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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 drawn to a seed crystal lifting device in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Neither Suda nor Wang discloses the special technical feature (STF) as recited in the amended claim 1. This is not found persuasive because Nakamura in view of Korb teaches special technical feature linked group I and group II. Detailed teachings/ discussions of the special technical feature disclosed within Nakamura/Korb can be found the rejection to the instant claim 1 provided below. Accordingly, the special technical feature linking the two Groups of inventions does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concept exists. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is also noted that claims 3 and 5 are cancelled. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/06/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-11 are currently examined on the merits.
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, 2, 4 and 6-11 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.
The recited in claim 1 “…the cable pipe is fixed to the nut along a same axis… an axis of the cable pipe…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “axis” refers to the previously recited “axis” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the same horizontal plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 5910216 A, “Nakamura”), and further in view of Harold Korb (US 20100242625 A1, “Korb”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a seed crystal 8/56 lifting device applied in a single crystal furnace comprising a base 1/chamber 2/61/plate 36/jigs 22/member 23/bar 12/ frame 31 (frame), a tube 14/37 (cable pipe), and a moving mechanism 3/4/5/52/54 (driving component) (figs 1-6, col 1 lines 5-9; col 1 line 21 to col 2 line 15; col 3 lines 15-26; col 4 lines 25-67; col 6 lines 24-37; col 7 lines 5-20); wherein the frame (base 1/chamber 2/61/plate 36/jigs 22/member 23/bar 12/ frame 31) is disposed at a top of a chamber 34 of the single crystal furnace (fig 3); the cable pipe (tube 14/37) is rotatably (movably) disposed on the frame (base 1/chamber 2/61/plate 36/jigs 22/member 23/bar 12/mechanism 3/4) (figs 1-5, col 4 lines 34-67; col 7 lines 1-20), and a peripheral wall of the cable pipe (tube 14/37) is configured to allow a seed crystal wire 6/51 (rope) to wind (figs 1, 5 and 6; col 1 lines 21-39; col 3 lines 1-26; col 4 lines 43-47; col 5 lines 34-50); an externally threaded tube 17 (screw) and a nut 15/16 (nut) (fig 1, col 4 lines 53-67), wherein the screw (threaded tube 17) is attached (fixed) on the frame (for example member 23) and extends along a vertical direction (figs 1 and 2, col 3 lines 15-26; col 4 lines 53-67; col 5 lines 8-24), the nut 15/16 is sheathed on the screw (externally threaded tube 17) and matched with the screw (externally threaded tube 17) via a helix (fig 1, col 4 lines 53-67), and the cable pipe (tube 14/37and the nut 15/16 along a same axis (fig 1, col 4 lines 53-67; col 7 lines 5-20); and the driving component comprising motors 11/21/26 is disposed on the frame and configured to drive the cable pipe to rotate around an axis of the cable pipe and slide along a vertical direction at the same time to wind and lift the seed crystal rope (wire 6/51) (figs 1, col 2 lines 45-50; col 4 lines 48-67; col 5 line 34 to col 6 line 35), wherein the driving component comprises a ball screw 10/59/rails 32 (driving shaft) and a guide bar 12/60/guide 33 (member) (figs 1, 3, 5 and 6, col 4 lines 48-53; col 6 lines 1-35), the guide member extends along the vertical direction (figs 1, 3, 5 and 6), and the cable pipe (tube 14/37) is provided with a hole/hollow through the cable pipe along the vertical direction eccentrically (figs 1, 5 and 6), and the driving shaft (member 10/59/32) is configured to drive the guide member (12/60/33) to further drive the cable pipe to rotate around the screw (figs 1, 3, 5 and 6, col 4 lines 48-67; col 6 lines 1-35).
Nakamura teaches cable pipe and the nut arranged along a same axis, the guide member and the pipe with the hole as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that cable pipe is fixed to the nut, the guide member is slidably inserted in the guide hole. However, Korb teaches a system, wherein a bushing surrounding cable/rope/wire is secured to a nut and a guide member (guide bushing) is slidable inserted in a guide hole (figs 1-4, 11 and 12, 0053, 0057, 0065, 0067 and 0074). 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 Nakamura per teachings of Korb in order to provide a suitable/ adjustable lifting mechanism for pulling crystal (Korb abstract and 0050-0054). Also, “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. 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, Nakamura/Korb teaches that the frame/housing/chamber comprises a side wall (Nakamura figs 1, 5 and 6; Korb figs 1-4 and 8, 0050, 0053, 0057, 0059, 0071), a stem (block) protruding from an inside of the side wall (Korb figs 1-4, 8, 0050, 0057, 0058, 0063, 0066, 0071), the block (having a center) is configured to press the seed crystal rope (cable) to the cable pipe (Korb figs 1-4 and 8, 0053, 0071), and the side wall of the frame is provided with an opening (having a center) (line inlet) (Korb figs 1-4 and 8, 0053, 0070). Nakamura/Korb does not explicitly teach a center of the block and a center of the line inlet are located in the same horizontal plane. However, it has been held 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, “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. 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 4, Nakamura/Korb teaches the peripheral wall of the cable pipe is provided with a spiral groove which is configured to allow the seed crystal rope/cable to wind (Korb 0093, 0096), a helix of the spiral groove is in a same direction of rotation as the helix of the screw (Korb figs 1-4, 11 and 12, 0055, 0070-0075, 0092, 0093, 0096,), and further teaches a pitch of spiral groove and the screw (Korb 0141, 0159), but does not explicitly teach a pitch of the spiral groove is equal to a pitch of the screw. However, it is well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Also, “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. 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 6, Nakamura/Korb teaches that the driving component further comprises a connector/shaft coupling/bellows (first connecting member) disposed at an end of the guide member along the vertical direction (Korb figs 1-4 and 11-17, 0055, 0070, 0089, 0090), the driving shaft is disposed at an end of the first connecting member away from the guide member/bushing (Korb figs 1-3 and 8-12, 0053-0059, 0064-0079), and an axis of the driving shaft and an axis of the screw are coaxial (Korb figs 1-12).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura/Korb teaches that the driving component further comprises a bellows/flange/seal member (second connecting member) disposed at an end of the guide member away from the first connecting member (bellows) (Korb figs 2 and 3, 0055), the second connecting member is provided with a hole through the second connecting member along the vertical direction (Korb figs 2 and 3), and the screw is rotatably inserted in the hole (Korb figs 2 and 3, 0052-0054).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura/Korb teaches that the driving component further comprises motors/controller (a driving member) disposed outside the frame (Nakamura figs 1, 5 and 6, col 4 lines 48-67; Korb fig 2, 0050, 0051, 0057, 0059, 0063-0067, 0093, 0132), the driving member is configured to drive the driving shaft (Nakamura col 3 lines 1-49; col 4 lines 35-67; Korb 0050, 0051); and the seed crystal lifting device further comprises a plate (limiting component) disposed outside the frame (Korb figs 1, 2 and 10-12, 0050, 0051, 0073, 0074, 0077, 0082), and the driving member is further configured to drive the limiting component (plate) to rotate in synchronization with the driving shaft (Korb 0050, 0051,0073, 0075). Also, “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. 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 9, Nakamura/Korb teaches that the driving component further comprises a ball spline nut/race/flange/block (guide sleeve) embedded on an inner wall of the guide hole (Nakamura fig 1, col 4 lines 55-60; Korb figs 2 and 3, 0054, 0055, 0141, 0159), the guide sleeve is slidably connected to the guide member (Korb figs 2, 3 and 11, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0074, 0141, 0159), and a length of the guide sleeve along the vertical direction is less than a length of the cable pipe along the vertical direction (Nakamura fig 1; Korb figs 2, 3 and 11).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura/Korb teaches that the seed crystal lifting device further comprises a nut/bushing carrier (limiting member) disposed in the frame (Nakamura fig 1; Korb figs 2 and 3, 0074), and the limiting member comprises a first limiting portion configured to fix the screw (Nakamura fig 1; Korb figs 2 and 3, 0054-0058, 0070-0075, 0092). Also, “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. 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 11, Nakamura/Korb teaches that a guide component located at a side of the cable pipe along a horizontal direction (Nakamura fig 1; Korb 0099-0101, 0117, 0142), and the guide component is configured to guide the seed crystal rope/wire/cable extending along the vertical direction to extend along the horizontal direction to the cable pipe (Nakamura fig 1; Korb 0099-0101, 0117, 0142). Also, “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. 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.
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