DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are cancelled. Claims 21-31 are newly added. Newly submitted claims 21-31 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: if originally presented, claims 21-31 would have been restricted from the elected claims 12-20 as follows: restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121.
Group II. Claims 12-20, drawn to an apparatus, classified in Y10T117/10.
Group III. Claims 21-31, drawn to a method, classified in C30B15/00.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons: Inventions II and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus can be used to store a raw material, other than to operate the furnace to prepare a crystal rod.
The applicant has elected Group II, claims 12-20, without traverse, in the reply filed on 11/07/2025. Accordingly, claims 21-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Claims 12-20 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 “distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible,” “distance between the first inlet port and the crucible,” “flow rate controller,” “pressure regulator,” “cone angle,” “weight’ and “suction pump” 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 12 “…at least one second inlet pipe, wherein a respective second inlet pipe of the at least one second inlet pipe has a respective second inlet port, and the respective second inlet port … the respective second inlet port … the respective second inlet port…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. “Respective” is generally links at least two items. However, the instantly recited “at least one second inlet pipe” may comprise only one second inlet pipe. Therefore, it is not clear what “at least one second inlet pipe, wherein a respective second inlet pipe of the at least one second inlet pipe has a respective second inlet port, and the respective second inlet port is placed inside the furnace chamber and above the crucible in a melting process and a crystal pulling process, and wherein a distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible is less than a distance between the first inlet port and the crucible… a gas flow rate of the respective second inlet port” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 12 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 12-20 are rejected because they depend on claim 12.
The recited in claim 13 “…a length of each of the at least one second inlet pipe extending into the furnace chamber is adjustable to make the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible adjustable …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. “Respective” is generally links at least two items. However, the instantly recited “at least one second inlet pipe” may comprise only one second inlet pipe. Therefore, it is not clear what “a length of each of the at least one second inlet pipe extending into the furnace chamber is adjustable to make the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible adjustable” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 13 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claim 19 is rejected because they depend on claim 13.
The recited in claim 15 “…the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible is in a range of 100 mm to 200 mm in the melting stage and the crystal pulling stage …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claim 1 recites “respective second inlet pipe of the at least one second inlet pipe,” “Respective” is generally links at least two items. However, the instantly recited “at least one second inlet pipe” may comprise only one second inlet pipe. Therefore, it is not clear what “the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible is in a range of 100 mm to 200 mm in the melting stage and the crystal pulling stage” means. Also, claim 15 recites the limitation "the melting stage" and “the crystal pulling stage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 15 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 18 “…a cone angle …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear which angle is defined as the cone angle. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 18 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 19 “…a weight …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear which part/portion is the weight. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 19 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20120116614 A, machine translation, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a single crystal furnace comprising a furnace chamber 2/110 (figs 1-6, abstract, 0005, 0007-0020, 0024-0059,); a crucible 3/130 placed inside the furnace chamber and at a bottom of the furnace chamber (figs 1-6, 0005-0007, 0028-0035); a gas injection unit/means 180/182 (first inlet pipe) having a bottom portion for injecting gas (first inlet port) (figs 3-6, abstract, 0024, 0039-0045, 0051-0059), wherein the first inlet port is placed at a top of the furnace chamber 110 (figs 3-6, 0024, 0039-0045, 0051-0059); a gas injection unit/means 170/chamber 120/tube 140 (at least one second inlet pipe) (figs 3-6, abstract, 0024, 0032-0036, 0038, 0039, 0044, 0047, 0049-0051, 0053, 0054, 0057, 0059), wherein a respective second inlet pipe of the at least one second inlet pipe has a respective second inlet port for injecting gas (figs 3-6, 0011 and claim 1), and the respective second inlet port is placed inside the furnace chamber 110 and above the crucible 130 in a melting process and a crystal growing/pulling process (figs 3-6, 0006, 0011, 0036), and wherein a distance between the respective second inlet port (for example bottom portion of tube 140) and the crucible 130 is less than a distance between the first inlet port (for example bottom portion of gas injection unit/means 180) and the crucible 130 (figs 3-6); a flow rate control unit 190 (controller) for controlling a gas flow rate of the first inlet port and a gas flow rate of the respective second inlet port (fig 5, abstract, 0011, 0024, 0052-0054, 0056, claims 1 and 2); and a valve 172/182/pressure gauge 171/181 (a pressure regulator) for controlling (regulating) a pressure in the furnace chamber during the melting process and the pulling/growing process (0011, 0024, 0036, 0042, 0043, 0045-0054, 0056, 0059 and claim 8). As just addressed above, Kim teaches the pressure regulator. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the pressure regulator of Kim is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “regulating a first preset pressure in the melting process and a second preset pressure in the crystal pulling process, wherein the second preset pressure is greater than the first preset pressure”. 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. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kuramochi et al (US 5683505 A, “Kuramochi”).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the at least one second inlet pipe extending into the furnace chamber as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a length of each of the at least one second inlet pipe extending into the furnace chamber is adjustable to make the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible adjustable; and the single crystal furnace further comprising a mobile member adjustable inside the furnace chamber, wherein the mobile member is connected to each of the at least one second inlet pipe, and adjustment of a position of the mobile member inside the furnace chamber drives adjustment of the length of each of the at least one second inlet pipe extending into the furnace chamber. However, Kuramochi teaches an apparatus/furnace for producing single crystal, wherein a length of each of pipe 9/component 10 (the at least one second inlet pipe) extending into a furnace chamber 7 is adjustable to make the distance between the respective second inlet port and a crucible 1 adjustable (figs 1-3, col 3 lines 27-50, col 4 line 60 to col 5 line 39, claim 15); and the single crystal furnace comprising a lifting mechanism (mobile member) adjustable inside the furnace chamber (figs 2 and 3, col 4 line 60 to col 5 line 39, claims 7 and 15), wherein the mobile member (for example members 10a/10b/10c) is connected to each of the at least one second inlet pipe (pipe 9/component 10) (figs 2 and 3, col 4 line 60 to col 5 line 39, col 6 lines 10-23 and lines 36-46), and adjustment of a position of the mobile member inside the furnace chamber drives adjustment of the length of each of the at least one second inlet pipe extending into the furnace chamber (figs 1-3, col 3 lines 27-50, col 4 line 60 to col 5 line 39, claims 7 and 15). 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 Kim per teachings of Kuramochi in order to provide suitable conditions for producing the crystal with controlled properties (Kuramochi abstract, col 1 lines 5-20 and col 3 lines 10-21). Furthermore, In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952), Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 V A.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the furnace chamber and the crucible as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach an outer draft tube placed inside the furnace chamber and above the crucible, wherein the outer draft tube has a conical cross-section along an extension direction of the furnace chamber, and a cone angle of the conical cross-section is greater than or equal to 30°. However, Kuramochi teaches an apparatus/furnace for producing single crystal, wherein a cylindrical/conical component 10 (outer draft tube) placed inside the furnace chamber and above the crucible (figs 1-3, col 3 lines 35-50, col 4 line 65 to col 5 line 45, col 6 lines 10-65), wherein the outer draft tube has a conical cross-section along an extension direction of the furnace chamber (figs 1-3, abstract, col 3 lines 35-50, claims 3 and 15), and a cone angle of the conical cross-section is greater than or equal to 30° (figs 1-3). 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 Kim per teachings of Kuramochi in order to provide suitable conditions for producing the crystal with controlled properties (Kuramochi abstract, col 1 lines 5-20 and col 3 lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 19, Kim/Kuramochi teaches the mobile member includes members 10a/10b/10c (weight) configured to be connected to each of the at least one second inlet pipe to drive each of the at least one second inlet pipe to move within the furnace chamber (Kuramochi figs 2 and 3, col 4 line 60 to col 5 line 39, col 6 lines 10-23 and lines 36-46).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al (JP 2022182823 A, US 20240263342 A1, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches a water cooling tube/pipe 5/140 positioned close to a heat shield 7/150 (water-cooled heat shield structure) (figs 1-6, 0005, 0010, 0011, 0024, 0032-0034, 0038, 0047, 0050, 0057, 0059), wherein the water-cooled heat shield structure (7/150) is placed inside the furnace chamber 2/110 and above the crucible 3/130 (figs 1-6), and the water-cooled heat shield structure (7/150) includes a water pipe 5/140 (figs 1-6, 0005, 0010, 0011, 0024, 0032-0034, 0038, 0047, 0050, 0057, 0059), but does not explicitly teach that each of the at least one second inlet pipe is fixed to the water pipe. However, Takahashi teaches an apparatus for growing crystal, wherein a gas flow inlet cylinder/pipe is fitted/extended/fixed to a water cooling cylinder/pipe (0006, 0015, 0016, 0027, 0028, 0036, 0044, 0045, 0047-0064, claims 12-17). 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 Kim per teachings of Takahashi in order to efficiently growing the crystal (Takahashi abstract, 0062-0064). Furthermore, the court has held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Koo et al (WO 2021141176 A1, machine translation, “Koo”).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible, the melting stage and the crystal pulling stage, but does not explicitly teach that the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible is in a range of 100 mm to 200 mm. However, Koo teaches an apparatus for growing crystal, wherein a distance between an inlet port and a crucible is adjustable by a lifting/driving shaft/unit for controlling the crystal defect and improving the productivity of the crystal (figs 1-4, 0005-0007, 0009-0017, 0021, 0032, 0040-0043, 0048-0052, 0058, 0064). 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 Kim as motivated by Koo, and obtained various distances including the instantly claimed “the distance between the respective second inlet port and the crucible being in a range of 100 mm to 200 mm in the melting stage and the crystal pulling stage” in order to improve the productivity of the crystal, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Furthermore, it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lyu Tiezheng (CN 104389017 A, machine translation, “Lyu”).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the first inlet pipe as addressed above, but does not explicitly that the first inlet pipe has a diameter in a range of 20 mm to 50 mm. However, Lyu teaches a furnace, wherein a inlet pipe has a diameter of 35 mm (0044, 0049, 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 Kim per teachings of Lyu in order to provide a cooling device for producing ingot with improved quality (Lyu abstract). Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the each of the at least one second inlet pipe as addressed above, but does not explicitly that each of the at least one second inlet pipe has a diameter in a range of 20 mm to 50 mm. However, Lyu teaches a furnace, wherein a inlet pipe has a diameter of 35 mm (0044, 0049, 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 Kim per teachings of Lyu in order to a cooling device for producing ingot with improved quality (Lyu abstract). Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shi et al (CN 106987897 A, machine translation, “Shi”).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the pressure regulator as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the pressure regulator includes a suction pump, and an opening degree of the suction pump is adjustable. However, it is a known practice that a pump is used for regulating a pressure of a crystal growth furnace by controlling the opening valve of a vacuum pump as taught by Shi (0004, 0018, 0034). 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 Kim per teachings of Shi in order to provide an improved furnace with improved production efficiency (Shi abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714