DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/8/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the NPL document 2 is listed with no date and therefore cannot be evaluated as potential prior art. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein and denoted with strikethrough has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 17-20 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 17 recites “replaceable tubing” in line 5, and later recites “the tubes” in line 7. However, it is not clear if “replaceable tubing” would require more than one tube and therefore “the tubes” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 18-20 are indefinite as being dependent from an indefinite claim.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Thorpe (US 3,788,703).
In regard to claim 1, Thorpe discloses a geologic material removal system comprising: a moveable support structure (10 as in fig 1) including a controller (cab as shown in fig 1, as controlled col. 3, lines 10+); a mechanical arm (16); an attachment mechanism (18) removably coupled to the mechanical arm (as shown in fig 2, components may be removed from 18); a plasma torching head (20) coupled to the attachment mechanism, the plasma torching head supporting a plasma torch for removing geologic material, the plasma torching head moveable along two axes (as necessary to provide slots as in col. 3, lines 54-60 where torches would move along two axes).
In regard to claim 2, Thorpe discloses wherein the moveable support structure is an excavator (as in fig 1, as performing excavation).
In regard to claim 3, Thorpe discloses wherein the plasma torching head comprises a plurality of plasma torches (20 and 22).
In regard to claim 4, Thorpe discloses wherein the plurality of plasma torches are different sizes (col. 3, lines 28-34).
In regard to claim 13, Thorpe discloses a squid to provide cooling to a surface being cut by a plasma torch, wherein the cooling comprises one or more of air and water (86 in fig 4, described as 88 col. 3, lines 53-55).
In regard to claim 16, Thorpe discloses a moveable support structure (10 as in fig 1) including a trenching controller (cab as shown in fig 1, as controlled col. 3, lines 10+); a plasma torching head 64/68) configured to cut a trench (as cutting material); a baffle (60) to enclose the plasma torching head (as in fig 4), the baffle providing protection for spoils from the plasma torching head (as shown would protect plasma torching head).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of Hames et al. (US 2003/0173819).
Thorpe discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 1 above, except for a plurality of sensors coupled to the geologic material removal; and a controller to determine a quality of earth being removed and adjust one or more settings of the plasma torching head. Hames et al. disclose a system comprising a plurality of sensors (156, paragraph 79) coupled to the geologic material removal; and a controller (paragraph 82) to determine a quality of earth being removed and adjust one or more settings of the plasma torching head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Thorpe with a plurality of sensors and a control system, as taught by Hames et al. in order to monitor the progress of the operation and provide adjustments for optimal material removal.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of Sanders et al. (US 5,120,930).
In regard to claim 6, Thorpe discloses all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 1 above, and including wherein the plasma torching head comprises: a protective casing (60) surrounding a plasma torch, but does not disclose a plurality of field replaceable tubes around a portion of the plasma torch configured to absorb impact to protect the plasma torch. Sanders et al. disclose a system including a plurality of field replaceable tubes (20, 38) around a portion of the plasma torch (as in fig 3A) configured to absorb impact to protect the plasma torch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Thorpe with the plurality of tubes, as taught by Sanders et al. to provide additional protection to the plasma torch from impact.
In regard to claim 9, Thorpe discloses all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 1 above except for a baffle. Sanders et al. disclose a system including a plasma torching head (14) and a baffle (38) to enclose the plasma torching head (as in fig 3A), the baffle configured to control dispersion of spoils during use of the geologic material removal system (as would occur by physically shielding the torch and providing flow via 44 which would control dispersion of spoils).
In regard to claim 11, Sanders et al. disclose wherein the baffle includes a dispersal slot (44), through which the spoils can exit the baffle.
In regard to claim 12, Thorpe discloses 12. The geologic material removal system of claim 9, wherein the moveable support structure comprises an excavator (as in fig 1, as performing excavation).
In regard to claim 15, Thorpe discloses all the limitations of this claim as applied to claim 1 above except for a kiln. Sanders et al. disclose a system comprising a kiln (38) comprising a tube of refractive material (col. 6, line 12-16, where such a metal would be considered “refractive material”) placed in front of a plasma torch (as in fig 3A), the kiln configured to constrain a plasma plume when an initial bore hole is made (as would occur). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Thorpe with the kiln, as taught by Sanders et al. to provide additional protection to the plasma torch from impact.
In regard to claim 17, Thorpe discloses a geologic material removal system comprising: an attachment mechanism (18) to moveably couple a plasma torching head (20) to a moveable support structure (10 as in fig 1); and a plasma torch (22) in a protective casing (60). Thorpe does not disclose replaceable tubing around at least a portion of the plasma torch and extending beyond an electrode of the plasma torch, such that a plasma plume produced by the plasma torch extends beyond the tubes, the tubes providing protection for the plasma torch. Sanders et al. disclose a system including a replaceable tubing (20, 38) around at least a portion of the plasma torch (as in fig 3A) and extending beyond an electrode of a plasma torch (as in fig 3A, as extending beyond 14), such that a plasma plume produced by the plasma torch extends beyond the tubes, the tubes providing protection for the plasma torch (as in fig 3A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Thorpe with the replaceable tubing, as taught by Sanders et al. to provide additional protection to the plasma torch from impact.
In regard to claim 18, Thorpe discloses a squid (86 in fig 4, described as 88 col. 3, lines 53-55) to direct a cooled stream to cool a surface being trenched.
In regard to claim 19, Thorpe discloses a control system (as in fig 1, controls shown within cab of 10) to adjust a horizontal travel rate and depth of the plasma torch (as necessarily controlled to perform col. 3, lines 54+), based on a size of a trench and geologic material being removed (as necessarily controlled to provide desired result as in col. 3, lines 54+).
In regard to claim 20, Thorpe discloses a baffle (38) surrounding the plasma torching head, the baffle to control dispersion of spoils during use of the geologic material removal system (as would occur by physically shielding the torch and providing flow via 44 which would control dispersion of spoils).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of Helming (US 2022/0220851). Thorpe discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 1 above, except for a vacuum head. Helming discloses a geologic material removal system comprising a vacuum head (280, paragraph 53) to vacuum up spoils generated by a plasma torch, the vacuum head including a water inlet to cool the spoils before the spoils enter a vacuum hose (paragraph 53 as before entering 290). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Thorpe with the vacuum components as Taught by Helming in order to remove debris while drilling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wright et al. (US 11,492,904) disclose a geologic material removal system with a plasma torch. Hess et al. (US 10,272,512) disclose a plasma torch on a moveable support structure. Shafer (US 4,858,700) and Stormon (US 4,099,579) disclose moveable support structures for geologic material removal systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D Andrews whose telephone number is (571)272-6558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
/D. ANDREWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
3/17/2026