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 Objections
Claim 34 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 6-9, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al (CN105525352A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
Hoshino et al teaches a crucible, the crucible comprising: a crucible body having a floor and a sidewall extending up from the floor, the floor and sidewall defining a cavity, the crucible body having an inner surface and an outer surface; and one or more anchors (nozzles 7 connected to base plate 4) that extend into the cavity from the inner surface of the floor (Fig 1, and 4-6; CT [0057]-[0075] teaches crucible having a cavity and nozzles 7 extending from the bottom of the crucible, wherein the top of the nozzle has an umbrella shaped part, wherein the nozzles reads on applicant’s anchors extending from the bottom of the crucible).
In regards to the limitation “crucible for holding a silicon melt,” and “cavity for holding the silicon melt” these limitations merely recites an intended use. 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 crucible taught by Hoshino et al would be capable of holding a silicon melt; therefore, meets the claimed limitation.
In regards to “the one or more anchors comprising at least five anchors,” Hoshino et al teaches one or more pipes for inputting gas and/or liquid (CT [0009]), and depicts four anchors (nozzles 7) (Fig 1). Hoshino et al does not explicitly teach five or more anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hoshino et al by providing 5 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Referring to claim 2, Hoshino et al teaches each anchor has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor changing in width along its length and having a largest width along its length, the largest width being spaced from the lower end of the anchor (Fig 1 teaches nozzle 7 with umbrella portion at top which changes width).
Referring to claim 3, Hoshino et al teaches each anchor comprises an upper portion and a lower portion, at least part of the upper portion extends radially outward from the lower portion (Fig 1 teaches nozzle 7, lower portion, with umbrella upper portion at top which changes width).
Referring to claim 4, Hoshino et al teaches the crucible has a longitudinal axis and each anchor has a longitudinal axis, the longitudinal axis of each anchor being angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the crucible (Fig 1).
Referring to claim 6 and 34, Hoshino et al does not teach at least 10 anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hoshino et al by providing 10 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Referring to claim 7, Hoshino et al teaches the floor comprises a rounded portion. (Fig 1 depicts a rounded corner portion of the floor). Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 8, Hoshino et al teaches the floor further comprises a flat portion (Fig 1).
Referring to claim 9, Hoshino et al teaches the one or more anchors are connected to a mat (plate 4), the mat being attached to the inner surface of the crucible body (Fig 1 shows the nozzles connected to plate 4).
Referring to claim 35, Hoshino et al does not teach at least 15 anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hoshino et al by providing 15 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
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) 1-10 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura et al (US 2007/0028832) in view of Hoshino et al (CN105525352A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
Referring to claim 10, Sugimura et al teaches a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus for pulling a silicon singe crystal ingot (abstract) comprising a chamber 1 for pulling a silicon ingot along a pull axis; a crucible 5 being disposed within growth chamber; and a side heater 6 disposed radially outward to the crucible sidewall (Fig 3; [0023]-[0042]). Sugimura et al also teaches mixed gas is injected in a raw material 20 through a tube 24 ([0041]-[0042]; Fig 3). Sugimura et al also teaches a quartz crucible and a quartz tube for supplying mixed gas into the raw material 20 ([0025]. [0041]). Sugimura et al teaches crucible comprising: a crucible body having a floor and a sidewall extending up from the floor, the floor and sidewall defining a cavity for holding the silicon melt, the crucible body having an inner surface and an outer surface (Fig 3).
Sugimura et al does not teach one or more anchors that extend into the cavity from the inner surface of the floor, the one or more anchors comprising at least five anchors.
Hoshino et al teaches a crucible, the crucible comprising: a crucible body having a floor and a sidewall extending up from the floor, the floor and sidewall defining a cavity, the crucible body having an inner surface and an outer surface; and one or more anchors (nozzles 7 connected to base plate 4) that extend into the cavity from the inner surface of the floor (Fig 1, and 4-6; CT [0057]-[0075] teaches crucible having a cavity and nozzles 7 extending from the bottom of the crucible, wherein the top of the nozzle has an umbrella shaped part, wherein the nozzles reads on applicant’s anchors extending from the bottom of the crucible). Hoshino et al teaches the nozzles for inputting external gas and/or liquid (CT [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sugimura et al by providing one or more anchors (gas nozzles) that extend into the cavity from the inner surface of the floor, the one or more anchors comprising at least five anchors, as taught by Hoshino et al, to supply gas directly to the melt.
In regards to “the one or more anchors comprising at least five anchors,” Hoshino et al teaches one or more pipes for inputting gas and/or liquid (CT [0009]), and depicts four anchors (nozzles 7) (Fig 1). The combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al does not explicitly teach five or more anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al by providing 5 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al teaches each anchor has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor changing in width along its length and having a largest width along its length, the largest width being spaced from the lower end of the anchor (Hoshino Fig 1 teaches nozzle 7 with umbrella portion at top which changes width).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al teaches each anchor comprises an upper portion and a lower portion, at least part of the upper portion extends radially outward from the lower portion (Hoshino Fig 1 teaches nozzle 7, lower portion, with umbrella upper portion at top which changes width).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al teaches the crucible has a longitudinal axis and each anchor has a longitudinal axis, the longitudinal axis of each anchor being angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the crucible (Hoshino Fig 1).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al teaches a quartz crucible and a quartz tube for supplying mixed gas into the raw material 20 ([Sugimura 0025], [0041]). Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claim 6 and 34, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al does not teach at least 10 anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al by providing 10 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al teaches the floor comprises a rounded portion. (Hoshino Fig 1 depicts a rounded corner portion of the floor). Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al teaches the floor further comprises a flat portion (Hoshino Fig 1).
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al teaches the one or more anchors are connected to a mat (plate 4), the mat being attached to the inner surface of the crucible body (Hoshino Fig 1 shows the nozzles connected to plate 4).
Referring to claim 35, the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al does not teach at least 15 anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Sugimura et al and Hoshino et al by providing 15 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 34-35 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
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