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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 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, 4-5, 8-10, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 2010/0147210) in view of Zhang et al (CN 111188091 A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Grohs et al (US 2015/0345868) and Kiyama et al (US 5,252,131).
D’Evelyn teaches an apparatus for crystal growth, the apparatus comprising: a cylindrical-shaped enclosure 210; a cylindrical heater 240 comprising a first end, a second end and a cylindrical wall that extends between the first end and the second end, wherein an interior surface of the cylindrical wall defines a capsule region (capsule); a first end closure member (top end flange 212; top end cap 232) disposed proximate to the first end of the cylindrical heater, the first end closure member being configured to provide axial support for a capsule disposed within the capsule region; a load-bearing annular insulating member 230 disposed between an inner surface of the cylindrical-shaped enclosure 210 and an outer surface of the cylindrical wall of the cylindrical heater 240; and a first end plug 234 disposed between the first end of the cylindrical heater and the first end closure (Fig 1-6; [0029]-[0075]).
D’Evelyn does not teach the load-bearing annular insulating member or the first end plug comprises a packed-bed ceramic composition, the packed-bed ceramic composition being characterized by a density that is between about 30% and about 98% of a theoretical density of a 100%-dense ceramic having the same composition.
In a crystal growth apparatus, Zhang et al teaches a ceramic insulation cylinder comprising a number of arc-shaped zirconia insulation blocks, wherein the zirconia insulation blocks are made of purified and pressed zirconium oxide particles having a very high density of more than 90% (Fig 2; CT [0010]-[0014], [0070]-[0075]), which clearly suggests a packed-bed ceramic composition, the packed-bed ceramic composition being characterized by a density that is between about 30% and about 98% of a theoretical density of a 100%-dense ceramic having the same composition. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). Zhang et al also teaches the zirconia insulation bricks can be replaced separately after being damaged, which can significantly reduce the production cost and are resistant to high temperatures,
and are suitable for high-temperature single crystal growth furnaces ([0073]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify D’Evelyn by providing load-bearing annular insulating member comprising a packed-bed ceramic composition being characterized by a density that is between about 90% or more of a theoretical density of a 100%-dense ceramic having the same composition, as taught by Zhang et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) and zirconia insulation bricks can be replaced separately after being damaged, which can significantly reduce the production cost.
The combination of D’Evelyn and Zhang et al does not explicitly teach the load-bearing annular insulating member including a packed-bed enclosure within the cylindrical-shaped enclosure; and a packed-bed ceramic composition placed within the packed-bed enclosure, the packed-bed enclosure comprising one of an annular enclosure comprising an outer annular enclosure, an inner annular enclosure, an upper annular enclosure, and a lower annular enclosure, or the end- disk enclosure comprising one of a cylindrical enclosure, an upper end disk enclosure, and a lower end disk enclosure.
In a method of making thermal shielding, Grohs et al teaches a shielding element has a surround (enclosure) made up of refractory metal sheet(s) and a ceramic material, present in a particulate and/or fibrous structure, based on zirconium oxide, which is accommodated in the surround ([0010]). Grohs et al also teaches the term “surround” denotes a preferably closed or alternatively possibly also partially open container or a can which holds and delimits the ceramic material in the outer basic form in which the thermal shielding element is to be present; the surround can in particular have in each case a disk-like basic form (as a top part or as a bottom part), within which a cavity for accommodating the ceramic material is formed; or the surround can have, for example, a hollow-cylindrical basic form, a basic form of a hollow cylinder segment ([0013]), which clearly suggests an annular insulating member including a packed-bed enclosure within the cylindrical-shaped enclosure; and a packed-bed ceramic composition placed within the packed-bed enclosure, the packed-bed enclosure comprising one of an annular enclosure comprising an outer annular enclosure, an inner annular enclosure, an upper annular enclosure, and a lower annular enclosure, or the end- disk enclosure comprising one of a cylindrical enclosure, an upper end disk enclosure, and a lower end disk enclosure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn and Zhang et al by a cylindrical-shaped enclosure; and a packed-bed ceramic composition placed within the packed-bed enclosure, the packed-bed enclosure comprising one of an annular enclosure comprising an outer annular enclosure, an inner annular enclosure, an upper annular enclosure, and a lower annular enclosure, or the end- disk enclosure comprising one of a cylindrical enclosure, an upper end disk enclosure, and a lower end disk enclosure, as taught by Grohs et al, to make a shielding member with an enclosure surrounding the packed bed ceramic composition to obtain a modular design, this being advantageous in terms of handling, in terms of repair work and also in terms of replacing the ceramic material and/or the entire shielding element (Grohs [0011]).
The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al and Grohs et al teaches the packed-bed ceramic composition placed within the packed-bed enclosure (surround) comprising a made up of refractory metal sheet(s) and radiation effects also arise on the refractory metal sheet(s) of the surround, this being advantageous for the thermal shielding action (Grohs [0011]).
In a crystal growth apparatus, Kiyama et al teaches a heat shielding body 26 comprises a laminate of eight layer structure wherein inner four layers 27 are made of molybdenum material, and outer four layers 28 are made of stainless steel material, and with such a structure, a heat retaining property and a heat directivity when heating can be extremely high (Fig 2; col 4, ln 1-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al and Grohs et al by making the enclosure from a combination of refractory metal and stainless steel sheets, as taught by Kiyama et al, to improve the heat retaining and heat directivity; and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07); and combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 I).
Referring to claim 4-5, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches ceramic composition comprising zirconia powder and is silent to sintering (Zhang CT [0074]), which clearly suggests a non-sintered ceramic composition formed of one or more powders.
Referring to claim 8, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches an enclosure with a wall thickness of 0.25-2.5 mm (Grohs [0013], [0021]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 9, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches a steel enclosure (D’Evelyn [0048]; Grohs [0041]; Kimyama col 4, ln 1-67). 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 pressure inside the apparatus is a process limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus; therefore, would be capable of being evacuated to below atmospheric pressure.
Referring to claim 21, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches the packed disc enclosure comprises an annular plug 234 and the plug may include zirconia or zirconium oxide (D’Evelyn [0038]; Grohs ([0013]).
Referring to claim 22, see remarks above regarding claims 1 and 21.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 2010/0147210) in view of Zhang et al (CN 111188091 A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Grohs et al (US 2015/0345868) and Kiyama et al (US 5,252,131), as applied to claim 1, 4-5, 8-10, , 21 and 22 above, and further in view of Seals et al (US 6,071,628).
The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except the packed-bed ceramic composition comprises a non-sintered ceramic composition that has a thermal conductivity between about 0.1 and about 10 watts per meter-Kelvin. The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches 90% or more dense zirconia, however is silent to the thermal conductivity.
In a method of making a thermal barrier, Seals et al teaches typical literature thermal conductivity values for dense zirconia are in the range of 1.6 to 2.0 W/mK (col 3, ln 1-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al by optimizing the density of the zirconia bricks to provide typical literature thermal conductivity values for dense zirconia are in the range of 1.6 to 2.0 W/mK, as taught by Seals et al, to provide a desired insulation thermal conductivity.
Referring to claim 11, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Seals et al teaches typical literature thermal conductivity values for dense zirconia are in the range of 1.6 to 2.0 W/mK . Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Seals et al teaches pressed zirconium oxide particles having a very high density of more than 90%, as discussed above. Pressing to a less than 90% would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a desired thermal conductivity.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 2010/0147210) in view of Zhang et al (CN 111188091 A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Grohs et al (US 2015/0345868), Kiyama et al (US 5,252,131) and Seals et al (US 6,071,628), as applied to claim 1, 4-5, 8-10, , 21 and 22 above, and further in view of Ikesumi et al (JP 2005035846 A), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Seals et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, except the non-sintered ceramic composition comprises a powder that has a particle size between about 100 nanometers and about 150 micrometers. The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Seals et al teaches a 90% or more dense insulation block of zirconia powder, however is silent to the powder size.
In a method of making a zirconia body, Ikesumi et al teaches small particle diameter powders enter the voids of large particle diameter powders during molding, and the powders are better packed, resulting in a higher molding density (CT2 [0010]) and small-diameter zirconia powder has an average particle size of 0.8 to 1.6 μm, preferably 1.0 to 1.4 μm (CT2 [0025]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Seals et al by using a powder that has a particle size between about 100 nanometers and about 150 micrometers, as taught by Ikesumi et al because smaller powders having an average particle size of 0.8 to 1.6 μm are better packed, resulting in a higher density.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 2010/0147210) in view of Zhang et al (CN 111188091 A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Grohs et al (US 2015/0345868) and Kiyama et al (US 5,252,131), as applied to claim 1, 4-5, 8-10, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of CN106927833A, an English computer translation (CT3) is provided.
The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, except the one or more powder compositions further comprise a sintering-inhibiting composition.
In a method of making an insulator, CN106927833A teaches a high-purity and high-density zirconium oxide boron nitride composite ceramic insulating component, wherein zirconia boron nitride insulating ceramics combine the performance advantages of both, combining strength and insulation by mixing zirconia and boron nitride powders (CT3 [0002]-[0021]). Applicant teaches boron nitride is a sintering inhibiting component (See claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al by making a composite zirconia boron nitride ceramic insulator, as taught by CN106927833A, to produce a composite ceramic that combines the performance advantages of both, combining strength and insulation.
Referring to claim 7, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and CN106927833A teaches boron nitride (CT3 [0014]-[0025]).
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 2010/0147210) in view of Zhang et al (CN 111188091 A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Grohs et al (US 2015/0345868) and Kiyama et al (US 5,252,131), as applied to claim 1, 4-5, 8-10, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of Murakami et al (US 20170342271) .
The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except the packed-bed composition comprises primary components have a maximum dimension between about 1 mm and about 500 mm. The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches zirconia (Zhang CT [0074]), however is silent to the size.
In an apparatus using zirconia, Murakami et al teaches 2 mm zirconia beads having a relatively large particle diameter, and further using 0.1 mm zirconia beads having a relatively small particle diameter ([0142], [0252]-[0259]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al by using conventionally known sizes of zirconia particles, as taught by Murakami et al. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 13, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Murakami et al teaches 2 mm zirconia beads. (Murakami ([0142], [0252]-[0259]). Also, Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 14, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Murakami et al teaches 2 mm zirconia beads and 0.1 mm beads (0.1 mm is 5% of 2 mm). Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 15, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Murakami et al does not teach a tertiary component. The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Murakami et al teaches zirconia of varying sizes, and it is conventionally known in the art that different size particles can be used to increase packing density; therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Murakami et al by using a tertiary particle with a smaller size to increase packing density to a desired percentage. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 16-17, the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al, Kiyama et al and Murakami et al teaches a ceramic comprising zirconia, alumina, silicon carbide or the like having a theoretical density of greater than 95% (D’Evelyn [0050]-[0051]), which clearly suggests a mineral composition.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 2010/0147210) in view of Zhang et al (CN 111188091 A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Grohs et al (US 2015/0345868) and Kiyama et al (US 5,252,131), as applied to claim 1, 4-5, 8-10, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of CN108193846A, an English computer translation (CT4) is provided.
The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 18, as discussed above, except the natural rock or mineral composition comprises at least one of basalt, a mafic rock composition, or granite.
In a method of making thermal insulation ceramic, CN108193846A teaches ceramic materials are mostly oxides, nitrides, borides and carbides, and common ceramic materials include clay, alumina, kaolin, etc (CT4 [0002]-[0010]). CN108193846A teaches a ceramic base plate is made of 100-130 parts of kaolin, 80-90 parts of feldspar, 40-60 parts of quartz, 10-20 parts of zirconium oxide, 8-12 parts of silicon nitride, 10-15 parts of basalt and 5-7 parts of pure aluminum powder (CT4 [0011]), which clearly suggests basalt as a suitable ceramic material for use in forming a ceramic insulator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Kiyama et al by combining zirconia with basalt, as taught by CN108193846A, because combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 I) and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 and 21-22 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wei et al (US 2019/0046958) teaches monoclinic zirconia, for example, occurs naturally as the mineral baddeleyite. ([0057]).
Yamamoto et al (US 2012/0208087) teaches different particle sizes may be mixed for an increased packing density ([0072]).
Imada (US 2013/0240778) teaches two or more types of thermally conductive fillers different in average particle size can also be mixed for use for high density filling capability ([0077]).
Shimanuki et al (US 6,071,341) teaches a crystal growth apparatus comprising a thermal shield made of molybdenum steel or stainless steel (col 4, ln 1-67).
Kimura et al (US 5,843,229) teaches a thermal shield made of heat-resistant materials such as tungsten, molybdenum or stainless steel (col 9, ln 1-30).
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