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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 102383184), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, in view of Schmid (US 3,898,051) and Gueh (US 2015/0275108).
Zhao teaches a device for growing at least one artificially manufactured sapphire single crystal (([0012], [0086]), comprising - at least one crucible wall (crucible sleeve 1), the crucible wall having an open first end portion (top) and a base-side second end portion (bottom) arranged at a distance from the first end portion along a longitudinal axis (Fig 1-7), wherein when viewed from the at least one crucible wall in cross-section in relation to the longitudinal axis, a crucible wall inner surface is defined, and at a distance of one wall thickness thereto a crucible wall outer surface is also defined, at least one crucible base (seed 2), the crucible base being arranged in the base-side second end portion, and wherein a receiving area for the formation of the single crystal is defined by the at least one crucible wall and the at least one crucible base, wherein the at least one crucible wall has constant thermal conductivity and/or identical mechanical properties over its entire extension (CT [0031] teaches bottomless crucible sleeve formed as a whole, which reads on constant thermal conductivity and/or identical mechanical properties over its entire extension), wherein the crucible base (2) is formed exclusively from a plate made from a previously manufactured seed crystal, wherein an external dimension of the plate that forms the crucible base is selected such that an outer circumferential front surface is constantly in contact and forms a seal with the inner crucible wall surface (Fig 6 shows plate diameter greater than the inner diameter of the sleeve 2; and CT [0026], [0035] teaches the seed crystal prevents melt leakage, which reads on forms a seal).
Zhao teaches explicit embodiments for Si crystal growth. Zhao also teaches the method and apparatus can be used for growth of sapphire (CT [0012], [0086]). Zhao et al does not teach an explicit example using a sapphire seed crystal for the crucible base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zhao et al by using a sapphire single crystal seed as the base to grow sapphire single crystals, as suggested by Zhao et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Zhao does not teach the crucible wall is made using a centrifugal casting method, and Zhao does not explicitly teach a control device and a sensor in communication with the control device and arranged on a side of the plate facing away from the receiving area.
In an apparatus for sapphire growth, Schmid teaches a crucible 48 is made from a material that is chemically inert with respect to the material being crystallized therein, wherein the crucible is made of a refractory (such as molybdenum, tungsten, iridium, or rhenium), high purity graphite, or quartz (col 3, ln 1-65; col 7, ln 1-65). Schmid teaches an example of placing a sapphire seed in a molybdenum crucible and melting pieces of sapphire in the crucible, cooling the crucible to solidified the liquid in the crucible. (col 7, ln 1-65). Schmid teaches a thermocouples 42 are connected to a controller 85 and the thermocouples were provided at the crucible wall near its bottom, and the controller 85 is responsive to the temperatures sensed by pyrometers 71, 73 to vary the power supplied by heating source 86 to maintain the temperatures of heating element 26 and crucible 48 at the proper level; and to the temperature sensed by thermocouple 42; and a thermocouple 44 extend within heat exchanger 32 from below base 34, through rod segment 36 to closely adjacent top 38 (Fig 1-2; col 2, ln 1-67, col 3, ln 1-67, col col 8, ln 40-68), which clearly suggests a control device and a sensor in communication with the control device and arranged on a side of the plate facing away from the receiving area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zhao by providing a teach a control device and a sensor in communication with the control device and arranged on a side of the plate facing away from the receiving area, as taught by Schmid, to monitor and control the temperature of the crucible to maintain a desired temperature suitable for crystal growth.
In a method of making crucibles, Gueh teaches a metallic crucible 40 is formed by metallurgical casting steps may such as centrifugal casting, or other suitable methods for liquid metal casting into a determined mold, and the crucible is formed of tungsten or molybdenum ([0113]-[0115], [0455]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zhao by using a centrifugal casting method, as taught by Gueh, to produce a crucible using a conventionally known metallurgical casting method (Gueh [0113]-[0115], [0455]) made of a molybdenum or tungsten, which are suitable inert crucible materials for sapphire crystal growth, as evidenced by Schmid. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
It is also noted that the limitation “at least one crucible wall produced using centrifugal casting method” is a product-by-process limitation. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. (MPEP 2113). The combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches a crucible casted using a centrifugal casting method, however, other equivalent methods of casting are taught and would be expected to produce a crucible which would read on the claimed crucible.
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches the sleeve can be formed as a whole in any shape, such as a round sleeve shape (CT [0031]), which reads on an inner surface has a similar surface configuration across its entire surface.
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Zhao and Zhao et al combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches the sleeve can be formed as a whole in a round sleeve shape (CT [0031]), which reads on the crucible wall is closed on itself in an annular and seamless configuration inner surface has a similar surface configuration across its entire surface.
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches the sleeve can be formed as a whole in a round sleeve shape (CT [0031]), which reads on the crucible wall has a similar structural composition across its entire composition.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches a crucible is formed of tungsten or molybdenum (Gueh [0113]-[0115], [0455]; Schmid col 3, ln 1-65; col 7, ln 1-65). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claims 8-9, the combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches when casting a single crystal, a single crystal seed crystal is used; and using a single crystal material with predetermined crystal orientation (CT [0035]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh by using a c-axis seed to form a c-axis sapphire single crystal in the longitudinal direction because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches a crucible sleeve having a round sleeve shape; therefore, a seed at the bottom of the sleeve obviously would have a disc-shape (CT [0031]). Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 102383184), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, in view of Schmid (US 3,898,051) and Gueh (US 2015/0275108), as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 2013/0152851).
The combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except at least one upper heating element is arranged above the crucible, wherein a thermal diffuser element for ensuring even heat distribution is arranged between the upper heating element and the crucible.
In an apparatus for crystal growth, Li et al teaches an upper heater 16 above a crucible 20 with a thermal diffuser (shield 18) between the heater 16 (Fig 1; [0025]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Zhao, Schmid and Gueh by providing heater and a shield (diffuser), as taught by Li et al, to control the temperature gradient within the crucible for crystal growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach a control device and a sensor in communication with the control device and arranged on a side of the plate facing away from the receiving area is noted but not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Zhao does not explicitly teach the claimed features. However, Schmid, as discussed above, teaches the use of a controller and thermocouple, adjacent the base of the crucible (at the crucible wall near its bottom), to monitor and control the temperature of the crucible (Fig 1-2; col 2, ln 1-67, col 3, ln 1-67, col col 8, ln 40-68), and Zhao teaches the crucible base is formed of the seed; therefore, the combination of the prior art teaching would clearly suggest the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoshikawa et al (US 2011/0017124) teaches a sapphire single crystal is formed from a high temperature melt, so a material of a thin-walled crucible, which has high strength and high chemical resistance under high temperature is required; and a crucible is composed of iridium, and the crucible composed of iridium has high strength and high chemical resistance under high temperature ([0005]-[0007]). Hoshikawa et al also teaches the material of the crucible may also be tungsten, molybdenum, or an alloy of tungsten and molybdenum ([0052]).
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights