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 and 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2014/0083353 to Pope, et al. (hereinafter “Pope”) or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0081456 to Amit Goyal (“Goyal”).
Regarding claim 3, Pope teaches a method for manufacturing a sapphire single-crystal (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and the entire reference which teach a method for manufacturing monocrystalline sapphire), the method comprising
a step of manufacturing a monocrystalline sapphire seed comprising cutting, from an initial sapphire crystal, the monocrystalline sapphire seed into a plate shape delimited by two planar faces which extend parallel to and at a distance from each other, and a side face delimiting a side of the plate shape in a thickness direction of the plate shape and corresponding to the distance between the two planar faces (see Figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶¶[0021]-[0023], ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and claim 2 which teach that the sapphire single crystal seed (119) is cut into a shape that is broadly in the form of a plate defined by at least two planar faces either on opposing edges (146) or (148) or on opposing surfaces (142) or (162) which are parallel to and separated from each other by a thickness of the plate),
wherein the monocrystalline sapphire seed has a rhombohedral crystallographic structure defining three crystallographic axes [A], [C] and [M] perpendicular to each other and respectively perpendicular to crystallographic planes A (11-20), C (0001) and M (10-10) (see Figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶¶[0021]-[0023], ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and claim 2 which teach that the sapphire single crystal seed (119) necessarily possesses a rhombohedral crystal structure with [A], [C] and [M] axes and planes which are perpendicular to each other), and
the monocrystalline sapphire seed being cut so that one of the crystallographic axes [A], [C] or [M] of the monocrystalline sapphire seed forms, with a normal to the planar faces of the monocrystalline sapphire seed, an angle whose value is comprised between 25° and 35° (see Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the monocrystalline sapphire seed (119) and, hence, the grown sapphire ribbon (160) has a top surface (162) with an [A]-plane orientation while a long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side which is between 35 to 55° which touches the claimed range; see also claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range); and
a step of melting alumina and/or sapphire in a crucible (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach forming molten alumina (114) in a crucible (112)),
then bringing the melting alumina and/or sapphire in contact with the monocrystalline sapphire seed to make the melting alumina and/or sapphire crystallize progressively according to a growth direction to form the sapphire single-crystal (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that a seed crystal (119) having an orientation which produces the sapphire crystal in Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] is brought into contact with the melt (114) in order to grow a sapphire crystal (120) having the desired crystal structure and orientation).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane as in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 25 and 35° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may be performed to achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Goyal and would be motivated to manufacture a sapphire seed crystal for EFG growth with opposing primary planar faces (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) which are comprised of A-, C-, or M-planes whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 5° to 20° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 11, Pope teaches that the crystallographic axis [A], [M] or [C] forms with the normal to the cross- section of the monocrystalline sapphire seed an angle whose value is comprised between 25 and 35° (see Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side which is between 35 to 55° which touches the claimed range; alternatively, see claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 25 and 35° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Pope and Goyal and would be motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal miscut angle for the primary A-, C-, or M-planes planes of the seed and grown crystal (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 25 to 35° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part.
Regarding claim 15, Pope teaches that the method for manufacturing the sapphire single-crystal is selected from among EFG, HEM, Kyropoulos, Czochralski, Bridgman Vertical, Bridgman Horizontal and Micro Pulling Down processes (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that the sapphire single crystal (120) is grown by the EFG method).
Regarding claim 19, Pope teaches that wherein the alumina and/or the sapphire that are molten are pure or doped (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that the raw material (114) is comprised only of molten alumina which may be considered as substantially pure alumina).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope in view of Goyal and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2007/0111489 to Crabtree, et al. (“Crabtree”).
Regarding claim 20, Pope and Goyal do not explicitly teach that sapphire scraps are used. However, in Figs. 1a-c and ¶¶[0028]-[0047] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Crabtree teaches an analogous method of producing a single crystal by pulling a seed from a melt (10) contained in a crucible (1). The melt (10) is produced by melting source material (5) which may be comprised of scrap material or pieces and chunks from other crystal growth processes. In this manner it is possible to reuse and/or purify the scrap material by segregation into the melt during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Crabtree and would be motivated to utilize sapphire scraps to form the raw material in the EFG crystal growth process of Pope in order to minimize waste and recycle alumina raw material from previous crystal growth processes.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope in view of Goyal and further in view of Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Regarding claim 21, Pope and Goyal do not teach that once the sapphire single-crystal is obtained, external part or functional components for watchmaking or jewelry are cut in the sapphire single-crystal. However, in at least ¶¶[0003]-[0004] and ¶[0011] of the Background section of the specification which is considered applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA), single crystals such as alumina are disclosed as being suitable for the manufacture of jewelry or for watch components such as glasses and technical components. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of AAPA and would be motivated to utilize the sapphire single crystals produced in the method of Pope for the production of jewelry or one or more watch components since this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 25, Pope does not teach that the external part or functional components are watch bridges, plates, cases and dials or else wristlet links. However, in at least ¶¶[0003]-[0004] and ¶[0011] of the Background section of the specification which is considered applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA), single crystals such as alumina are disclosed as being suitable for the manufacture of jewelry or for watch components such as glasses and technical components. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the sapphire single crystals produced in the method of Pope for the production of jewelry or one or more watch components such as bridges, plates, cases, dials, and the like since this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope in view of Goyal.
Regarding claim 34, Pope teaches that the two planar faces delimit a length and a width of the plate shape, the length and the width being perpendicular to the thickness, and wherein a length and a width of the plate shape are greater than a thickness of the plate shape (see Figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶¶[0021]-[0023], ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and claim 2 which teach that the sapphire single crystal seed (119) is cut into a shape that is broadly in the form of a plate defined by at least two planar faces on opposing surfaces (142) or (162) which are parallel to and separated from each other by a thickness of the plate with the width of the opposing surfaces (142) or (162) being greater than the thickness).
Pope does not teach that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed have larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane as in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 25 and 35° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may be performed to achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Goyal and would be motivated to manufacture a sapphire seed crystal for EFG growth with opposing primary planar faces (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) which are comprised of A-, C-, or M-planes whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 5° to 20° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part.
It is noted that although Goyal teaches an upper limit of 20° for the misorientation angle this may be considered as sufficiently close to the lower limit of 25° as claimed that it would be reasonably expected to yield the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, since the misorientation angle of the A, C, and M axes relative to the planar faces of the sapphire seed determines the extent of materials properties such as flux pinning and the alignment of low energy fracture planes relative to the edges of the ribbon crystal, it therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal misorientation angle of the A, C, and M axes relative to the planar faces of the sapphire seed, including within the claimed range of 25 to 35°, that is necessary to produce the desired materials properties. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 35, Pope does not teach that the side face delimits all of the sides of the plate shape in the thickness direction between the two planar faces, and wherein the monocrystalline sapphire seed is cut so that the crystallographic axis [C] of the monocrystalline sapphire seed forms, with the normal to the planar faces of the monocrystalline sapphire seed, the angle whose value is comprised between 25° and 35° such that the crystallographic axis [C] of the monocrystalline sapphire seed does not lie in the plane of the side face. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 34, in at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may be performed to achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Goyal and would be motivated to manufacture a sapphire seed crystal for EFG growth with opposing primary planar faces (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) which are comprised of A-, C-, or M-planes whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 5° to 20° such that the C-axis does not lie in the plane of a side face in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part.
It is noted that although Goyal teaches an upper limit of 20° for the misorientation angle this may be considered as sufficiently close to the lower limit of 25° as claimed that it would be reasonably expected to yield the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, since the misorientation angle of the A, C, and M axes relative to the planar faces of the sapphire seed determines the extent of materials properties such as flux pinning and the alignment of low energy fracture planes relative to the edges of the ribbon crystal, it therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal misorientation angle of the A, C, and M axes relative to the planar faces of the sapphire seed, including within the claimed range of 25 to 35°, that is necessary to produce the desired materials properties. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed March 19, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Applicants argue that Pope does not teach any preliminary step of manufacturing the monocrystalline sapphire seed prior to bringing the source material into contact with the seed since Pope teaches a configuration in which the seed is oriented during the growth process in order to obtain the desired orientation of the resulting crystal and contend that Figs. 7-8, ¶[0026], and ¶[0029] support this argument. See applicants’ 3/19/2026 reply, pp. 10-14. Applicants’ argument is noted, but remains unpersuasive. The cited paragraphs in Pope do not refer to using a randomly oriented seed and then attempting to rotate it within the holder to produce a single crystal with the desired crystal structure, shape, and orientation. Instead, ¶[0026] and ¶[0029] of Pope are discussing taking a previously cut seed crystal that has a known structure and orientation such as that in Figs. 4-5 and then adjusting or rotating it after it has been clamped into the holder so that the desired side contacts the melt with the desired orientation. The process of simply clamping the seed into the holder does not automatically mean it is instantly in the proper orientation relative to the surface of the melt. This is why it is necessary to make small adjustments in order to account for any misalignment when clamping the seed into the holder. This is actually what is being disused in ¶[0029] of Pope where the amount of “waste” or unused portions (150) of the grown crystal in Figs. 4-5 is minimized by rotating or adjusting the position of the seed holder to ensure that any misalignment between the desired growth direction and the surface of the melt is reduced. In order to repeatedly grow a crystal having a very specific shape, crystal structure, and crystallographic orientation by pulling a seed crystal from a melt a PHOSIT does not utilize a randomly shaped seed and then attempt to find the desired orientation by rotating the seed holder. Instead, the seed itself has the desired crystal structure, plane(s), and orientation and any misalignment after mounting may be corrected by rotation of the seed crystal itself within the holder.
Applicants then argue against the reliance on Goyal by contending that in the context of the inventive process Goyal is describing the orientation of the faceted regions on the final grown fiber in Fig. 17 and does not disclose or suggest any information about cutting the sapphire seed into a plate shape having the orientation recited in claim 3. Id. at pp. 14-16. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. In Figs. 19-21 Goyal clearly teaches embodiments of fibers in which the surface of the primary plane in the width direction is either an A-plane, an M-plane, or a C-plane with a predetermined miscut. In at least ¶¶[0092]-[0093] Goyal specifically teaches that the desired crystallographic surface on the primary plane is obtained by cutting a seed crystal such that it has the desired surface planes that are parallel to the pulling axis. Thus, the teachings of Goyal clearly support the Examiner’s position that a ribbon crystal having the desired crystal structure, surface planes, and crystallographic orientation is obtained by cutting a seed crystal to the desired specifications and orienting it within the seed holder such that it in a predetermined direction relative to the pulling axis.
In order to overcome the present rejection(s) a potential suggestion by the Examiner is to incorporate the subject matter of at least claim 34 into claim 3 and show that the miscut angle of 25 to 35° is critical and produces unexpected results and/or explain why a PHOSITA would not utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal miscut angle of 25 to 35° in the manner disclosed in the rejection of new claims 34-35.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights