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 7-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 21-34 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1, 21 and 29 are independent claims. Claims 21-34 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 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 1-6 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 "... the source powder is distributed within the compartment … based on a relative positioning between the heating element and the crucible…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 2-6 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straubinger et al (US 20130305983 A1, “Straubinger”) in view of Jang et al (US 20210372003 A1, “Jang”).
Regarding claim 1, Straubinger teaches a crucible for manufacturing a semiconductor crystal comprising a hollow wall that includes an outer crucible wall 102 and a vertical portion of barriers 116A’ and 116B’ (an inner wall) (fig 2, 0029-0030), the inner wall being formed using a graphite membrane (0025, 0030, 0038), and defining a compartment between the inner wall (a vertical portion of barriers 116A’ and 116B’) and the outer wall (fig 2), the graphite membrane having a porosity sufficient to enable diffusion of vapor sublimated from source powder disposed within the compartment when the source powder is sublimated by a heating element (abstract, 0007, 0016, 0029-0031, 0034, 0037-0042); a seed crystal site (first seed crystal site) disposed to receive a first seed crystal 106B (or 106A) (figs 1 and 2, 0024); and another seed crystal site (a second seed crystal site) at an opposed end of the crucible from the first seed crystal site and disposed to receive a second seed crystal 106A (or 106B) (figs 1 and 2, 0024), wherein the hollow wall (including the outer wall and inner wall (the vertical portion of barriers 116A’ and 116B’)) extends along a direction between the first seed crystal and the second seed crystal (fig 2).
Straubinger teaches the source powder being distributed within the compartment, the heating element and the crucible as addressed above, and further teaches that the source powder is distributed within the compartment to establish an axial temperature gradient from the source powder to the first seed crystal site and to the second seed crystal site being established (fig 3, 0031, 0032), but does not explicitly teach the heating element disposed around an exterior of the crucible and based on a relative positioning between the heating element and the crucible. However, Jang teaches an apparatus, wherein a heater disposed around an exterior of the crucible, and a relative position between the heater and the crucible is adjusted by moving of the heater for producing more favorable temperature gradient/distribution (abstract, 0005, 0006, 0017, 0038, 0058, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0094, 0101, 0103). 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 per teaching of Jang in order to provide suitable conditions for making crystal with reduced defects and improved quality (Jang 0005, 0006, 0017, 0035, 0074). It is well established 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). Also, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Straubinger/Jang teaches a horizonal portion of the graphite membranes (graphite filter) within the crucible and positioned above the second seed crystal site when the crucible has a vertical orientation and the second seed crystal site is at a bottom of the crucible (Straubinger fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Straubinger/Jang teaches a horizonal portion of the graphite membranes (a divider) configured to separate the crucible into a first crucible portion and a second crucible portion (Straubinger fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Straubinger/Jang teaches that the growth system comprising the crucible has a longitudinal symmetry axis, e.g., the crucible is cylindrical (Straubinger 0029). Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straubinger/ Jang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kagan et al (WO 2022106639 A1, “Kagan”).
Regarding claim 4, Straubinger/Jang teaches the divider separating the crucible into the first crucible portion and the second crucible portion as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the divider includes a second graphite membrane having a porosity that does not permit passage of the vapor. However, Kagan teaches a furnace for growing crystals, wherein a member made of graphite is used for preventing leakage of vapor (page 31). 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/Jang per teachings of Kagan in order to provide an improved furnace apparatus for crystal production (Kagan page 4). 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straubinger/Jang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shaoping Wang (US 20070256630 A1, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 5, Straubinger/Jang teaches the crucible being divided into the first crucible portion including the first seed crystal site and the second crucible portion including the second seed crystal site as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the crucible is detachable. However, it is a known practice that a top/first portion for a first seed and a bottom/second portion for a second seed crucible are jointed together through a mating joint as taught by Wang (figs 7-10, 0082 and 0084), e.g.., the crucible being detachable. 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/Jang per teachings of Wang in order to provide an apparatus which is capable of producing crystal with controlled qualities (Wang 0021, 0082 and 0084). Furthermore, the court has held that making the structure integral or separable would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 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
Prosecution Insights