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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al (US 2010/0101387) in view of Li et al (US 2013/0152851).
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]).
Gupta 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. Gupta et al teaches the crucible holds a charge material such as sapphire or silicon; and at least one heating element ([0039]; abstract)
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 Gupta 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 Gupta 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 Gupta 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 Gupta 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 2, the combination of Gupta et al and Li et al teaches the c-axis of the seed crystal is coincidentally arranged with the longitudinal axis of the crucible (Gupta Fig 3).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Gupta et al and Li et al teaches a sapphire (Al2O3) base material 145 (Gupta [0039]; Fig 1).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Gupta 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 (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 Gupta et al (US 2010/0101387) in view of 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 Gupta et al and Li et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, except the combination of Gupta et al and Li 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 Gupta 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 Gupta et al and 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 filed 10/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not 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). The examiner admits that Gupta does not teach an upper heating element with a diffuser element positioned between the heating element and the melt surface. , 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).
Applicant’s argument that Gupta teaches closed insulation and reliance on bottom cooling is technically incompatible with such a configuration is noted but not found persuasive. Gupta teaches a method of crystal growth using a gradient freeze method ([0044]). Likewise, Li teaches directional solidification using controlled solidification system (BGGCSS) 10 includes a furnace chamber 12, an insulation 14, one or more heaters 16, a shield 18, a crucible 20, a heat exchange block 22, a radiation regulator 24, and a movable insulation 26 ([0029]); and controller may be configured to reduce the heat output from the heaters 16 to reduce the temperature of the volume of Si 28 to facilitate vertical crystallization ([0046]-[0053]). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that use of an upper heater and diffuser (shield) above an open crucible would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, as discussed above in the rejection. Therefore, is no evidence or persuasive argument that Gupta method of gradient freeze crystal growth cannot be modified with an upper heater and diffuser (shield), as taught by Li et al.
Applicant’s argument that Gupta does not teach marking the c-axis orientation is noted but not found persuasive. As discussed above, the examiner admits that Gupta does not explicitly teach marking the crystal. However, the combination of Gupta 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. Applicant’s argument that marking would be redundant is noted but not persuasive because combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 I).
Applicant’s argument that Li teaches directional solidification of silicon not sapphire is noted but not found persuasive. Directional solidification is conventionally known in the art to be suitable for sapphire and/or silicon, as evidenced by US 2012/0240844 which teaches using silicon or sapphire feedstock to produce ingot using directional solidification ([0023]-[0028]). Also, a vertical gradient freeze method is conventionally known in the art to be a directional solidification method, as evidenced by Stoddard (US 2014/0178286). Stoddard teaches in a directional solidification process, such as a vertical gradient freeze (VGF) process, a silicon-melt is solidified within a crucible 1; and the silicon-melt is in particular solidified from a bottom 2 of the crucible 1 towards the top 3 ([0053]). The examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine Gupta and Li because both are method of crystal growth using directional solidification, and method and apparatus can be used to produce crystals of different materials.
Applicant’s argument that Li heaters from the bottom, middles and/or tops does not resemble the open crucible system where the melt is heated from above through a diffuser to ensure homogeneous irradiation is noted but not found persuasive. The examiner has provided Li Fig 1 and compared to applicant’s Fig 1 to show the direct correlation of the features. Li teaches the heaters, the shield/diffuser and the open crucible. It is noted that Li’s shield 18 would be expected to function as applicant’s diffuser because Ohkase (US 5,443,648) teaches a heater unit 21 is arranged in plane above the processing vessel 11, and comprises a heater element 25; a substantially flat heat insulating plate 24, and a flat liner plate 26 provided inside the heater element 25 wherein the liner plate 26 functions to remove disuniform heating of the plate heater, i.e., disuniform distributions of radiation heat which has entered the processing vessel 11 from the heater element 25, and is formed of a material which is highly heat resistant to high temperature radiation heat and is less contaminative, e.g., silicon carbide, or quartz or graphite having the surface coated with silicon carbide (Fig 1; col 4, ln 1-67). Therefore, the shield would remove disuniform heating from the top heater 16.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
1286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arugment that Gupta cannot be combined with Li is noted but not found persuasive. Applicant alleges that Gupta teaches open top, side heated crucible cannot be merged with a closed multi-zone furnace is noted but not found persuasive. As discussed above, both Li and Gupta are directional solidification processes/apparatus. Also, Gupta teaches an open crucible 150 (Fig 1) and Li also teaches an open crucible 20 Li (Fig 1). The examiner maintains that the use of additional heaters, i.e. multi-zone, top, bottom and/or side heaters would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for directional solidification. Therefore, the examiner maintains that combining the teachings of Li and Gupta directional solidification processes/apparatus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lv (CN 104250852 A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, teaches an a directional crystallization apparatus for sapphire crystal growth comprising a top heater 5 and side heater 6 to raise the temperature of the crucible (Fig 1; CT [0008]-[0013]).
Ohkase (US 5,443,648) teaches a heater unit 21 is arranged in plane above the processing vessel 11, and comprises a heater element 25; a substantially flat heat insulating plate 24, and a flat liner plate 26 provided inside the heater element 25 wherein the liner plate 26 functions to remove disuniform heating of the plate heater, i.e., disuniform distributions of radiation heat which has entered the processing vessel 11 from the heater element 25, and is formed of a material which is highly heat resistant to high temperature radiation heat and is less contaminative, e.g., silicon carbide, or quartz or graphite having the surface coated with silicon carbide (Fig 1; col 4, ln 1-67).
Duanmu et al (US 2012/0240844) teaches growing sapphire or silicon ingots using directional solidification ([0020]-[0030]).
Zhao et al (US 2015/0203361) teaches popular methods for sapphire growth include Czochralski method, Edge-defined Film-fed Growth, Vertical Gradient Freeze method, Kyropoulos method, and the like ([0004]).
Stoddard (US 2014/0178286) teaches in a directional solidification process, such as a vertical gradient freeze (VGF) process, a silicon-melt is solidified within a crucible 1; and the silicon-melt is in particular solidified from a bottom 2 of the crucible 1 towards the top 3 ([0053]).
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