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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-12 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate different parts/portions in fig 1. 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. 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.
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 “tensioned anchor” 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 9 recites “…a tensioned anchor...”, which is not disclosed in specification. No new matter can be introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…a crystal… and crystal...” which should read “…a crystal… and the crystal...”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the melt". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 4 “…a crystal…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claim 1 already recites “a crystal;” it is not clear whether the “crystal” refers to the previously recited “crystal” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 4 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the total crystal length". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 7 “…gears…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claim 1 already recites “a gear;” it is not clear whether the “gears” is related the previously recited gear or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 7 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 10 “…gears…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claims already recite “gear;” it is not clear whether the “gears” is related the previously recited gear or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 10 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected because they depend on claim 10
The recited in claim 11 “…a plurality of force-frequency amplitudes … one or more of the plurality of amplitudes has exceeded a threshold amplitude…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claim 1 already recites “a force-frequency amplitude … the force-frequency amplitude has exceeded a threshold;” it is not clear with respect to the relationship between instantly recited the “plurality of force-frequency amplitudes … threshold amplitude” and “a force-frequency amplitude… amplitude has exceeded a threshold”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claim 12 is rejected because it depends on claim 11.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimura et al (US 5763838 A, “Morimura”), and further in view of Safizadeh et al (“Using multi-sensor data fusion for vibration fault diagnosis of rolling element bearings by accelerometer and load cell,” Information Fusion, 18, 1–8, 2014, “Safizadeh”).
Regarding claim 1, Morimura teaches a crystal pulling system comprising a crucible 44 containing silicon melt (molten semiconductor material) (figs 1 and 9, col 1 lines 5-15 and 35-55; col 3 line 55 to 65); a wire rope 4 (cable) and a driver assembly including a gear 8d (figs 1, 6 and 9, abstract, col 3 line 55 to col 4 line 55, col 8 lines 31-40 and claim 1); a crystal 3 disposed at an end of the cable (wire rope 4) (figs 1, 6 and 9, abstract, col 3 line 67 to col 4 line65 ), a motor 8a for pulling the cable (wire rope 4) and the crystal 3 from the melt (figs 1, 5 and 9, col 8 lines 31-56); a load cell/weight sensor 9/9a/9b/9c (loadcell) connected to the gear 8a to measure force applied to the gear 8a (figs 1-7, col 3 line 55 to col 9 line 15); and, a control system including a computer 60 (processor) connected to the load cell 9/9a/9b/9c (fig 7, col 8 lines 31-56), the processor configured to process measured value (data) delivered/received from the loadcell (fig 7, col 8 lines 44-56), the processor (computer 60) configured to receive measured value/data from the loadcell (load cell/weight sensor 9/9a/9b/9c) during the crystal being pulled (fig 7, col 8 line 43 to col 9 line 15), reading on time-domain data from the loadcell over a measurement time during a crystal pull process.
As addressed above, Morimura teaches the processor/computer for controlling the crystal pull process through the data delivered/received from the load cell, similar to the instantly claimed control system/processor/loadcell. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Morimura is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “transforming the time-domain data to frequency-domain data in the frequency domain, the frequency-domain data including a force-frequency amplitude over the measurement time; and, determining if the force-frequency amplitude has exceeded a threshold.” 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. 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). It is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and 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.
Furthermore, Safizadeh (entire document) teaches a monitoring system for data/signal acquisition/ processing, wherein the system is configured to process data received from the a load cell, receive time-domain data from the load cell over a measurement time, transform the time-domain data to frequency-domain data in the frequency domain, the frequency-domain data including a force-frequency amplitude over the measurement time; and determine if the-force-frequency amplitude has exceeded a threshold (figs 2 and 4, pages 1-8). 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 Morimura per teachings of Safizadeh in order to improve fault detection and diagnosis accuracy (Morimura pages 3-7 and conclusion).
Regarding claim 2, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches the loadcell and acquiring data over the measurement time as addressed above, Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the loadcell of Morimura/Safizadeh is capable of “reading a predetermined number of data samples over the measurement time.” 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. 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).
Regarding claim 3, as addressed above, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches similar processor and the loadcell for the crystal pull process (an operating condition) to the instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the processor of Morimura/ Safizadeh is capable of “being configured to identify an operating condition for the processor to receive time-domain data from the loadcell.” 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. 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). 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.
Regarding claim 4, as addressed above, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches the operating condition (crystal pull process) being measured/processed by the processor/ loadcell (col 8 line 43 to col 9 line 15). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the operating condition of Morimura/ Safizadeh is capable of “including the crystal pulled to one of 100% of the total crystal length, 80% of the total crystal length, 60% of the total crystal length, and 20% of the total crystal length.” 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. 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).
Regarding claim 5, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches transforming the time domain data to frequency domain data as addressed above, and further teaches the processor comprising algorithm (Morimura abstract; Safizadeh page 5). It is also well established that the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all; MPEP 2106. Also, 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. 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).
Regarding claim 6, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches the process transforming the time domain data to frequency domain data, and further teaches Fourier Transform (Safizadeh page 2). It is also well established that the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all; MPEP 2106. Also, 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. 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).
Regarding claim 7, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches the load cell and the gear as addressed above, and further teaches the loadcell measures at least one of force on the gear, vibration of the gear during rotation of the gear and vibration of gears of the motor (Morimura col 8 lines 31-56; Safizadeh pages 1-8). It is also well established that the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all; MPEP 2106. Also, 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. 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).
Regarding claim 8, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches the loadcell is in-situ with the gear and the motor (Morimura figs 6 and 7; Safizadeh fig 2). It has been 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).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimura/Safizadeh as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shiraishi Yutaka (JP 2000281484 A, machine translation, “Yutaka”).
Regarding claim 9, Morimura/Safizadeh teaches the load cell and the gear as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the loadcell is hung from the gear by a tensioned anchor. However, Yutaka teaches an apparatus, wherein a loadcell is supported/hung from the gear by an upper member/device (tensioned anchor) (0015, 0022-0029, and claim 6). 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 Morimura/Safizadeh per teachings of Yutaka in order to provide pulling apparatus for producing dislocation-free crystal at low cost (Yutaka abstract, 0001). It has been 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 10, Morimura/Safizadeh/Yutaka teaches that the loadcell measures vibration of gears connected to the motor in series (Morimura figs 1, 6 and 7; Safizadeh fig 2; Yutaka fig 11). It has been 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). Also, it is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Morimura/Safizadeh/Yutaka teaches the processor and the gears as addressed above; it is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the processor of Morimura/Safizadeh/Yutaka is capable of “being configured to transform the time-domain data to frequency-domain data, the frequency-domain data including a plurality of force-frequency amplitudes; and, determining if one or more of the plurality of amplitudes has exceeded a threshold amplitude” and “each of the plurality of amplitudes corresponding to vibrations of the gears.” 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. 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). 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.
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