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 § 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.
Claim 3-5, 7-9, 14-15, 21, 25-27 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 3 recites the limitation "the duration t2" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the volume flow and/or the mass flow" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the duration t2" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the advancing speed V2" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the current I2" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plasma torch distance d2" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, the distance is not defined. What is the distance relative to? Limitations from the specification, such as “d2”, are not to be read into the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the volume flow and/or the mass flow" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the smallest distance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the resulting washout" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites, “described by the plasma cutting torch.” It is not clear what is meant by this limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the smallest distance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the resulting washout" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites, “described by the plasma cutting torch.” It is not clear what is meant by this limitation.
Claims 25-26 describe at least one further phase, but fail to set forth the limitations of the “at least one further phase.”
Claim 27 recites “the pressure”, the volume/mass flow, the torch distance”, but these limitations do not have antecedent basis. Also, Also, the distance is not defined. What is the distance relative to? Limitations from the specification, such as “d”, are not to be read into the claims.
Any claims not listed are dependent on a rejected 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) 1-2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delzenne (US 6,236,013).
Delzenne discloses, A method for plasma-cutting workpieces, in which at least one plasma cutting torch is used, which has at least a plasma torch body, an electrode and a nozzle, through the nozzle opening of which at least a plasma gas (PG) or plasma gas mixture flows and which constricts the plasma jet, wherein the method comprises the steps of: positioning the plasma cutting torch relative to a workpiece (the torch is positioned relative to the workpiece as shown in the Figures), igniting a pilot arc ("pilot arc") between the electrode and the nozzle of the plasma cutting torch and generating a transferred plasma arc (""arc transferred" to the workpiece 3 mode") between the electrode of the plasma cutting torch and the workpiece, piercing (claim 14 and figure 5; implicitly piercing between the marking and the cutting) the plasma jet into the workpiece until the plasma jet is through the workpiece, and
- then cutting the workpiece by guiding the plasma cutting torch at an advancing speed v4 at a plasma torch distance d4 from the workpiece at a cutting current 14 such that a kerf having a kerf width results, wherein, before the plasma jet pierces into and through the workpiece, a washout portion is formed (claim 14: "steps a and c, marking"; figure 5) by the workpiece being exposed to the plasma jet from the workpiece surface at least for a duration t2 such that material of the workpiece is removed from the workpiece surface and the washout portion results. (See Figures 4-5, Column 12, Lines 17-25 and claim 14) Regarding claim 2, as all the steps are performed, as described above, as claimed with the pilot arc first, the washout, piercing and cutting. Regarding claim 6, Fig 1 shows the gas cap 22, which partially encloses the nozzle 10 for flowing a shielding gas 26 through inlet 24.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delzenne (US 6,236,013).
Delzenne fails to disclose, the washout has a maximum depth of at least 15% of the workpiece thickness and/or at least 10 mm, measured perpendicularly from the workpiece surface, the washout on the workpiece surface has a length of at least 40% of the workpiece thickness and/or at least 20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to provide the washout has a maximum depth of at least 15% of the workpiece thickness and/or at least 10 mm, measured perpendicularly from the workpiece surface, the washout on the workpiece surface has a length of at least 40% of the workpiece thickness and/or at least 20 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20, 22-24 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/16/2026
Prosecution Insights