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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/21/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 4, 6, 7, 15 and 19 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.
The term “about” as used in these claims is a relative term which is not given context in the disclosure as filed. Further there is no art accepted definition of what “about” should be. In some cases it can be argued that it is within a standard design tolerance but these values are relating to percentages specific to the device claimed not standard engineering measurements. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6320156 to Yamaguchi.
Yamaguchi teaches:
Regarding claim 1
An electrode (130) for a liquid-cooled plasma arc torch (via water delivered by pipe 115) including a torch body (Fig. 1) and a cathodic element (117), the electrode comprising:an electrode body having a proximal end and a distal end (arbitrary, but we can call 103a the “distal end” and the end opposite the “proximal end”) extending along a central longitudinal axis (imaginary axis that would run through center of cross-section shown in Fig. 1), the distal end including at least one emissive insert (104) disposed therein proximate to a distal tip of the electrode body (Fig. 1); a retention region (103c) located at the proximal end of the electrode body (Fig. 1), the retention region shaped to engage a first portion of the torch body for retaining the electrode within the torch body (Fig. 1); a current interface region (region of intersection with 177 and electrode) located axially proximal to the retention region on the electrode body (Fig. 1), the current interface region configured to slideably engage a second portion of the torch body (Col. 17 ll 13-19; slidably received into the tongues ) while electrically communicating with the cathodic element of the plasma arc torch (Col. 21, ll. 45-50); and a sealing member (193) circumferentially disposed about the electrode body, the sealing member located axially distal to the current interface region and the retention region on the electrode body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2
wherein the electrode is substantially symmetrical about the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 1 shows that it is at least symmetrical about the axis in the cross-section shown).
Regarding claims 3 and 4
wherein the current interface region/retention region comprises about 11% of an axial length of the electrode (barring a definition of about, see 35 USC §112 (b) above it appears Fig. 3 can reasonably be construed to show “about” 11%).
Regarding claims 5
wherein the current interface region is directly cooled by a liquid coolant (it is cooled by the liquid coolant and thus may be considered “directly cooled”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9
further comprising a pliable component (tongues 177) disposed about the current interface region to electrically communicate with the cathodic element while matingly engaging the torch body (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the pliable component is a spring (a compliant tongue may be considered a spring).
Regarding claim 10
Wherein the sealing member is an O-ring (Figs. 1 and 4; noting that this is a cross-section of an annular structure).
Regarding claim 14
wherein the sealing member is configured to fluidly isolate the current interface region from a plenum of the plasma arc torch (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15
Wherein at least about 22% of an axial length of the electrode is located proximal to the sealing member (one may simply and arbitrarily designate a region of greater than 22% length surrounding the sealing member contact region as the length “proximal”; proximal is not exclusive to contact but includes regions nearby as well).
Regarding claim 16
wherein a proximal portion of the electrode relative to the sealing member includes the current interface region for electrically communicating between the torch body and the electrode (Fig. 1), and wherein a distal portion of the electrode relative to the sealing member is configured to seal, isolate, and direct one or more gas or liquid flows about the plasma arc torch. (Fig. 1, see flow paths note the claim does not require the flow paths to be exclusively in this region).
Regarding claim 17
further comprising a second sealing member (131 holds in place several o-rings as shown in Fig. 1 and thus may be considered a “sealing member” in that it is part of the seal assembly) circumferentially disposed about an external surface of the electrode at a widest diameter of the electrode (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi.
Yamaguchi teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach the specific cooling lengths of the axial surfaces as claimed in claims 6 and 7.
However, these lengths are not described as producing any unpredictable or synergistic result and further the length or area of an area exposed to a fluid for cooling is known to be a result effective variable relating to the amount of cooling (i.e. the surface area available for cooling directly effects cooling ability). Therefore optimizing the length of length of the cooling along the surfaces to the values claimed would be nothing more than an obvious optimization of a result effective variable to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of US 2016/057848 to Namburu.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 18
Yamaguchi teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to specifically teach:
wherein the retention region comprises a thread or detent configured to engage a complimentary feature of the torch body wherein upon engagement between the electrode and the torch body, physical contact between the thread or detent and the first portion of the torch body creates a second current interface region and wherein the retention region further comprises an axial stop disposed axially distal to the thread or detent.
Namburu teaches:
wherein the retention region comprises a thread or detent (Fig. 4, ¶ [0028] “often by threads) configured to engage a complimentary feature of the torch body wherein upon engagement between the electrode and the torch body, physical contact between the thread or detent and the first portion of the torch body creates a second current interface region (contact region) and wherein the retention region further comprises an axial stop disposed axially distal to the thread or detent (the end of threads or the outturned portion of the electrode would function as such).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the retention region comprise a thread in the manner claimed, as taught by Namburu, for the purpose of securing the electrode.
Regarding claim 19
Yamaguchi as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach that the axial distance between the stop and proximal end of the electrode is about 0.4 inches.
Applicant has not stated that the specific distance “about 0.4 inches” solves any problem or is for any particular purpose above and beyond the dimension claimed. Further it appears the prior art would perform equally well with such a distance. As such it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, related to the sizing of components to arrive at the claimed invention (see MPEP §2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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. The prior art fails to teach “wherein upon engagement between the electrode and the torch body, the sealing member is adapted to be compressed to allow physical contact between the torch body and the electrode about the sealing member, thereby creating a third current interface region”. The foreign search report cites document D3 (US 2019/0246483) as performing this function by further modifying D2 (Namburu), however this appears to rely only on motivation and teachings from Applicant’s disclosure and thus constitutes impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights