a control module comprising a controller that causes a power supply to generate electrical signals to a high-voltage electrode, initiating an arc discharge that ignites the feed gas into a plasma. The motivation combination is to provide an automated ignition mechanism that coordinates the timing of the high-voltage spark to improve the overall plasma ignition efficiency and ease of use. This modification represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable result of a controller-driven arc ignition sequence for an inductively coupled plasma system (KSR).
Claims 3 & 29 are 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 Karanassios (US 2005/0195393 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 8, 2005, hereinafter, Karanassios).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], & [0187]-[0188])
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
wherein the insulating conduit includes at least a portion of flexible polymer tubing greater than twenty centimeters long.
However, Frame, further teaches:
wherein the insulating conduit ([0094]-[0095]: provides the baseline insulating conduit used to separate the high-voltage electrode during gas propagation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morrisroe by incorporating the insulating conduit architecture of Frame. Morrisroe discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy but lacks an insulating conduit separating a high-voltage electrode from the plasma region. Frame teaches an ignition setup utilizing a ceramic block functioning as an insulating conduit to separate a high-voltage electrode. The motivation to combine these references is to isolate the high-voltage ignition source from the primary analytical plasma region to prevent electrical arcing to unwanted components. This combination represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding predictable results in establishing a reliable and electrically isolated ignition sequence (KSR).
However, Zapol, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Morrisroe in view of Zapol by implement flexible tubing for routing gases of Zapol (Fig. 2) and Morrisroe provides the polymeric material composition ([0088]).
includes at least a portion of flexible polymer tubing (Fig. 2; visual of flexible tubing 70)
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 insulating conduit of the combine apparatus to incorporate the flexible tubing of Zapol. The combined apparatus of Morrisroe and Frame teaches a spectroscopy system with an insulating conduit, but do not detail the conduit including at least a portion of flexible tubing. Zapol teaches utilizing flexible tubing for routing gases between distinct components in a medical/analytical device. The motivation for this modification is to provide mechanical flexibility and vibrational isolation between the high-voltage igniter and the main plasma chamber, facilitating easier routing of the gas channel within the device housing. This constitutes a substitution of known conduit materials to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable result of a flexible and configurable gas pathway (KSR).
However, Karanassios, further teaches:
greater than twenty centimeters long ([0088] & [0090]: provides teaching for polymeric material composition and teaches sizing the gas tubes up to 25 cm).
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 flexible insulating conduit of the prior combination to be formed of polymer tubing extended up to 25 cm in length as taught by Karanassios. The combination of Morrisroe, Frame, and Zapol teaches a flexible insulating conduit, but do not detail the conduit comprising polymer tubing greater than twenty centimeters long. Karanassios teaches a tubular plasma device comprising a tube made of polymeric material that can be varied in length up to 25 cm. The motivation for this combination is to provide a physical standoff distance to ensure high-voltage isolation while spacing the ignition and detection components within the housing. This modification is a predictable variation of applying a known sizing parameter to a known material, yielding the expected result of a polymer insulating conduit separating high-voltage components by more than twenty centimeters (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 29, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010], [0187]-[0188], [0273] & [0276])
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
wherein the insulating conduit positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region separates the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region by at least 20 cm.
However, Frame, further teaches:
wherein the insulating conduit positioned between the high-voltage electrode and the plasma region ([0022] & [0094]-[0095]: provides the baseline insulating conduit used to separate the high-voltage electrode during gas propagation to the 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 inductively coupled plasma apparatus of Morrisroe by incorporating the insulating conduit architecture of Frame. Morrisroe discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy, but lacks an igniter utilizing an insulating conduit positioned between a high-voltage electrode and the plasma region to separate the components. Frame discloses an ignition setup where a ceramic block functions as an insulating conduit that extends around a high-voltage electrode to electrically separate and insulate it from the downstream plasma region. The motivation for this combination is to provide a reliable, controlled arc discharge mechanism that safely isolates the high-voltage electrode from the primary analysis plasma to prevent dangerous electrical arcing to unwanted components. This modification represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable result of an electrically isolated ignition sequence securely separated from the main plasma region (KSR).
However, Karanassios, further teaches:
separates the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region by at least 20 cm ([0090]: teaches extending the length of an insulating plasma tube and the separation distance oof electrodes up to 25 cm).
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 insulating conduit of the Morrisroe and Frame combination by extending its length to at least 20 cm as taught by Karanassios. Morrisroe and Frame discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy having an insulating conduit positioned between a high-voltage electrode and the plasma region, but lacks the specific dimensional limitation wherein the conduit separates the high-voltage electrode from the plasma region by at least 20 cm. The motivation for this modification is to provide a physical standoff distance to ensure complete high-voltage isolation and prevent unwanted electrical arcing to other sensitive analytical components. This modification represents a predictable variation of applying a known dimensional sizing parameter to a known insulating structure, yielding the expected result of an appropriately spaced high-voltage electrode securely separated from the primary plasma region by more than 20 cm (KSR).
Claim 6 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 in view of Mills (US 2024/0079988 A1, Fil. Date Mar. 8, 2022, hereinafter, Mills).
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:
The Examiner combines Mills in view of Zapol implementing Zapol’s flexible tubing following a coiled path (Fig. 2).
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 (Fig. 7H; [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 modify the gas feed system of the prior combination by incorporating Zapol’s electrically actuated valve upstream of Frame’s igniter, utilizing curved, coiled flexible tubing sized with a path length at least twice the straight-line component distance between the high-voltage electrode and the electrically actuated valve, to provide a standard service loop, according to known methods. The combination of Morrisroe and Frame discloses a spectroscopy apparatus with an igniter gas channel, but does not detail an electrically actuated valve communicating via a second insulating conduit that follows a curved path having a length of at least two times the straight-line component distance. Zapol teaches the use of an electrically actuated proportional valve connected via standard insulated, flexible gas pathways that follow curved, coiled paths to safely regulate gas delivery, a structural design choice corroborated by the deep serpentine gas lines demonstrated in Mills. Morrisroe, further 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. The motivation to combine these references and optimize the conduit length is to automate feed gas delivery while simultaneously providing vibrational isolation and mechanical slack between the high-voltage assembly and the upstream valve electronics. This represents a predictable variation of applying routine engineering sizing optimizations and known techniques to improve similar devices. 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 of an electronically controlled gas delivery system physically protected from mechanical strain (KSR).
Claim 7 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 Setsuhara et al. (US 2006/005784 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 16, 2006, hereinafter, Setsuhara).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Morrisroe, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 17; [0007], [0010] & [0187]-[0188])
Morrisroe, is silent in regard to:
further including an electrically insulating escutcheon having a mounting plate allowing passage of the insulating conduit therethrough and forming a wall of a portion of the housing protected from operator access during operation of the igniter, the insulating escutcheon separating the insulating conduit from electrically conducting walls of the housing by at least one cm.
However, Frame, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Frame in view of Setsuhara by implementing Setsuhara’s “insulating escutcheon” structure via an insulating feedthrough mounted as a flange to isolate components passing through a wall ([0064] & [0126]).
further including an electrically insulating escutcheon having a mounting plate allowing passage of the insulating conduit therethrough ([0100]): teaches a feed-through mounting plate)
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 ignition sequence of Morrisroe by incorporating the insulating conduit and feed-through plate architecture of Frame. Morrisroe discloses an apparatus for plasma emission spectroscopy, but lacks an igniter communicating via an insulating conduit passed through a mounting plate. Frame teaches an ignition setup utilizing an insulating ceramic block and a radially extending feed-through plate that allows passage of gas and electrical conduits through holes. The motivation for this combination is to structurally support the gas lines whiles safely isolating high-voltage electrode from the primary analysis plasma. This modification represents a simple substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable result of an insulated gas channel securely mounted through a structural plate (KSR).
However, Zapol, further teaches:
and forming a wall of a portion of the housing protected from operator access during operation of the igniter (Fig. 3; [0037], [0106], [0188], [0235], [0261]-[0262], [0453], [0526], [0531]: discloses forming a protective housing wall/cage specifically designed to isolate dangerous high-voltage components from operator access),
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 housing of the prior combination to incorporate Zapol’s protected Faraday cage walls around the high-voltage igniter feed-through. The combination of Morrisroe and Frame discloses a protected plasma spectroscopy apparatus with an insulated conduit passing through a mounting plate, but lacks a housing wall protected from operator access during operation. Zapol teaches the use of an enclosure containing a High Voltage Faraday Cage functioning as a protected housing wall to isolate high-voltage components from user contact. The motivation to combine these references is to improve and optimize operator safety by shielding users from dangerous high-voltage discharges and electromagnetic interference during plasma ignition. This represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable result of a securely supported feed-through plate safely enclosed behind a protected housing wall (KSR).
However, Setsuhara, further teaches:
the insulating escutcheon separating the insulating conduit from electrically conducting walls of the housing by at least one cm ([0126]: teaches utilizing the insulator (6a) to physically and electrically separate the conductor/conduit from the surrounding chamber walls. Sizing the insulator to provide “at least one centimeter” of separation is a routine engineering optimization (creepage/clearance spacing) required to prevent high-voltage dielectric breakdown to the conductive walls).
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 feed-through plate of the prior combination to incorporate the insulating escutcheon flange of Setsuhara, sizing the insulator to provide at least one centimeter of physical separation. The combination of Morrisroe, Frame, and Zapol discloses a protected plasma spectroscopy housing with a feed-through plate, but lacks an electrically insulating escutcheon separating the conduit from the conducting housing walls by at least one centimeter. Setsuhara teaches an insulating feedthrough or escutcheon (high frequency field through insulator 6a) serving as a mounting flange to pass a conductor through a chamber wall while electrically isolating it from the conducting walls. The motivation to combine these references and optimize the separation distance is to safely route high-voltage conduits through grounded housing walls without risking dielectric breakdown or arc faults to the conductive enclosure. This modification is a predictable variation of applying standard high-voltage insulation techniques and routine dimensional sizing to improve similar devices, yielding the expected result of a safely, isolated, arc-resistant mounting plate (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Geyter et al. (US2022/0339373 A1) discloses an aerosol device provided for user inhalation of an aerosol stream, comprising a non-thermal plasma jet generator adapted for generating a plasma plume for non-thermal plasma; the plasma jet generator includes an outlet for exhausting the plasma plume in the aerosol stream.
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 August 17, 2026
/A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights