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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 7, 15 and 16 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1-18 are currently examined on the merits.
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 Straubinger et al (US 20100159182 A1, Straubinger”), and further in view of Kuang Yijun (CN 111074339 A, machine translation, “Kuang”).
Regarding claim 1, Straubinger teaches a device for growing crystals comprising a crucible 3 (figs 1-9, abstract, 0011-0021, 0044-0049), wherein the crucible 3 defines an outer lateral surface and delimits an accommodation space with an axial extension between a bottom section and a crucible upper (cover) part (figs 1-9), wherein the accommodation space is designed for growing the crystals (figs 1-9, abstract, 0011-0021, 0044-0049), a thermal insulation 9 (enveloping unit), wherein the enveloping unit covers the outer lateral surface at least in sections and is designed for thermally insulating the crucible 3 (figs 1-9, 0047).
Straubinger 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 Straubinger 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).
Straubinger/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, Straubinger/Kuang teaches that the at least one holding element formed by a graphite material (Kuang 0011-0017),
Regarding claim 3, Straubinger/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, Straubinger/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, Straubinger/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, Straubinger/Kuang teaches that the at least one holding element comprises multiple holding elements arranged so as to be spaced apart from one another in a direction of the axial extension of the cylindrical object/crucible (Straubinger fig 1-9; 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, Straubinger/Kuang teaches that the holding unit comprises rope/wire (guide element) arranged on the enveloping unit on the side facing away from the crucible, and configured to guide the at least one holing element in a predefined relative position with respect to the enveloping unit (Straubinger figs 1-9; 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, Straubinger/Kuang teaches the enveloping unit has a first longitudinal edge section and a second longitudinal edge section when observed in a circumferential direction (Staubinger figs 1-9; 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, Straubinger/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 (Straubinger figs 1-9).
Regarding claim 10, Straubinger/Kuang teaches the enveloping unit is formed by a graphite felt (Straubinger 0047; 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, Straubinger/Kuang teaches that the crucible is formed by a material of graphite (carbon-based) (Straubinger 0044; 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, Straubinger/Kuang teaches that the crucible comprises a crucible bottom portion/part, at least one crucible wall portion/part and the crucible cover portion/part (Straubinger figs 1-9). 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, Straubinger/Kuang teaches a tubular container 10 (housing) defining an accommodation chamber (Straubinger figs 1-9), wherein the crucible, the enveloping unit and the at least one holding unit is accommodated in the accommodation chamber (Straubinger figs 1-9, Kuang 0015, 0016, 0017, 0041, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, 0051).
Regarding claim 18, Straubinger/Kuang teaches a heating coil 11 (device) configured to provide thermal energy for the crucible 3 (Straubinger figs 1-9, 0047). 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 Straubinger/Kuang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Schieber et al (US 4234650 A, “Schieber”).
Regarding claim 11, Straubinger/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 Straubinger/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 Straubinger/Kuang/Schieber as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sherwood et al (US 20050276961 A, “Sherwood”).
Regarding claim 12, Straubinger/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 Straubinger/Kuang per teachings of Sherwood in order to provide enhanced suitable material for 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, Straubinger/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 Straubinger/Kuang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yohei Fujikawa (US 20200149190 A1, “Fujikawa”).
Regarding claim 16, Straubinger/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 in a 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 Straubinger/Kuang per teachings of Fujikawa in order to crystal growth apparatus which is capable of achieving both an increase in speed and an increase in length (Fujikawa 0019, 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights