DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 21-22, in the reply filed on September 2, 2025, is acknowledged. After further consideration of the content of unelected Group II, the examiner no longer understands the examination of both groupings to be an undue burden. The restriction requirement is hereby vacated, and claims 23-25 have been examiner for patentability.
Regarding the arguments presented in the March 31, 2025, response, the applicant contends that the submitted amendments overcome the rejections of records, which the examiner affirmed during the interview convened on February 12, 2025. Specifically, claim 1 now recites a “sleeve disposed around…the sensor tube…comprising a vent formed in a wall of the sleeve.” The cited reference of Mayer, for example, fails to disclose a vent formed in a sleeve (p. 8).
In response, as an initial matter, the examiner enumerated various amendments during the aforesaid interview which, if recited collectively, would likely place claim 1 in condition for allowance. The amendments submitted in the instant claim set, however, constitute only a modicum of the changes contemplated during the interview. Accordingly, the examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assessment. As shown by Figure 1 of Severin, the primary reference, the distal end of the sensor tube (3) may be construed as the termini containing window 4A which, in turn, may be taken as the claimed “sensor window.” In this way, Severin’s sleeve (12) fits around the proximal end of the sensor tube. Regarding the claimed “vent,” the examiner observes that the sleeve contains an open end to permit the ingress of atmosphere, and the sensor tube also contains an opening extending entirely through its wall. Either of these features are understood by the examiner to render obvious the claimed feature of the vent, as they yield the same result of pressure equalization via a similar structure.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the examiner notes that strong progress towards allowance can be made by incorporating claim 21 into the independent claim, as well as formally clarifying the position of the sensor assembly within the processing chamber. For example, the examiner suggests broadening the preamble to establish the processing chamber as the basis of the claim, and then stipulating that the sensor tube is disposed through the body of the pre-heat ring surrounding the susceptor, whereby claim 13 provides an instructive template for this language.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severin et al., US 5,046,849, in view of Mayer et al., US 5,277,496, and Chen et al., US 2015/0085349.
Claims 1, 3: Severin discloses a sensor assembly, comprising a sensor tube (3) having an optical path therein and a sensor window (4A) (2, 46ff). The window has a proximal side coupled to a distal end of the tube so as to cover the optical path. Further, a distal side of the window facing away from said proximal side is perpendicular to a center axis of the optical path (Fig. 1). Severin also provides a sleeve (11) disposed around a proximal end of the sensor tube, whereby the sleeve contains an open end to permit the ingress of atmosphere. The examiner also notes that the sensor tube contains an opening extending entirely through its wall. Either the open end of the sleeve or the opening of the sensor tube renders obvious the claimed feature of the vent. Regarding the latter, given the contiguous nature of the tube and sleeve, forming an opening in either structure would have been obvious, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Although the reference does not discuss the material of silicon carbide, Severin does suggest forming the tube and window of a similar compound, quartz. In supplementation, Mayer discloses an optical sensor for use within a processing environment. The sensor comprises a tube (14) containing an optical path formed of silicon carbide due to the material’s capacity to accommodate thermal stress (1, 40ff; 5, 10-25). Mayer also provides a window (24), but is silent as to its composition. Chen, however, affirms the suitability of 4H silicon carbide for purposes of optical transmission [0057]. As shown by Figure 6, a light beam passes through a silicon carbide crystal (211) within the milieu of a laser device. Further, paragraphs [0005] thru [0010] elaborate the various qualities of crystalline silicon carbide, among them: high transmittance, high damage thresholds, and elevated thermal conductivity. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to form Severin’s tube and window of silicon carbide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Claim 2: Mayer proposes sintering the sensor tube (2, 46-47).
Claim 5: Mayer contemplates forming the entirety of the device of silicon carbide which, tautologically, comprises the sleeve (5, 13-17).
Claims 7, 24: Severin moves the sensor tube and sleeve in relation to each other in a direction parallel to the center axis of the optical path (2, 7-14).
Claim 8: There is a gap of 0.5 mm between Severin’s sleeve and tube (3, 10-14).
Claim 9: Whatever material mediates between the sensor window and tube may be arbitrarily considered as the claimed “filler material.”
Claim 10: Mayer contemplates forming the entirety of the device of silicon carbide which, tautologically, comprises the filler material (5, 13-17).
Claim 21: Severin disposes “gas fibre bundles” within tubes (1, 2), whereby the examiner understands the disclose of gas fibers as rendering obvious the claimed feature of “fiber optic cables” (3, 1-6).
Claim 22: Terms such as “above” and “below” can be mapped arbitrarily upon Severin’s sensor tube simply by reorienting the referential coordinate axes.
Claim 23: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1 and 21 address these limitations.
Claim 25: This limitation is satisfied tautologically, as the claimed “radial gap” is not restricted to non-zero values.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Abraham et al., US 6,734,969. Abraham discloses a sensor assembly comprising a sensor tube (40) having an optical path therein, along with a sensor window (45) oriented orthogonally to the center axis of said path (7, 18-65; Fig. 2a).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716