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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 08/26/2025, in response to the non-final office action, mailed on 06/18/2025, by amending claims 1-2 and adding new claims 4-5, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “heating coil that is positioned” of Claim 2 should be “heating coil positioned”, based on the new claim 4 having the same term.
(2) Across the claim list, both “projections” and “a plurality of the projections” are used.
For the purpose of consistency, it would have a better form if amended to be, such as:
-a. The “with projections, the projections being” of Claim 1 should be “with a plurality of projections, the plurality of projections being”.
-a. The “each projection” of Claim 1 should be “each of the plurality of projections”.
-c. The “a plurality of the projection” of Claim 2 should be “the plurality of projections”.
-d. The “the projections” of Claim 3 should be “the plurality of projections”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) The “free-standing” of Claim 1 is a new matter, see the details in the 112 2nd paragraph below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 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.
(1) The “free-standing” of Claim 1 is not clear and further is a new matter.
The term never presented in the applicants’ disclosure and claim, thus it is a new matter. Further, it is not clear what the term actually means.
Based on the simple definition search by “google”, the meaning of the “free standing” is “not supported by another structure”. However, the applicants’ projections are clearly supported, attached or standing on the surface of the crucible.
The examiner cannot clearly determine the metes and bounds of the newly cited feature of Claim 1, cannot be clearly determined.
(2) Claim 2 recites the limitation “the winding pitch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Both the two “the winding pitch” should be “a winding pitch”.
(3) The “an outside surface of the peripheral wall part” of Claim 2 and “the outside surface of the peripheral wall part” of Claim 5” are not clear.
Does they mean the “an outside surface” of Claim 1 or not? If they are the same, it is respectfully requested to appropriately amend them.
(4) The “the peripheral wall part” of Claim 5 is not clear. Claim 5 is dependent from Claim 1, however, the claim 1 does not recite the feature, thus it is not clear what feature is indicated by the term.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 08/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection 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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am-6pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718