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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-4 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 Gupta et al (US 2010/0101387), Schmid (US 3,898,051), Janzen et al (US 2005/0000406) and Li et al (US 2013/0152851).
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.
Gupta et al teaches a method for producing at least one monocrystalline sapphire, wherein a monocrystalline seed crystal 140 is arranged in a base region of a crucible with a cylindrical jacket-shaped crucible wall 150 and a crystallographic c-axis of the seed crystal 140 is aligned corresponding to a longitudinal axis of the crucible extending in the direction of the top of the crucible wall, whereupon a base material 145 is arranged above the seed crystal in the crucible and melted, crystal growth taking place progressively in the direction of the c-axis by crystallization at a boundary layer 310 between melted base material and seed crystal, wherein the crucible is open upwardly viewed from the seed crystal (See Fig 1A-1C, Fig 3, and Fig 5; [0015]-[0053]).
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 taught by Gupta et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
The combination of Zhao and Gupta et al 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 the combination of Zhao and Gupta et al 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.
The combination of Zhao, Gupta et al and Schmid teaches a sensor (thermocouple 42) in communication with the control device 85 and arranged on a side of the plate facing away from the receiving area (see Schmid Fig 1, col 3, ln 35-68).
In a temperature measuring apparatus, Janzen et al teaches a seed crystal 13 is mounted to a seed holder 12 which is physically attached to a shaft 16 having at least one hollow conduit through which the temperature of the seed holder can be measured by an optical pyrometer or thermocouple ([0028]; Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al and Schmid by substituting a pyrometer for the thermocouple, as taught by Janzen et al, because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
The combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid and Janzen et al does not teach a mirror of a melt of the base material is heated from above by at least one upper heating element, which is arranged above an open, upper side of the crucible.
In an apparatus for directional solidification crystal growth, Li et al teaches a furnace chamber 12; insulation 14, one or more heaters 16, a shield 18 and crucible 20, a heat exchanger block 22 and a radiation regulator 24, wherein two or more heaters may be utilized along the height of the crucible and independently controlled to heat, for example, the bottom, middle, and/or top of the crucible and the contents therein (Figs 1-7; [0028]-[0046]). Li et al teaches a top heater 16 a mirror of a melt of the base material 26 is heated from above by at least one upper heating element, which is arranged above an open, upper side of the crucible (Fig 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid and Janzen et al by providing a top heater, as taught by Li et al, to independently control heat to the top of the crucible and the contents therein.
The combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al does not explicitly teach the position of the c-axis is marked on the seed crystal, however the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al teaches using a C-axis seed; therefore, marking the seed to identify the seed as a C-axis seed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to identify the seed as having a c-axis.
The combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al teaches a heat diffuser element 18 for producing an even heat distribution is arranged between the heating element 16 and the open side of the crucible 20 (Li Fig 1).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al teaches a sapphire (Al2O3) base material 145 (Gupta [0039]; Fig 1).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al teaches the seed crystal is configured in a substantially disc-shaped manner - having a first flat side and a second flat side; having a longitudinal center axis, said longitudinal center axis extending from the first flat side to the second flat side, wherein the c-axis of the seed crystal is coincidental with the longitudinal center axis of the seed crystal (Zhao Fig 1-7; Gupta Fig 3). Furthermore, changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8-11 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 Gupta et al (US 2010/0101387), Schmid (US 3,898,051), Janzen et al (US 2005/0000406) and Li et al (US 2013/0152851), as applied to claims 1-4, and further in view of Fonte (US 2012/0291699).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, except the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al does not explicitly teach the crucible wall (4) has constant thermal conductivity and/or identical mechanical properties across its entire extension.
In a crucible for sapphire crystal growth, Fonte teaches currently manufacturers of the production equipment for sapphire as well as the users of this equipment are using monolithic crucibles, i.e. the crucibles used for this process are comprised of one part only, wherein the whole body of the crucibles, which are formed of expensive materials such as molybdenum and tungsten; and Fonte et al also teaches fabricating a top part of a crucible by making a seamless tube ([0002]-[0007], [0062]), which clearly suggests constant thermal conductivity and identical properties because the entire crucible is make of a single material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al and Li et al by using a monolithic or non-monolithic crucible taught by Fonte, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) and monolithic molybdenum crucibles would provide a uniform heating to the contents of the crucible.
Referring to claim 9-11, the combination of Zhao, Gupta et al, Schmid, Janzen et al, Li et al and Fonte teaches fabricating a single seamless crucible tube, which clearly suggests a crucible wall has an identical surface finish on its crucible inner wall; is closed on itself in an annular and seamless configuration; and the crucible wall has a similar structural composition across its entire extension.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 8-11 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.
Conclusion
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