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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 6 and 8-14 are cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending. Claims 1-5 and 7 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1-5 and 7 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "...programmed to perform the steps of…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites "...programmed to perform the step of…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 3-5 are rejected because they depend on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites "...programmed to perform the step of…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 4 recites "...programmed to perform the step of…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 5 recites "...programmed to perform the step of…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 7 recites "...programmed to perform the step of…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the steps". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 and 7 recite the limitation "the step". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi Sotaro (JP 2003012395 A, machine translation, “Sotaro”), and further in view of Jacobson et al (US 6175652 B1, “Jacobson”) and Bandoh et al (US 20100100217 A1, “Bandoh”).
Regarding claim 1, Sotaro teaches a single crystal manufacturing apparatus comprising a single crystal pulling apparatus 10 (puller) pulling up a single crystal S from a melt SL (fig 1, 0020-0024); a camera 18 photographing a fusion ring FR generated at the boundary between the melt SL and the single crystal s (figs 1-3, 0021, 0023, 0026-0030); and a computer system comprising program (being programmed) to perform the steps of growing the crystal (0001, 0004, 0012-0016, 0018, 0030, 0066-0068, 0072 and claims 6-8), including processing a photographed image taken by the camera (abstract, 0009, 0012, 0016-0018, 0021,0023, 0024, 0042, 0050, 0067, 0068, 0073, claims 6-8), calculating a diameter of the single crystal from a shape of the fusion ring on the reference plane (abstract, 0005, 0006, 0009, 0010, 0012, 0013, 0016, 0017, 0023, 0024, 0026-0030, 0034-0039, 0043-0045, 0058, 0062, 0063, claims 1, 3, 5 and 7), and the computer system (comprising the program and image processing unit/section and an storage unit 19) converts the fusion ring appearing in the photographed image taken by the camera on a reference plane corresponding to a melt surface (liquid level position) of the melt SL based on an installation angle and a focal length of the camera (figs 1-3, abstract, 0023, 0025-0027, 0029-0033, 0035, 0042, 0044-0054, 0059, 0063, 0065, 0076, 0082, 0088).
Sotaro teaches the apparatus comprising the puller, the camera, the fusion ring, the reference plane corresponding to the liquid level position and the computer system, as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a projection of the fusion ring. However, Jacobson teaches a system for monitoring crystal growth, wherein a projection of a circular meniscus (fusion ring) of a melt surface is used for monitoring of crystal growth (figs 1-10, abstract, col 3 line 15 to col 5 line 12, col 19 line 15 to col 20 line 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Sotaro per teachings of Jacobson in order to enable a robust, real time and automated machine vision monitoring of a crystal growth process in a controlled manner (Jacobson abstract, col 2 lines 5-16 and col 5 lines 1-12).
Sotaro/Jacobson teaches the computer being programmed and calculating the diameter of the single crystal as addressed above, but does not exility teach that the program/computer calculating the diameter by subtracting. However, Bandoh teaches a control system for pulling crystal, wherein the control system comprising a computer with subtractor to perform calculations of crystal diameter (0004, 0019, 0079, 0082, 0090, 0094, 0095, 0124, 0133). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Sotaro per teachings of Jacobson in order to accurately control the conditions for pulling the crystal with enhanced quality (Bandoh abstract, 0015-0030).
As addressed above, Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh teaches the apparatus comprising the puller, the projection of the fusion ring, the liquid/melt level position, the camera, the computer system being programmed and subtractor, and further teaches that the computer system/user interface sets correlation based on process parameters of the growth furnace (Sotaro figs 1-7, 0058 and 0062; Jacobson figs 1-12, col 12 lines 1-9, col 27 lines 3-5; Bandoh abstract, 0011-0033). As just addressed, the arrangements of structural features in Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh are similar to the instantly claimed structural. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Sotaro/Jacobson is capable of “calculating the diameter of the crystal under room temperature by subtracting a correction amount from the diameter during the pull-up process of the single crystal or multiplying the diameter during the pull-up process of the single crystal by a correction coefficient” and “setting the correction amount or the correction coefficient individually based on the single crystal puller”. It is well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)).
Regarding claim 7, Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh teaches apparatus comprising the computer being programmed to perform the steps of growing the crystal, the liquid level position and the single crystal as addressed above, and further teaches a furnace structure (Sotaro fig 1), the computer and the furnace structure are similar to the instantly claimed structural features. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that apparatus of Sotaro/Jacobson is capable of “changing the correction amount or the correction coefficient according to a change in a furnace structure, the liquid level position, or a length of the single crystal.” It is well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)).
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keiichi Takanashi (US 20090064923 A1, “Takanashi”).
Regarding claim 2, Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh teaches the computer being programmed to perform the steps of growing the crystal, the fusion ring and the photographed image on the reference plane (melt surface) as addressed above, and further teaches capturing the image of a high-brightness fusion ring FR that occurs near the boundary (edge) between the melt and the crystal, i.e., the crystal growth interface (Sotaro 0023), but does not explicitly teach a threshold value for a brightness distribution. However, Takanashi teaches an apparatus/method for pulling a crystal comprising detecting an edge (edge pattern) of a fusion ring based on a predetermined threshold value for the brightness distribution of the photographed image on an interface/liquid level (the reference plane) (fig 6, 0019, 0029, 0055, claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh per teachings of Takanashi in order to accurately control the diameter of the crystal and obtain a high-quality crystal with little crystal defect (Takanashi 0001 and 0010). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 3, Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh/Takanashi teaches the threshold value, the brightness distribution, the photographed image, the being programmed to perform the steps of growing the crystal and the fusion ring having the edge as addressed above, and further that the threshold value is a value obtained by multiplying the peak value of brightness in the photographed image by a value in the range of 70% to 95% (smaller than 1) (Takanashi 0019, 0055 and claim 3), and in the photographed image, a horizontal scanning line intersecting the fusion ring and detects an outer intersection between brightness distribution on the horizontal scanning line and the threshold value as the edge pattern of the fusion ring (Sotaro 0030, 0033, 0036, 0039 0057; Takanashi figs 1-3, abstract, 0012-0015, 0040, 0055). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 5, Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh/Takanashi teaches the computer being programmed to perform the steps of growing the crystal, the edge pattern of the fusion ring and calculating the diameter of the single crystal and the fusion ring as addressed above, and further teaches that the computer system approximates the edge pattern of the fusion ring to a circle and the diameter of the single crystal is calculated from the diameter of the approximate circle of the fusion ring (Sotaro 0005-0019, 0043-0045, 0058, 0059, 0062, 0063; Takanashi 0019, 0041, 0042 and claim 2). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotaro/ Jacobson / Takanashi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ken et al (JP 2017154901 A, machine translation, “Ken”).
Regarding claim 4, Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh/Takanashi teaches the computer being programmed to perform the steps of growing the crystal calculating the diameter of the single crystal, edge pattern of the fusion ring and the reference plane as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach calculates the diameter of the single crystal based on a distance between two intersections of the edge pattern of the fusion ring projected on the reference plane and a predetermined diameter measurement line and a distance from the center position of the single crystal to the diameter measurement line. However, Ken teaches an apparatus/method for manufacturing a crystal, wherein the diameter of the crystal/fusion ring is calculated based on a distance between two intersections (D1, D1’) of the edge pattern of the fusion ring projected on the reference plane and a measurement line L1 (predetermined diameter measurement line) and a distance from the center position C0 of the single crystal/fusion ring to the measurement line (fig 5, pages 7-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Sotaro/Jacobson/Bandoh/Takanashi per teachings of Ken in order to measure a crystal diameter precisely during the lifting process the crystal (Ken abstract). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
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 Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714