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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yakovlevitch et al (US 4,649,257).
With regards to claim 1, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a connecting part for a processing head for thermal material processing (a gas distribution ring 12 for a plasma gun having gun body 14 , Fig. 1), comprising a body that extends along a longitudinal axis having an outer face, an inner face, a front end, and a rear end (gas distribution ring 12 has a body extending along a longitudinal axis having an outer face, an inner face, a front end, and a rear end, Fig. 2); and said outer face has at least one slot (groove 48, Fig. 2), extending in the circumferential direction, with each said slot having a slot depth and a slot bottom (groove 48 extends around a circumferential direction of gas distribution ring 12 having a slot depth and a slot bottom, Fig. 2), wherein said slot bottom exhibits, around the circumference, different distances extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis between the opposite portions of said slot bottom (groove 48 has a pair of undulated rims 53,55 that have different distances extending through the longitudinal axis of the gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 2), and said one outer face exhibits, around the circumference, different distances, extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, between the opposite portions of said outer face (groove 48 has a pair of undulated rims 53,55 that have different distances extending through the longitudinal axis of the gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 2).
With regards claim 17, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a connecting part for a processing head for thermal material processing (a gas distribution ring 12 for a plasma gun having gun body 14 , Fig. 1), comprising a body that extends along a longitudinal axis with an outer face, an inner face, a front end, and a rear end (gas distribution ring 12 has a body extending along a longitudinal axis having an outer face, an inner face, a front end, and a rear end, Fig. 2); outer face has at least one slot extending in the circumferential direction, having a slot width, a slot depth (groove 48 extends around a circumferential direction of gas distribution ring 12 having a slot width and a slot depth, Fig. 2), and having an O-ring with a cord size (O-ring 52 having a cord size, Fig. 1);said O-ring having a innermost face directed towards the longitudinal axis of said O-ring, said innermost face exhibits, around the circumference, different distances extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis between opposite portions of said innermost face; and said O-ring or profile ring has an outermost face, said outermost face exhibits, around the circumference, different distances extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis between the opposite portions of said outermost face (groove 48 has a pair of undulated rims 53,55 that have different distances extending through the longitudinal axis of the gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) cc are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovlevitch et al.
With regards to claim 2, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, between the opposite portions of said slot bottom exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is between 1/4 and 2 times said slot width or said slot depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 3, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, between the opposite portions of said slot bottom exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is between 0.4mm and 3.0mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 4, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, between the opposite portions of said outer face exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is between 1/4 and 2 times said slot width or said slot depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 5, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, between the opposite portions of said outer face exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is between 0.4mm and 3.0mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 6, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, between the opposite portions of said inner face exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is between 1/4 and 2 times said slot width or said slot depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 7, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, between the opposite portions of said inner face exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is between 0.4mm and 3.0mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 8, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the length extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between a boundary directed towards said rear end of said slot and said rear end having a face that is less than half of said slot width. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 9, Yakovlevitch et al discloses at least on one side of said slot, a lateral boundary face exhibits different distances extending axially with respect to the longitudinal axis between said slot bottom, said outer face, and said inner face (groove 48 has a pair of undulated rims 53,55 that have different distances extending through the longitudinal axis of the gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 10, Yakovlevitch et al discloses an O-ring is located in said slot (O-ring 52 is located in groove 48, Fig. 1,2).
With regards to claim 11, Yakovlevitch et al discloses said O-ring has an outermost face that protrudes from said slot via adjoining outer faces immediately adjoining said slot (O-ring 52 protrudes from groove 48 via first rim 53 and second rim 55, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 12, Yakovlevitch et al discloses said O-ring has an innermost face that protrudes from said slot via immediately adjoining inner faces (O-ring 52 protrudes from groove 48 via first rim 53 and second rim 55, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 13, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the connecting part is a gas guide (gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 14, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a second connecting part that is able to be plugged into the connecting part (gun body 14 and gas distribution ring 12 are in contact with each other, Fig. 1), wherein said O-ring of the connecting part is in contact, in the plugged-together state of the connecting parts (O-ring 52 is in contact with the inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1), around its entire circumference with the opposite inner face or outer face of said second connecting part and thus seals off the space between the inner and outer face (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 15, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a second connecting part that is able to be fit or plugged into the connecting part (gun body 14 and gas distribution ring 12 are in contact with each other, Fig. 1), wherein in the fully fitted state, the alignment axially with respect to the longitudinal axis of the connecting parts occurs by way of the contact of a face of the connecting part and a face of the second connecting part (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 16, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a second connecting part that is able to be fit or plugged into the connecting part (gun body 14 and gas distribution ring 12 are in contact with each other, Fig. 1), wherein, in the fully fitted state, the alignment or centering radially with respect to the longitudinal axis of the connecting part with respect to the second connecting part occurs by way of an outer face of the connecting part with respect to an inner face of the second connecting part (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1), which have tight tolerances with respect to one another and are at least partially in contact (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 18, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is in the range of 14, to 2 times said slot width or said slot depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 19, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is in the range of 1/3 to 2 times said cord size, the diameter of said cord, or the width extending along the longitudinal axis of said O-ring or profile ring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 20, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose the distance extending through the longitudinal axis and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis exhibits at least one smallest distance and at least one largest distance and the difference between said largest distance and said smallest distance is in the range of 0.4mm to 3.0mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 21, Yakovlevitch et al discloses said outermost face protrudes from said slot via said outer face immediately adjoining said slot (O-ring 52 protrudes from groove 48 via first rim 53 and second rim 55, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 22, Yakovlevitch et al discloses said innermost face protrudes from said slot via said inner face immediately adjoining said slot (O-ring 52 protrudes from groove 48 via first rim 53 and second rim 55, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 26, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose said rear end having a face; and
a length extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between that face of said O- ring that faces said rear end and said face of said rear end is less than between 3/5 and 1/2 of said slot width. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distances as taught by Yakovlevitch et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 27, Yakovlevitch et al discloses the connecting part is a gas guide (gas distribution ring 12, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 28, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a second connecting part that is able to be plugged into the connecting part (gun body 14 and gas distribution ring 12 are in contact with each other, Fig. 1), wherein said O-ring of the connecting part is in contact, in the plugged-together state of the connecting parts (O-ring 52 is in contact with the inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1), around its entire circumference with the opposite inner face or outer face of said second connecting part and thus seals off the space between the inner and outer face (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 29, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a second connecting part that is able to be fit or plugged into the connecting part (gun body 14 and gas distribution ring 12 are in contact with each other, Fig. 1), wherein in the fully fitted state, the alignment axially with respect to the longitudinal axis of the connecting parts occurs by way of the contact of a face of the connecting part and a face of the second connecting part (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 30, Yakovlevitch et al discloses a second connecting part that is able to be fit or plugged into the connecting part (gun body 14 and gas distribution ring 12 are in contact with each other, Fig. 1), wherein, in the fully fitted state, the alignment or centering radially with respect to the longitudinal axis of the connecting part with respect to the second connecting part occurs by way of an outer face of the connecting part with respect to an inner face of the second connecting part (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1), which have tight tolerances with respect to one another and are at least partially in contact (O-ring 52 around it circumference is in contact with an inner wall of gun body 14, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovlevitch et al as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Namburu (US 9,457,419).
With regards to claim 23, Yakovlevitch et al does not disclose at least one further outer face which protrudes beyond said outermost face.
Namburu teaches at least one further outer face which protrudes beyond said outermost face (nozzle 200 has a O-ring groove 231 having a seat portion 236 and an upstream portion 210 that has an outer face that is beyond the seat portion 236, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yakovlevitch et al and Namburu before him or her, to modify the gas distribution ring of Yakovlevitch et al to include the upper portion of Namburu because the combination allows for a maximally fluid tightly connected to an O-ring.
With regards to claim 24, Namburu teaches at least one further outer face which protrudes beyond said outermost face and has recesses or slots (upstream 210 having two O-ring grooves 203 and 205, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 25, Namburu teaches the outermost face does not protrude beyond the deepest portion of said recesses or slots (seat portion 236 does not protrude beyond the grooves 203 and 205 of upstream 210, Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach all the limitations
of claims 1 and 17.
Examiner's response: Applicant has amended claim 1 includes "connecting the first connecting
part to the second connecting part such that the O-ring or profile ring which extends along the slot is initially in contact with a partial circumference of the opposite inner face". Yakovlevitch et al discloses connecting the first connecting part to the second connecting part such that the O-ring or profile ring which extends along the slot is initially in contact with a partial circumference of the opposite inner face or opposite outer face (O-ring 52 received by groove 48 partially contacts an inner surface of gun body 14 first at an upper part of rims 53,55 initially while being inserted, Fig. 1,2). Applicant argues the prior art does not correspond to any of the applicant claimed elements. The specification of the invention states the parts are for a processing head for a plasma torch head (specification, page 1, lines 1-10). The parts of Yakovlevitch et al are for a front end 10 of a plasma gun (Fig. 1). Applicant further focuses on the O-rings cited in the prior art of having a different use that the claimed invention. Yakovlevitch et al clearly shows that O-ring 52 contacts the inner surface of gun body 14 (Fig. 1). Though O-ring 52 has a use for gas distribution, its spatial relationship with the gun body 14 clearly shows a connection of parts and helping maintain structural integrity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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 LANDRUM can be reached on 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights