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 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1-18 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “upper section” “guide” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 1 recites “…an upper section...”, which is not disclosed in specification. No new matter can be introduced.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the direction”. 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 1-10, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 112663134 A, machine translation, “Wei”), and further in view of Kuang Yijun (CN 111074339 A, machine translation, “Kuang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches a device for growing crystals, comprising a crucible 16 (fig 1, n0026, n0067-n0075), wherein the crucible 16 defines an outer lateral surface and delimits an accommodation space with an axial extension between a bottom section and an upper/top section (fig 1, n0011, n0030, n0042, n0067), wherein the accommodation space is designed for growing the crystals on a seed crystal 19 (fig 1), an insulation 13 (enveloping unit) (fig 1, n0026, n0030, n0042, n0067), wherein the enveloping unit (insulation 13) covers the outer lateral at least in sections and is designed for thermally insulating the crucible 16 (fig 1, n0026, n0030, n0042, n0067), and a bracket 10 (holding unit) holding the enveloping unit (insulation 13) is held on the crucible 16 in a position relative to the crucible 16 (fig 1, n0026).
Wei teaches the holding unit as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach at least one holding element designed to be oblong, having a first end section and a second end section spaced apart therefrom in a longitudinal extension of the at least one holding element, the at least one holding element surrounds the enveloping unit in a circumferential manner on a side facing away from the crucible and is arranged so as to contact (hold) the enveloping unit, and the first end section and the second end section are coupled to one another so as to be releasable as needed, and a holding force acting on the enveloping unit in a radial direction is applied by the at least one holding element. However, Kuang (entire document) teaches a heat preservation device, wherein the device comprises at least one graphite member (holding element) (0015, 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051), having an end 301/401/501/601/701/ 801/ 901/ 1001 (first end section) and an end 302/402/502/602/ 702/802/902/1002 (second end section) spaced apart therefrom in a longitudinal extension (figs 1-10, 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051), the at least one holding element wraps/winds (surrounds) a cylindrical object in a circumferential manner on a side facing away from the cylindrical object and is arranged so as to contact (hold) the cylindrical object (figs 3, 5, 7 and 9; 0007, 0015, 0041, 0044, 0047, 0050), and the end 301/401/ 501/601/701/801/901/ 1001 (first end section) and the end 302/402/502/602/702/802/ 902/1002 (second end section) are coupled to one another (figs 3, 5, 7 and 9), and a holding force acting on the cylindrical object in the radial direction is applied by the at least one graphite member (holding element) (figs 1-10; 0007, 0015, 0041, 0044, 0047, 0050). 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 Wei by providing the holding unit surrounding the crucible/ enveloping unit as suggested by Kuang in order to provide a heat preservation device structure with greatly prolonged service life while ensuring thermal insulation effect for producing crystals (Kuang abstract, 0002 and 0009).
Wei/Kuang teaches the at least one holding element, the first end section and the second end section being coupled to one another as addressed above, and further teaches that the holding element is designed to be shapes of stripes/rope (Kuang 0015, 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051), but does not explicitly teach a shape of oblong, and the first end section and the second end section being releasable as needed. However, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Further, the court has held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 V. 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.
Regarding claim 2, Wei/Kuang teaches that the at least one holding element formed by a graphite material (Kuang 0011-0017),
Regarding claim 3, Wei/Kuang teaches that the first end section and the second end section of the at least one holding element are braided/weaved/knotted together (Kuang 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051).
Regarding claim 4, Wei/Kuang teaches that a rope/wire (coupling device) for the at least one holding element coupling the first end section and the second end section of the at least one holding element to one another (Kuang 0007, 0042, 0045, 0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 5, Wei/Kuang teaches that the at least one holding element is in shape of stripes/rope (Kuang 0015, 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051). Furthermore, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding claim 6, Wei/Kuang teaches that the at least one holding element comprises multiple holding elements arranged so as to be spaced apart from one another in the direction of the axial extension of the cylindrical object/crucible (Wei fig 1; Kuang figs 1-10). It is also well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). Furthermore, mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 7, Wei/Kuang teaches that the holding unit comprises rope/wire (guide) arranged on the enveloping unit on the side facing away from the crucible, and holding the at least one holing element in a predefined relative position with respect to the enveloping unit (Wei fig 1; Kuang 0007, 0042, 0045, 0048, 0051). It is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181. It has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The court has also held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Wei/Kuang teaches the enveloping unit has a first longitudinal edge section and a second longitudinal edge section when observed in a circumferential direction (Wei fig 1; Kuang figs 5, 7 and 9), and the first longitudinal edge section and the second longitudinal edge section (layers) facing one another are arranged so as to overlap in the circumferential direction (Kuang figs 5, 7 and 9, 0018). Furthermore, it is well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 9, Wei/Kuang teaches that the enveloping unit protrudes beyond the crucible in a direction of an axial extension of the enveloping unit on at least one side facing away from the crucible (Wei fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Wei/Kuang teaches the enveloping unit is formed by a graphite felt (Wei n0003, n0043, n0067; Kuang 0011-0018). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, Wei/Kuang teaches that the crucible is formed by a material of graphite (carbon-based) (Wei n0026; Kuang 0012-0016). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Wei/Kuang teaches that the crucible comprises a crucible bottom portion/part, at least one crucible wall portion/part and a crucible cover portion/part (Wei fig 1). Further, the court has held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claim 17, Wei/Kuang teaches a tube 6 (housing) defining an accommodation chamber (Wei fig 1, n0026), wherin the crucible 16 the enveloping unit 13 and the at least one holding unit 10 is accommodated in the accommodation chamber (Wei fig 1, n0026).
Regarding claim 18, Wei/Kuang teaches a heating coil 3/5 (device) configured to provide thermal energy for the crucible 16 (Wei fig 1, n0024, n0026). Also, it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181. 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). 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei/Kuang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Schieber et al (US 4234650 A, “Schieber”).
Regarding claim 11, Wei/Kuang teaches that the graphite felt comprises at least one layer of a graphite felt (Kuang n0012-n0018), but does not explicitly the felt comprising a heat-treated pressed mixture comprising a fiber mixture and a binding agent. However, it is a known practice that a felt comprises heat-treated pressed mixture comprising a fiber mixture and a binding agent (abstract, col 1 lines 5-12 and col 2 lines 5-67). 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 Wei/Kuang per teachings of Schieber in order to provide graphite material with excellent (Schieber abstract, col 1 lines 5-12). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei/Kuang/Schieber as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sherwood et al (US 20050276961 A, “Sherwood”).
Regarding claim 12, Wei/Kuang/Schieber teaches that the graphite felt comprises at least one layer of a soft graphite felt (Kuang n0012-n0018), but does not explicitly teach heat-treated needled fibers. However, it is known that graphite felt comprises heat-treated needled fibers (0009, 0010, 0013, 0017). 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 Wei/Kuang per teachings of Sherwood in order to provide enhanced suitable material fro desired application (Sherwood 0010). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Wei/Kuang/Schieber teaches the crucible, the heat-treated pressed mixture comprising the fiber mixture and the binding agent and heat-treated needled fibers as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the at least one layer of the graphite felt comprising the heat-treated pressed mixture comprising the fiber mixture and the binding agent is arranged closer to the crucible than the at least one layer of the graphite felt comprising heat-treated needled fibers. However, it is well established that the mere rearrangement of parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The mere rearrangement of parts is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei/Kuang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yohei Fujikawa (US 20200149190 A1, “Fujikawa”).
Regarding claim 16, Wei/Kuang teaches the crucible bottom part and the at least one crucible wall part as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that a positioning assembly positioning at least the crucible bottom part and the at least one crucible wall part are oriented ina predefined position relative to one another. However, Fujikawa teaches an apparatus comprise a crucible, wherein male/female threads (positioning assembly) is provided, by means of which male/female threads (positioning assembly) at least the crucible bottom part and the at least one crucible wall part are positioned on the ends facing one another oriented in a predefined position relative to one another (figs 1, 2 and 5, 0030, 0034-0036, 0041, 0042, 0049). 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 Wei/Kuang per teachings of Fujikawa in order to crystal growth apparatus which is capably of achieving both an increase in speed and an increase in length (Fujikawa 0019, 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “the insulation material disclosed by Wei et al. is mentioned as being arranged on the outer surface of the crucible, but there is no discussion on how this insulation material is removed or replaced after the crystal growth process” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As applicant already noted, Wei teaches an insulation material; the court has also held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 V. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., insulation material is removed or replaced after the crystal growth process) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It should be also noted the instant claims are directing to a device/apparatus.
Applicant’s arguments that the "heat preservation device" of Kuang can only be interpretated as "an enveloping unit" … Neither Wei et al. nor Kuang address the problem of removing the enveloping unit (insulation material) from the crucible after the production of crystals” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, the instant application is an apparatus, and “removing the enveloping unit (insulation material) from the crucible after the production of crystals” is not recited in the instant claim. Moreover, the argument concerning " "heat preservation device" of Kuang can only be interpretated as "an enveloping unit" represents the counselor’s opinion, which is not supported by factual evidence. Instead, the secondary reference to Kuang explicitly teaches a (heat preservation) device for growing silicon carbide single crystals (0002), wherein the device comprising at least one graphite member (same material of the holding element, for example as recited in the instant claim 2 (0015, 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051), having an end 301/401/501/601/701/801/ 901/ 1001 (first end section) and an end 302/402/502/602/ 702/802/902/1002 (second end section) spaced apart therefrom in a longitudinal extension (figs 1-10, 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051), the at least one holding element wraps/winds (surrounds) a cylindrical object in a circumferential manner on a side facing away from the cylindrical object and is arranged so as to contact/connect (hold) the cylindrical object (figs 3, 5, 7 and 9; 0007, 0015, 0041, 0044, 0047, 0050), and the end 301/401/ 501/601/701/801/901/ 1001 (first end section) and the end 302/402/502/602/702/802/ 902/1002 (second end section) are coupled to one another (figs 3, 5, 7 and 9), and a holding/contacting force acting on the cylindrical object in the radial direction is applied by the at least one graphite member (holding element) (figs 1-10; 0007, 0015, 0041, 0044, 0047, 0050). 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 Wei by providing the holding unit surrounding the crucible/enveloping unit/cylindrical object as suggested by Kuang in order to provide a heat preservation device structure with greatly prolonged service life while ensuring thermal insulation effect for producing crystals (Kuang abstract, 0002 and 0009). It is also well established that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
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