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 § 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.
Claim 1-24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “a plurality of perforated metal plates that are wrapped tightly around one another in a radial direction.” “tightly” is a relative term and indefinite. It is unclear what are the meets and bounds of “tightly.” It is unclear what the difference would be between “tightly” and “loosely” wrapped. For example, would mere contact be sufficient or a minimum amount of pressure be required? The same argument applies to dependent claims 2-24 which depend from claim 1; therefore, incorporate the same indefinite language.
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, 2, and 4-24 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 Pimputkar et al (US 2016/0194781).
D’Evelyn teaches an apparatus for crystal growth, the apparatus comprising: a cylindrical-shaped enclosure 210; a primary liner (capsule 100) disposed within the enclosure, wherein the primary liner comprises a cylindrical wall that extends between a first end and a second end, and an interior surface of the primary liner defines an interior region; 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); at least one end closure member (top end flange 212; top end cap 232, annular plug 234) disposed proximate to the first end of the cylindrical shaped enclosure; a primary liner lid (top end flange 212; top end cap 232; annular plug 234) disposed proximate to the first end of the cylindrical wall of the primary liner; 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 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 comprising a packed-bed enclosure with the packed-bed ceramic composition contained therein, 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.
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, 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 a cylindrical heater disposed between the primary liner and the load bearing insulating member. The combination of D’Evelyn, Zhang et al and Grohs et al does not teach a plurality of heating elements.
In a crystal growth device, Pimputkar et al teaches a reactor 400 includes one or more nested vessels labeled as inner volume 402 and outer volume 402, either or both of which may be sealed or open; the inner volume 402 may be a tube, cylinder, sleeve or capsule, and is fully contained within the outer volume 404, which also may be a tube, cylinder, sleeve or capsule ([0058], Fig 4). Pimputkar et al teaches heaters 418 can then be used to heat the outer volume 404 and inner volume 402; and external heaters 418 may be present as separate units external to a carbon fiber containing material 414, but may also be incorporated, at least partially or fully, into the carbon fiber containing material 414 itself ([0085]); Fig 4), which clearly suggests a plurality of heaters.
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 providing a plurality of heaters, as taught by Pimputkar et al, because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and a plurality of heaters allows for individual control of the heaters in an axial direction to produce a desired temperature gradient.
Referring to claims 2, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al is silent to the height and diameter of the insulating member. 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 Pimputkar et al to have the claimed height and diameter because changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and a larger diameter and height would be obvious to have a larger enclosure for producing larger crystals.
Referring to claim 4, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches using oxide ceramic material, which may be sintered materials (Pimputkar [0067]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07). Also, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al does not explicitly teach the claimed size. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 5-6, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al does not explicitly teach the plurality of secondary and tertiary components having the claimed size. The combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches sintered material are suitable materials for use in the apparatus (Pimputkar [0067]). 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 Pimputkar et al by using sintered materials for component and the claimed size of the components because changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). Smaller components would be expected to be disposed within larger sintered material because the materials would be packed within the enclosure.
Referring to claim 7-8, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar 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]) and sintering oxide ceramic materials (Pumputkar [0067]), which clearly suggests a mineral composition.
Referring to claim 9, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches steel (D’Evelyn [0031]-[0052]).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches capsule (primary liner) comprising platinum, palladium, rhodium, gold, or silver, titanium, rhenium, copper, stainless steel, zirconium, tantalum, alloys thereof, and the like. (D’Evelyn [0035], [0048]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claim 11, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches capsule (primary liner) comprising platinum, palladium, rhodium, gold, or silver, titanium, rhenium, copper, stainless steel, zirconium, tantalum, alloys thereof, and the like. (D’Evelyn [0035], [0048]); and a capsule, liner or container hold materials ([0005]) and high strength enclosure, a release sleeve and containment sleeve which clearly suggests a first and second liner (D’Evelyn Fig 5). Furthermore, duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04); therefore, additional liner would have been one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Referring to claim 12-13 and 20, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches cylindrical heaters and embedding the heaters in an insulator (Pimputkar Fig 4).
Referring to claim 14, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches heaters embedded in an insulator however does not explicitly teach a lead conduit embedded in the annular insulating member. 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 Pimputkar et al by providing a lead in the annular insulator to provide power to the heaters.
Referring to claim 15, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al does not teach the lead collar. 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 Pimputkar et al by providing a lead collar to provide power to the heaters.
Referring to claim 16, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches a metal sleeve (D’Evelyn abstract), and an interior or exterior liner may be used to protect components (Pimputkar [0082]). 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 Pimputkar et al by providing a secondary liner to protect internal components and the capsule.
Referring to claim 17, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches a heater which extends to the bottom, which clearly suggests an end heater proximate the bottom.
Referring to claim 18, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches top end cap with re-entrant portion (an annular plug) (D’Eveyln Fig 2). The combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al does not teach the lower position by at least 0.1 meter below the surface of the enclosure and size of the gap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify to have the claimed sizes because changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 19, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches top end cap with re-entrant portion (an annular plug) (D’Eveyln Fig 2), which clearly suggests a support member for providing support at the claimed temperature and pressure.
Referring to claims 21, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches cylindrical heaters and embedding the heaters in an insulator (Pimputkar Fig 4); therefore, including heaters in the liner would have been obvious to heat the contents of the liner.
Referring to claim 22-23, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches a cap and plug to seal the enclosure (D’Evelyn Fig 2).
Referring to claim 24, the combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches a packed bed, and the perforated metal plate is an alternative option, as claimed in independent claim 1; therefore, claim 24 merely further limits an alternative that is not require. The combination of D’Evelyn , Zhang et al, Grohs et al and Pimputkar et al teaches a packed bed; therefore, meets the claimed limitations.
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), and Pimputkar et al (US 2016/0194781), as applied to claim 1, 2, and 4-24 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 Pimputkar et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, except the packed-bed ceramic composition comprises has a thermal conductivity between about 0.25 and about 3 watts per meter-Kelvin with a packing density of 45-70%. The combination of D’Evelyn and Zhang 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 Pimputkar 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. Furthermore, pressing to a less than 90%, i.e. 45-70% would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a desired thermal conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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.
2003/0183155 teaches a reaction vessel comprises at least one liner and at least one coating comprising at least silver or gold ([0024])
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