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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15 to 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohama et al (2003/074920) in view of Uchimura (Jp 2008-094639).
The Ohama et al reference teaches a quartz glass crucible, note, entire. The Ohama et al reference teaches a quartz glass crucible with an outer layer formed of an opaque quartz glass containing bubbles and an inner layer formed of a transparent quartz glass. Note examples 1 and 2; Figure 2. The crucible is constituted by a bottom portion, a curved portion and a straight body portion para 0039 and Figure 1. The outer layer is made from natural quartz glass and the inner layer is made from synthetic quartz glass. The transparent inner layer is formed while supplying water vapor para 0039. After use, the inner layer of the crucible did not show expansion of bubbles para 0044. The sole differences between the instant claims and the prior art is the blue fluorescence property of the quartz crucible. However, the Uchimura reference teaches a method for evaluating a quartz glass crucible paras 0018-0022. The quartz glass crucible including an outer layer formed of an opaque quartz glass containing a bubble, and an inner layer formed of a transparent quartz glass, the method comprising irradiating the quartz glass crucible to be evaluated with ultraviolet rays as an excitation light at 242 nm para 0019 and a step of detecting a blue fluorescence at 390 nm emitted from the quartz glass crucible irradiated with the ultraviolet rays para 0079. This step indicates the state of oxygen deficiency defects in the inner layer of the quartz glass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Ohama et al reference by the teachings of the Uchimura reference to irradiate a quartz crucible to obtain a blue fluorescence in order to determine the uniformity of the boundary between the two layers as the blue fluorescence will show where there is more bubbles, the entire bottom, curved section and straight section due to the outer layer.
With regards to claim 16, the Ohama et al reference teaches an outer layer of nature quartz and an inner layer of synthetic quartz, note examples.
With regards to claims 17 and 18, the Ohama et al reference teaches the inner layer introduce or made with water vapor, note, examples.
With regards to claims 19 to 22, the Uchimura reference teaches blue fluorescence with a peak of 395 nm, note para 0079.
With regards to claims 23 to 30, the Uchimura reference teaches ultraviolet radiation set at 254nm, note para 0019.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning the Uchimura reference having a uniform bubble through out the layer is noted. However, the instant claims do not recite that there needs to be uniform bubbles in one of the layers. In fact, claim 15 recites “a bubble”. The is no clear difference between the instant claims and the teachings of the Uchimura reference on the state of bubbles in the crucible layers. Also, the claims do not set forth any limitation in the layers of the crucible that are not meet by the Uchimura reference that would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that a uniform blue fluorescence would not be obtain. In any event, the claims are rejected over Ohama et al in view of Uchimura, where the Ohama et al reference clearly teaches the 2 layer of the crucible that are set forth in the instant specification, are uniform and made by the same method. The combination would have a uniform blue fluorescence over the entire crucible.
Applicants’ argument concerning the combination of reference has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The combination of reference teach a crucible with two layers, both uniform through out and being made of the same materials as claimed. Further, the layers are made by the same methods and have the same shape, taught by Ohama et al reference. When subjected to the same beam the layers create between them a blue fluorescence’s taught by Uchimura, which would be uniform throughout as the layers are uniform. The combination is the crucible of the Ohama et al reference treated with a beam as in the Uchimura.
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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714