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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 11-14 and 19-22 are cancelled. Claims 7-10, 15-18 and 23 are pending. Claims 7-10 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 15-18 and 23 are withdrawn. Claims 7-10 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
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 “centers” 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.
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 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al (US 20180237940 A1, “Takano”), and further in view of Shimonosono et al (US 20040107894 A1, “Shimonosono”) and Hobl et al (US 20100050929 A1, “Hobl”).
Regarding claim 1, Takano teaches a single crystal pulling apparatus comprising a pulling furnace 1/101 in which a heater 3/103 and a crucible 2/102 configured to contain a molten semiconductor raw material 6/106 are arranged and which has a central axis 10/110 (figs 1 and 10, 0004-0006, 0028, 0029, 0061, 0062); and a magnetic field generating apparatus around the pulling furnace and having superconducting coils for applying a horizontal magnetic field to the molten semiconductor raw material 6/106 by energizing the superconducting coils to suppress convection of the molten semiconductor raw material in the crucible 2/102 (figs 1-3 and 10, 0004, 0006, 0028, 0029, 0061, 0062, 0064, 0071), wherein the superconducting coils of the magnetic field generating apparatus include coils 4/104 (main coils) (figs 1-3, 10 and 13, 0010, 0028, 0029, 0061, 0062, 0064, 0071), and third pair of coils (sub-coils) can also be adopted (provided) (0066), the main coils include only two pairs (pair 4d/4b and pair 4a/4c) of superconducting coils arranged facing each other (figs 1-3, and 13, 0010, 0031, 0061, 0064, 0066, 0071), a coil axis 13 is an axis passing through centers of a pair of superconducting coils arranged facing each other, two coil axes of the two pairs of superconducting coils are included in a same horizontal plane (figs 1-3 and 13, 0031, 0064, 0071), an X-axis is a magnetic force line direction on the central axis 10 in the horizontal plane 12, the main coils are arranged such that a center angle α between the two coil axes sandwiching the X-axis is 90 degrees or more and 120 degrees or less, for example 100 degrees or 110 degrees (figs 1-3, 0062, 0064, 0071, 0087, 0091 and table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); also see MPEP 2144.05 I. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962; also see MPEP 2131.03 I.
Takano teaches the sub-coils (third pair) as addressed above, e.g., the sub-coils include only a pair of superconducting coils, but does not explicitly teach that the sub-coils (third) pair of superconducting coils arranged to face each other and the sub-coils are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils is aligned with the X-axis. However, Shimonosono teaches a crystal pulling device comprising superconducting coils, wherein a third pair of superconducting coils/sub-coils (for example 4a/4d) is arranged to face each other and the sub-coils (for example 4a/4d) are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils 4a/4d is aligned with X-direction (the X-axis) (figs 4-13, 0041, 0062). 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 Takano per teachings of Shimonosono in order to improve a uniformity of the central magnetic field and suppress a depression of the magnetic field (Shimonosono 0062).
Takano/Shimonosono teaches the main coils and the sub-coils as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach current values of the main coils and the sub-coils can be set independently. However, Hobl teaches a crystal pulling apparatus comprising superconductive coils, wherein the coils are powered individually (0009, 0010, 0024, claim 12). 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 Takano/Shimonosono per teachings of Hobl in order to control the direction of the magnetic field (Hobl 0024). Also, 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, Takano/Shimonosono/Hobl teaches that the superconducting coils may have a saddle/curved shape (Hobl 0002 and 0007), but does not explicitly teach that the saddle shape curved with a larger curvature than a shape along an outer shape of the pulling furnace, and a ratio of the curvature of the saddle-shaped main coils to a curvature of the shape along the outer shape of the pulling furnace is 1.2 or more and 2.0 or less. However, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Furthermore, 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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano/Shimonosono/Hobl as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tang et al (CN 110129890 A, US 20210123155 A1 used as corresponding translation, “Tang”).
Regarding claim 8, Takano/Shimonosono/Hobl teaches that the superconducting coils may have a shape of a racetrack shape or an elliptical shape or saddle/curved shape (Shimonosono 0029; Hobl 0002 and 0007), but does not explicitly teach that a height in a vertical direction is shorter than a width in a horizontal direction. However, Tang teaches a crystal growth device, wherein each of the plurality of coils/sub-coils has a height in a vertical direction being shorter than a width in a horizontal direction (fig 4, 0050-0052). 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 Takano/ Shimonosono/Hobl per teachings of Tang in order to provide suitable magnetic field for suppressing melt convection and growing crystals with improved quality (Tang 0001, 0024 and 0035). Also, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Furthermore, 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.
Regarding claim 10, Takano/Shimonosono/Hobl/Tang teaches that the superconducting coils may have a saddle/curved shape (Hobl 0002 and 0007; Tang fig 4), but does not explicitly teach that the saddle shape curved with a larger curvature than a shape along an outer shape of the pulling furnace, and a ratio of the curvature of the saddle-shaped main coils to a curvature of the shape along the outer shape of the pulling furnace is 1.2 or more and 2.0 or less. However, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Furthermore, 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of patent US 12,188,153 B2 (‘153) in view of Shimonosono et al (US 20040107894 A1, “Shimonosono”) and Hobl et al (US 20100050929 A1, “Hobl”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘153 teaches all of the limitations except that sub-coils are provided, a pair of superconducting coils arranged to face each other is provided and the sub-coils are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils, which are the sub-coils, is aligned with the X-axis, and current values of the main coils and the sub-coils can be set independently. However, Shimonosono teaches a crystal pulling device comprising superconducting coils, wherein a pair of superconducting coils (for example 4a/4d) arranged to face each other is provided and the sub-coils 4a/4d are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils 4a/4d is aligned with X-direction (the X-axis) (figs 4-13, 0041, 0062). 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 ‘153 per teachings of Shimonosono in order to improve an uniformity of the central magnetic field and suppress a depression of the magnetic field (Shimonosono 0062). ‘153/Shimonosono teaches the main coils and the sub-coils as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach current values of the main coils and the sub-coils can be set independently. However, Hobl teaches a crystal pulling apparatus comprising superconductive coils, wherein the coils are powered individually (0009, 0010, 0024, claim 12). 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 ‘153/Shimonosono per teachings of Hobl in order to control the direction of the magnetic field (Hobl 0024). Also, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of patent US 10,253,425 B2 (‘425) in view of Shimonosono et al (US 20040107894 A1, “Shimonosono”) and Hobl et al (US 20100050929 A1, “Hobl”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘425 teaches all of the limitations except that sub-coils are provided, a pair of superconducting coils arranged to face each other is provided and the sub-coils are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils, which are the sub-coils, is aligned with the X-axis, and current values of the main coils and the sub-coils can be set independently. However, Shimonosono teaches a crystal pulling device comprising superconducting coils, wherein a pair of superconducting coils (for example 4a/4d) arranged to face each other is provided and the sub-coils 4a/4d are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils 4a/4d is aligned with X-direction (the X-axis) (figs 4-13, 0041, 0062). 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 ‘425 per teachings of Shimonosono in order to improve an uniformity of the central magnetic field and suppress a depression of the magnetic field (Shimonosono 0062). ‘425/Shimonosono teaches the main coils and the sub-coils as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach current values of the main coils and the sub-coils can be set independently. However, Hobl teaches a crystal pulling apparatus comprising superconductive coils, wherein the coils are powered individually (0009, 0010, 0024, claim 12). 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 ‘425/Shimonosono per teachings of Hobl in order to control the direction of the magnetic field (Hobl 0024). Also, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to objection to drawings about “centers” have been considered, but not found persuasive. It should be noted that the instant claim recites “centers” (form of “center”), e.g., it appears that the instant claim recites at least two centers. Therefore, the objection to drawings is maintained because the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments that Takano does not disclose "a pair of superconducting coils arranged to face each other ... and the sub-coils are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils . . . is aligned with the X-axis” have been considered, but not found persuasive. The examiner explicitly indicated that Takano teaches a pair of superconducting coils (sub-coils), and Takano does not explicitly teach that the sub-coils (third) pair of superconducting coils arranged to face each other and the sub-coils are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils is aligned with the X-axis. Thus, Shimonosono teaches a crystal pulling device comprising superconducting coils, wherein a third pair of superconducting coils/sub-coils (for example 4a/4d) is arranged to face each other and the sub-coils (for example 4a/4d) are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils 4a/4d is aligned with X-direction (the X-axis) (figs 4-13, 0041, 0062). 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 Takano per teachings of Shimonosono in order to improve a uniformity of the central magnetic field and suppress a depression of the magnetic field (Shimonosono 0062). Also, the court has 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).
Applicant’s arguments that “in Shimanosono… Angle 0 is different from the center angle a in the present application” have been considered, but not found persuasive. It should be noted that the applicant’s argued angle/limitation is already taught in primary reference to Takano. 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). As applicant already noted, Shimonosono does teach the third pair of coils (for example 4a/4d); Shimonosono explicitly shows an X-axis along a direction of the sub-set/third pair coils (for example 4a/4d figs 12 and 13, at least), e.g., Shimanosono teaches that the sub-coils are arranged such that a coil axis of the pair of superconducting coils is aligned with the X-axis. it is well established that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Applicant’s arguments that Hobl arranges pairs of coils in a completely different manner than Takano and Shimonosono” have been considered, but not found persuasive. It should be noted that the applicant’s argued pairs of coils/limitation is already taught in reference to Takano and/or Shimonosono. 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). As applicant already noted, Hobl does teach the coils are powered individually (0009, 0010, 0024, claim 12). 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 Takano/Shimonosono per teachings of Hobl in order to control the direction of the magnetic field (Hobl 0024). Also, 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. Also, Takano/Shimonosono teaches the main coils arrangement (Takano) and teaches the sub-coils (Shimonosono) as addressed above, and further teaches the current being induced/introduced to the main coils (Takano 0008, 0015), and the sub-coils being induced/intruded to the sub-coil (Shimonosono 0066); apparently, current values of the main coils and the sub-coils can be set independently since the current of main coils is induced by Takano and the current of the sub-coils is induced by Shimonosono.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been considered, but not found persuasive because the combination of cited claims/references teaches the instantly claimed/argued limitations.
Conclusion
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 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