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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 to 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Park et al. (2001/0055689).
The Park et al reference teaches an apparatus and method of growing a monocrystal by the czochralski method, note entire reference. The apparatus consists of a furnace body, a water cooling jacket para 0122, figure 30, a reflector and a crucible, note figure 30. The parts are placed and contained in the furnace body. The crucible contains a melt, for growth of an ingot. The water cooled jacket and reflector are above the melt and disposed around the grown ingot, note claims. The placement of the reflector is such to cause a cutting place with regards to the ingot. The reflector disclosed , figure 30 comprises a first, vertical straight line and an adjacent second straight line that is angled at >45° with respect to the vertical, and a third straight line (350) that is vertical again.
With regards to claims 8 and 9, the Park et al reference shows the arc shape with the melt and inner wall and another arc shape with the reflectors, note figure 30.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2001/0055689).
The Park et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific alignment of the jacket and reflector. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to set the alignment in the Park et al reference in order to ensure that the heat is directed in one way such that the ingot is evenly treated during cooling.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2001/0055689).
The Park et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific angle in the reflector. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to set the angle range in the Park et al reference in order to have a set heat reflection as the reference does show different reflector shapes.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2001/0055689).
The Park et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific lines and angles. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to set the angles form the lines in the Park et al reference in order to properly place the apparatus parts.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2001/0055689).
The Park et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the two parts of the water cooled jacket. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to use a two section water cooled jacket in the Park et al reference in order to increase control over the cooling of the ingot.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2001/0055689).
The Park et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the shape of the two parts of the water cooled jacket. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to use curved shaped two section water cooled jacket in the Park et al reference in order to have a proper temperature difference.
Claims 13 to 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach nor render obvious the instantly claimed method. The prior art does not teach the processing steps of setting the reflector in the seed pulling apparatus.
Examiner’s Remarks
The Banan and Chen references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in seed pulling.
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, Michael Kornakov can be reached on 571-272-1303. 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