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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kroon (US20230175135).
Claim 1: Kroon discloses a system, comprising: a chamber (reaction chamber [0006, 0023]) configured to receive a semiconductor wafer (silicon wafers in CVD reactors [0002]); a first thermocouple (thermocouple 20’, Fig. 3-7) coupled to the chamber and wherein at least a portion of the first thermocouple is disposed within an interior volume of the chamber (the closed distal end 24 of the thermocouple is disposed within the reaction chamber [0023]); a first sample hose (sample tube 108) in fluid communication with an interior volume of the first thermocouple (the sample tube 108 is in communication with the interior of the thermocouple 20’ where, in the event of sheath 22 failure, hydrogen gas reports to the proximal end of the sheath 22 wherein it can be sampled by the tube 108 [0026]); and a detector (gas monitor [0026]) in fluid communication with the first sample hose, the detector being configured to analyze a gas received from the first sample hose (the gas monitor is configured to detect excess hydrogen [0026]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Fanger et al. (US20160356425).
Claim 2: Kroon teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first thermocouple includes an end cap including a first channel and a second channel, wherein a first thermocouple wire of the first thermocouple extends through the first channel of the end cap and the first sample hose is coupled to the second channel.
However, Fanger teaches a container 117, Fig. 1, including a thermocouple 101, 102 [0050] which extends into the container 117 from the outside through a threaded fitting 111 having a plurality of bores 103a, 103b, 104, and 105. The fitting 111 is configured to permit certain components access to the interior of the container 117 while maintaining a seal with the container and any components that are sufficient to withstand gas pressures in the container 117 up to the service pressure rating [0028]. Therefore, it is known to use a threaded fitting having bores in order to allow multiple components, including a thermocouple and flow loop 116, access to a sealed environment while maintaining the desired seal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a fitting, as taught by Fanger, with the device of Kroon for the obvious benefit of permitting certain components access to the interior of the sealed environment while maintaining a seal (Fanger [0028]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Fanger further in view of Skiba et al. (US7226088)
Claim 3: Kroon in view of Fanger teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the second channel in the end cap includes a first segment extending in parallel to the first channel and the second channel in the end cap includes a second segment extending radially away from a central axis of the end cap.
However, Skiba teaches a threaded fluid coupling including a central passageway 40 and a radial fluid port 42, Figs. 4A. Therefore, it is known to intersect a passageway 40 formed in a threaded coupling with a radial fluid port 42.
Kroon teaches that the lead wires 28 extend through the vent 106 without occluding the vent such that a gas sample can be withdrawn through the vent [0024]. Fanger teaches that the end cap (fitting 111) can include a plurality of parallel bores to achieve communication from the interior of a sealed environment to the exterior. Skiba teaches that bores can extend radially away from a central bore. Therefore, the prior art teaches various designs to allow communication through an end cap. The nature of the problem to be solved -communicating with the interior of a sealed environment- would have lead one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate end cap design to allow for both wiring to pass through the end cap and a gas sample to be obtained from the sealed environment. Shifting the position of the bores or fluid connections does not produce any new or unexpected result. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a plurality of parallel bores wherein two are connected by a radially extending bore in order to place a gas sampling hose and wiring in communication with the interior of the sealed environment.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of applicant-cited Wengert et al. (US6325858).
Claim 4: Kroon teaches the system of claim 1. Kroon teaches the chamber (reaction chamber [0006, 0023]) configured to receive a semiconductor wafer (silicon wafers in CVD reactors [0002]); a first thermocouple (thermocouple 20’, Fig. 3-7) coupled to the chamber and wherein at least a portion of the first thermocouple is disposed within an interior volume of the chamber (the closed distal end 24 of the thermocouple is disposed within the reaction chamber [0023]); a first sample hose (sample tube 108) in fluid communication with an interior volume of the first thermocouple (the sample tube 108 is in communication with the interior of the thermocouple 20’ where, in the event of sheath 22 failure, hydrogen gas reports to the proximal end of the sheath 22 wherein it can be sampled by the tube 108 [0026]); and a detector (gas monitor [0026]) in fluid communication with the first sample hose, the detector being configured to analyze a gas received from the first sample hose (the gas monitor is configured to detect excess hydrogen [0026]).
Kroon fails to teach a second thermocouple coupled to the chamber and wherein at least a portion of the second thermocouple is disposed within the interior volume of the chamber; and a second sample hose in fluid communication with an interior volume of the second thermocouple, wherein the detector is in fluid communication with the second sample hose.
However, Wengert teaches a chamber 10, Fig. 1, including a pair of thermocouples 34.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use two thermocouples as taught by Wengert, with the device of Kroon, in order to sense the temperature of the rings surrounding the susceptor, which in turn is an indirect measure of the temperature of the susceptor and a wafer positioned on it (Wengert, col. 1, lines 35-40).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Vaccaro et al. (US20160116364).
Claim 5. Kroon teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the detector is configured to analyze the gas to determine whether a concentration of hydrogen in the gas exceeds a predetermined threshold and, when the concentration of hydrogen exceeds the predetermined threshold, generate an alarm signal.
However, Vaccaro teaches a leak test apparatus and method (title) wherein hydrogen is detected via hydrogen sensor 80 to detect the concentration in a cavity 70. Vaccaro uses a threshold hydrogen level that indicates a leak. If a leak is detected, an indicator such as a beacon, light, or audible alarm, is used to indicate the presence of a leak [0041].
It would have been obvious to use a threshold value to indicate a leak and an alarm, as taught by Vaccaro in order to achieve consistent leak detection and in order to effectively communicate a detected leak to an operator.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Wengert further in view of Rainer et al. (US8528399).
Claim 6: Kroon teaches a chamber (reaction chamber [0006, 0023]) configured to receive a semiconductor wafer (silicon wafers in CVD reactors [0002]); a first thermocouple (thermocouple 20’, Fig. 3-7) coupled to the chamber and wherein at least a portion of the first thermocouple is disposed within an interior volume of the chamber (the closed distal end 24 of the thermocouple is disposed within the reaction chamber [0023]); a first sample hose (sample tube 108) in fluid communication with an interior volume of the first thermocouple (the sample tube 108 is in communication with the interior of the thermocouple 20’ where, in the event of sheath 22 failure, hydrogen gas reports to the proximal end of the sheath 22 wherein it can be sampled by the tube 108 [0026]); and a detector (gas monitor [0026]) in fluid communication with the first sample hose, the detector being configured to analyze a gas received from the first sample hose (the gas monitor is configured to detect excess hydrogen [0026]).
Kroon fails to teach a plurality of sampling hoses, a manifold including an output port and a plurality of input ports, wherein each input port of the plurality of input ports is configured to couple to a first end of a sample hose of the plurality of sample hoses wherein, wherein second ends of each sample hose in the plurality of sample hoses are configured to couple to an interior volume of a thermocouple housing of a plurality of thermocouple housings; and an output hose connected between the output port of the manifold and a detector, wherein the detector is configured to detect leaks in thermocouple housings of the plurality of thermocouple housings by analyzing a content of a gas retrieved from the output hose.
However, Wengert teaches a chamber 10, Fig. 1, including a pair of thermocouples 34.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use two thermocouples as taught by Wengert, with the device of Kroon, in order to sense the temperature of the rings surrounding the susceptor, which in turn is an indirect measure of the temperature of the susceptor and a wafer positioned on it (Wengert, col. 1, lines 35-40).
Kroon in view of Wengert fails to teach a manifold with a plurality of inputs ports and an output port.
However, Rainer teaches a manifold (Figs. 6-7) which includes any number of input ports and output ports (col. 9, lines 7-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a manifold, as taught by Rainer, with the device of Kroon in view of Wengert in order to switchably supplying a sensor with substances from different sources (Rainer, col. 9, lines 7-15).
Claim 7: Kroon in view of Wengert further in view of Rainer teaches the system of claim 6. Kroon in view of Wengert fails to teach wherein the manifold is configured to selectively connect a single sample hose of the plurality of sample hoses to the output port of the manifold.
However, Rainer teaches the manifold (Figs. 6-7) can switchably supply the sensor 24 with substances from different sources (inputs) (col. 9, lines 7-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use manifold, as taught by Rainer, with the device of Kroon in view of Wengert in order to provide individual detection a parameter from a plurality of respective sources with a locally positioned sensor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Wengert further in view of Rainer further in view of Mendoza (US3762216).
Claim 8: Kroon in view of Wengert further in view of Rainer teaches the system of claim 7, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a controller is coupled to the manifold and the controller is configured to cause the manifold to sequentially connect individual sample hoses of the plurality of sample hoses to the output port of the manifold to enable the detector to detect a leak in a specific thermocouple housing coupled to one of the plurality of sample hoses.
However, Mendoza teaches a manifold 17 having a plurality of inlets (see Figure) and a single outlet connecting to a chamber 13. The inlets are selectively controlled by the control panel 41 to sequentially open the appropriate valves 23, 27, 31, 35, 39 to allow fluid connection to the chamber 13 through the manifold 17.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a controller as taught by Mendoza with the device of claim 7 in order to use a predetermined sequence and predetermined time interval for accessing different input connections of the manifold (Mendoza, claim 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Wengert further in view of Rainer further in view of Vaccaro.
Claim 9: Kroon in view of Wengert further in view of Rainer teaches the system of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the detector is configured to analyze the gas to determine whether a concentration of hydrogen in the gas exceed a predetermined threshold and, when the concentration of hydrogen exceeds the predetermined threshold, generate an alarm signal.
However, Vaccaro teaches a leak test apparatus and method (title) wherein hydrogen is detected via hydrogen sensor 80 to detect the concentration in a cavity 70. Vaccaro uses a threshold hydrogen level that indicates a leak. If a leak is detected, an indicator such as a beacon, light, or audible alarm, is used to indicate the presence of a leak [0041].
It would have been obvious to use a threshold value to indicate a leak and an alarm, as taught by Vaccaro, with the device of claim 6 in order to achieve consistent leak detection and in order to effectively communicate a detected leak to an operator.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Lariviere et al. (US20220162737).
Claim 10: Kroon teaches a system, comprising: a first sample hose (sample tube 108) configured to couple to a thermocouple housing (thermocouple 20’, Fig. 3-7) to place the first sample hose in fluid communication with an interior volume of the thermocouple housing (the sample tube 108 is in communication with the interior of the thermocouple 20’ where, in the event of sheath 22 failure, hydrogen gas reports to the proximal end of the sheath 22 wherein it can be sampled by the tube 108 [0026]) wherein the thermocouple housing is configured to couple to a reaction chamber (reaction chamber [0006, 0023]); a detector (gas monitor [0026]) in fluid communication with the first sample hose, the detector being configured to analyze a gas received from the interior volume of the thermocouple housing (the gas monitor is configured to detect excess hydrogen [0026]) to detect a leak in the thermocouple housing (the sample tube 108 is in communication with the interior of the thermocouple 20’ where, in the event of sheath 22 failure, hydrogen gas reports to the proximal end of the sheath 22 wherein it can be sampled by the tube 108 [0026]).
Kroon fails to teach a connection between the thermocouple and the reaction chamber that allows the thermocouple to rotate with respect to the reaction chamber; a rotating hub including a first connection port and a second connection port, wherein the first connection port is configured to connect to the first sample hose; a second sample hose configured to connect to the second connection port of the rotating hub, wherein when the first connection rotating hub is connected to the first sample hose and the second connection port is connected to the second sample hose, the second sample hose is in fluid communication with the first sample hose and the rotating hub is configured to enable the second sample hose to rotate with respect to the first sample hose.
However, Lariviere teaches a rotating hub (rotary union 192; Figs. 10, 13, 16) which attaches between a gas line 195 and a secondary gas line 197. The rotary union 192 allows for maintaining fluid flow communication to the heated chuck 140 while the heated chuck 140 and vertical rod 182 along with the gas line 197 are rotated by the rotational assembly 170; [0051], Figs. 10, 13. Therefore, a rotary union is known in the art to communicate gas between a rotatable section of hose/line and a stationary section of hose/line. The problem to be solved -a rotatable gas line/hose- would have lead one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate gas connection means.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a rotary union as taught by Lariviere with the device of Kroon in order to maintain fluid flow communication while allowing rotation of the gas line (Lariviere, [0051]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Vaccaro.
Claim 11: Kroon in view of Lariviere teaches the system of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the detector is configured to analyze the gas to determine whether a concentration of hydrogen in the gas exceed a predetermined threshold and, when the concentration of hydrogen exceeds the predetermined threshold, generate an alarm signal.
However, Vaccaro teaches a leak test apparatus and method (title) wherein hydrogen is detected via hydrogen sensor 80 to detect the concentration in a cavity 70. Vaccaro uses a threshold hydrogen level that indicates a leak. If a leak is detected, an indicator such as a beacon, light, or audible alarm, is used to indicate the presence of a leak [0041].
It would have been obvious to use a threshold value to indicate a leak and an alarm, as taught by Vaccaro, with the system of claim10 in order to achieve consistent leak detection and in order to effectively communicate a detected leak to an operator.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer.
Claim 12: Kroon in view of Lariviere teaches the system of claim 10, but fails to teach a manifold including an output port and a plurality of input ports, wherein a first input port of the plurality of input ports is configured to connect to the second sample hose and the output port is configured to connect to the detector.
However, Rainer teaches a manifold (Figs. 6-7) which includes any number of input ports and output ports (col. 9, lines 7-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a manifold, as taught by Rainer, with the device of Kroon in view of Lariviere in order to switchably supplying a sensor with substances from different sources (Rainer, col. 9, lines 7-15).
Claims 13-15, 17 are rejected under Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer further in view of Wengert.
Claim 13: Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer teaches the system of claim 12, but fails to teach a third sample hose configured to couple to a device housing to place the third sample hose in fluid communication with an interior volume of the device housing, wherein the device housing is configured to couple to the reaction chamber and the third sample hose is configured to connect to a second input port of the plurality of input ports of the manifold.
However, Wengert teaches a chamber 10, Fig. 1, including a pair of thermocouples 34. Therefore it is known to use more than one thermocouple at once when monitoring a chamber which would require an additional sample hose in fluid communication with the interior volume of the thermocouple and the reaction chamber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use two thermocouples as taught by Wengert, with the device of Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Wengert, in order to sense the temperature of the rings surrounding the susceptor, which in turn is an indirect measure of the temperature of the susceptor and a wafer positioned on it (Wengert, col. 1, lines 35-40).
Claim 14: Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer further in view of Wengert teaches the system of claim 13. Kroon teaches wherein the detector is configured to analyze gas received from the interior volume of the device housing to detect a leak in the device housing (the gas monitor is configured to detect excess hydrogen [0026]).
Claim 15: Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer further in view of Wengert teaches the system of claim 13. Kroon in view of Lariviere fails to teach wherein the manifold is configured to selectively connect the second sample hose or the third sample hose to the output port of the manifold.
However, Rainer teaches the manifold (Figs. 6-7) can switchably supply the sensor 24 with substances from different sources (inputs) (col. 9, lines 7-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use manifold, as taught by Rainer, with the device of Kroon in view of Wengert in order to provide individual detection a parameter from a plurality of respective sources with a locally positioned sensor.
Claim 17: Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer further in view of Wengert teaches the system of claim 13. Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer fails to teach wherein the device housing includes at least one of a second thermocouple housing, a camera housing, and a sensor housing.
However, Wengert teaches a chamber 10, Fig. 1, including a pair of thermocouples 34. Therefore it is known to use more than one thermocouple at once when monitoring a chamber which would require an additional sample hose in fluid communication with the interior volume of the thermocouple and the reaction chamber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use two thermocouples as taught by Wengert, with the device of Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Wengert, in order to sense the temperature of the rings surrounding the susceptor, which in turn is an indirect measure of the temperature of the susceptor and a wafer positioned on it (Wengert, col. 1, lines 35-40).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer further in view of Wengert further in view of Mendoza.
Claim 16: Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Rainer further in view of Wengert teaches the system of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein a controller is coupled to the manifold and the controller is configured to cause the manifold to sequentially connect the second sample hose and the third sample hose to the output port of the manifold to enable the detector to detect a leak in either the thermocouple housing or the device housing.
However, Mendoza teaches a manifold 17 having a plurality of inlets (see Figure) and a single outlet connecting to a chamber 13. The inlets are selectively controlled by the control panel 41 to sequentially open the appropriate valves 23, 27, 31, 35, 39 to allow fluid connection to the chamber 13 through the manifold 17.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a controller as taught by Mendoza with the device of claim 15 in order to use a predetermined sequence and predetermined time interval for accessing different input connections of the manifold (Mendoza, claim 1).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Fanger.
Claim 18: Kroon in view of Lariviere teaches the system of claim 10, but fails to teach an end cap configured to couple to an end of the thermocouple housing, wherein the end cap includes a first channel and a second channel, wherein the first channel is configured to receive a thermocouple wire of a thermocouple disposed within the thermocouple housing and the first sample hose is in fluid communication with the second channel.
However, Fanger teaches a container 117, Fig. 1, including a thermocouple 101, 102 [0050] which extends into the container 117 from the outside through a threaded fitting 111 having a plurality of bores 103a, 103b, 104, and 105. The fitting 111 is configured to permit certain components access to the interior of the container 117 while maintaining a seal with the container and any components that are sufficient to withstand gas pressures in the container 117 up to the service pressure rating [0028]. Therefore, it is known to use a threaded fitting having bores in order to allow multiple components, including a thermocouple and flow loop 116, access to a sealed environment while maintaining the desired seal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a fitting, as taught by Fanger, with the device of Kroon in view of Lariviere for the obvious benefit of permitting certain components access to the interior of the sealed environment while maintaining a seal (Fanger [0028]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Fanger further in view of Skiba.
Claim 19: Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Fanger teaches the system of claim 18. Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Fanger fails to teach wherein the second channel in the end cap includes a first segment extending in a first direction that is parallel to the first channel and the second channel in the end cap includes a second segment extending radially away from a central axis of the end cap.
However, Skiba teaches a threaded fluid coupling including a central passageway 40 and a radial fluid port 42, Figs. 4A. Therefore, it is known to intersect a passageway 40 formed in a threaded coupling with a radial fluid port 42.
Kroon teaches that the lead wires 28 extend through the vent 106 without occluding the vent such that a gas sample can be withdrawn through the vent [0024]. Fanger teaches that the end cap (fitting 111) can include a plurality of parallel bores to achieve communication from the interior of a sealed environment to the exterior. Skiba teaches that bores can extend radially away from a central bore. Therefore, the prior art teaches various designs to allow communication through an end cap. The nature of the problem to be solved -communicating with the interior of a sealed environment- would have lead one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate end cap design to allow for both wiring to pass through the end cap and a gas sample to be obtained from the sealed environment. Shifting the position of the bores or fluid connections does not produce any new or unexpected result. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a plurality of parallel bores wherein two are connected by a radially extending bore in order to place a gas sampling hose and wiring in communication with the interior of the sealed environment.
Claim 20: Kroon in view of Lariviere further in view of Fanger further in view of Skiba teaches the system of claim 19, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second segment is in fluid communication with the interior volume of the thermocouple housing when the end cap is coupled to the end of the thermocouple housing.
However, Skiba teaches a threaded fluid coupling including a central passageway 40 and a radial fluid port 42, Figs. 4A. Therefore, it is known to intersect a passageway 40 formed in a threaded coupling with a radial fluid port 42.
Kroon teaches that the lead wires 28 extend through the vent 106 without occluding the vent such that a gas sample can be withdrawn through the vent [0024]. Fanger teaches that the end cap (fitting 111) can include a plurality of parallel bores to achieve communication from the interior of a sealed environment to the exterior. Skiba teaches that bores can extend radially away from a central bore. Therefore, the prior art teaches various designs to allow communication through an end cap. The nature of the problem to be solved -communicating with the interior of a sealed environment- would have lead one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate end cap design to allow for both wiring to pass through the end cap and a gas sample to be obtained from the sealed environment. Shifting the position of the bores or fluid connections does not produce any new or unexpected result. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a plurality of parallel bores wherein two are connected by a radially extending bore in order to place a gas sampling hose in fluid communication with the interior of the sealed environment through a second channel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US4726399 teaches a modular manifold; US20170146168 teaches a rotatable hope coupling;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/5/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights