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
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The “microgravity environment” as recited in claim 3 is interpreted in light of at least ¶[0049] of the published application as an environment where the force of Earth’s gravity is significantly reduce or countered such as in orbit around the earth or in outer space.
The portion of the preamble of claims 15 and 29 which recite “a levitating carbon solution comprising dissolved carbon in a liquid solvent” is considered as further limiting the apparatus of claims 15 and 29 because the presence of the levitating carbon solution is necessary to breathe life and meaning into the claim since the apparatus will not function according to its intended use in the absence of a carbon solution. Accordingly, a levitated carbon solution comprising dissolved carbon in a liquid solvent is considered to be a component of the apparatus of claims 15 and 29.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “levitation generator” and “temperature control device” in claim 15 and 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claim limitations relating to the “levitation generator” and “temperature control device” in claims 15 and 29 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “generator” and “device”” coupled with functional language “configured to apply levitating forces, wherein the applied levitating forces define a levitation volume” and “configured to adjust a temperature of the levitation volume” or “configured to control a temperature in a dissolution zone of the carbon solution and a temperature in a diamond growth zone of the carbon solution,” respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 15 and 29 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The levitation generator is disclosed in at least Figs. 6-9, ¶¶[0055]-[0057], ¶[0073], and ¶¶[0096]-[0102] of the published application as a Lorentz force generator such as one or more induction coils, an electromagnetic pump, an acoustic force generator, or an aerodynamic force generator.
The temperature control device is disclosed in at least Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0031], ¶[0058], ¶¶[0075]-[0076], and ¶¶[0097]-[0099] of the published application as a heater or heat exchanger together with a thermocouple or an optical, radiation, or color pyrometer to sense the temperature and a controller (143) such as a computer.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 5, 7-9, 13-14, and 20 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
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 10-11 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.
Amended claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites forming “a carbon solution.” It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the carbon solution recited in claim 1. It is assumed applicants amended the wrong portion of claim 10 in reply to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claim and that this should be changed back to “the carbon solution.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the carbon source" in l. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “a carbon source.”
Amended claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites forming “a carbon solution.” It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the carbon solution recited in claim 1. It is assumed applicants amended the wrong portion of claim 11 in reply to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claim and that this should be changed back to “the carbon solution.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the carbon source" in l. 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “a carbon source.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,936,346 to William W. Lloyd (hereinafter “Lloyd”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,896,849 to Philip I. Moynihan (“Moynihan”).
Regarding claim 29, Lloyd teaches an apparatus for synthesizing diamond from a levitating carbon solution comprising dissolved carbon in a liquid solvent (see Fig. 1, col. 1, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 3 and claims 1-7 which teach a levitating melt (11) which is comprised of a semiconductor material such as Si or Ge which is considered a liquid solvent; moreover, there necessarily is at least a small amount of dissolved carbon which is present as a contaminant as is evident from, for example, col. 2, ll. 34-36 which teaches maintaining a low-carbon content in the melt (11); additionally, the apparatus of Lloyd is capable of being used to synthesize diamond), the apparatus comprising:
a levitation generator configured to apply levitating forces to the liquid solvent (see Fig. 1, col. 1, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 3 and claims 1-7 which teach that RF coils (5) which apply levitation forces to the melt (11) and define a levitation volume); and
a temperature control device configured to control a temperature in a dissolution zone of the carbon solution and a temperature in a diamond growth zone of the carbon solution so that the temperature in the diamond growth zone is less than the temperature in the dissolution zone by at least 25 °C (See Fig. 1, col. 1, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 3 and claims 1-7 which teach that RF coils (5) also function to control the temperature of the melt (11) when used in combination with a cold cage (1). Moreover, since the melt (11) is a liquid and the single crystal rod (13) is a solid, the former necessarily has a higher temperature than the latter and the single crystal rod (13) will necessarily have a temperature at least 25 °C cooler than the temperature of the melt (11) at a given distance away from the melt (11). Finally, it is noted that since the RF coil (5) and cold cage (1) are capable of controlling the temperature difference between the single crystal rod (13) and the melt (11) to be at least 25 °C, the device is therefore configured to control the temperature in the claimed manner).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that Lloyd does not explicitly teach a temperature control device configured to control a temperature in a dissolution zone of the carbon solution and a temperature in a diamond growth zone of the carbon solution so that the temperature in the diamond growth zone is less than the temperature in the dissolution zone by at least 25 °C, this would have been obvious in view of Moynihan. In at least Figs. 1-2 and col. 2, l. 22 to col. 5, l. 52 Moynihan teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for levitating and heating an object (12) using multiple sources (14) of electromagnetic radiation. In col. 5, ll. 5-30 Moynihan specifically teaches that the temperature of the object (12) is controlled by a sensor (34) which is coupled to a microprocessor (54) that adjusts the output of the sources (14a-f) in order to obtain the desired temperature. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to incorporate a temperature sensor such as a thermocouple or pyrometer together with a controller such as a microprocessor in order to sense the temperature of the melt (11) during growth so that the output of the RF coils (5) may be adjusted to obtain a more consistent and accurate melt temperature (11) during crystal growth and, when needed, to produce a temperature difference of at least 25 °C between the melt and the extracted single crystal. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 12-20, and 27-28 are allowed.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach disclose, or reasonably suggest a method of synthesizing diamond comprising levitating a carbon solution comprising dissolved carbon and liquid solvent, controlling the temperature of the carbon solution so that the liquid solvent becomes saturated or supersaturated with the dissolved carbon, and precipitating the dissolved carbon from the liquid solvent to form a diamond precipitate as recited in the context of claim 1. Dependent claims 2-9, 12-14, and 27-28 are also deemed to be in condition for allowance due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
The prior art of record also does not teach, disclose, or reasonably suggest an apparatus for synthesizing diamond from a levitating carbon solution comprising dissolved carbon in a liquid solvent comprising a levitation generator configured to apply levitating forces to the liquid solvent, wherein the applied levitating forces define a levitation volume; a carbon source feed device at an end of the levitation volume; and a temperature control device configured to adjust a temperature of the levitation volume as recited in the context of claim 15. Dependent claims 16-20 are also deemed to be in condition for allowance due to their dependence on claim 15.
The closest prior art of record includes U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0217564 to Marshall, et al. (hereinafter “Marshall”) and U.S. Patent No. 3,936,346 to William W. Lloyd (“Lloyd”). In Figs. 2-5 and ¶¶[0115]-[0133] Marshall teaches an embodiment of a system and method for growing diamond onto a seed crystal (6) by immersion in a solvent comprised of dissolved carbon. As shown in Figs. 2-5 the apparatus includes a dissolution zone (10) where a graphite source (5) is immersed into the solution and a deposition zone (13) where a diamond seed (6) is immersed into the solution. As explained specifically in ¶[0131] a temperature gradient between the dissolution (10) and deposition (13) zones drives the nucleation of diamond onto the seed crystal (6) in the deposition zone (13). However, Marshall does not teach or suggest the use of a levitation generator to levitate the carbon solution. In the Figure and col. 3, l. 1 to col. 4, l. 3 as well as claim 1 Lloyd teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for forming a single crystal rod (13) by extraction from a melt (11) that is levitated by RF coils (5). The melt is continually refreshed by a feed bar (9) which is continuously raised through an aperture (7). However, the system and method of Lloyd is disclosed as being for a single crystal semiconductor material such as silicon or germanium. There is no teaching or suggestion that the system may be used to levitate a solution having carbon dissolved in a liquid solvent in order to synthesize diamond.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed February 19, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argue that the interpretation of the preamble of the claim is erroneous because it selects only a portion of the preamble and does not consider the preamble as a whole. See applicants’ 2/19/2026 reply, pp. 7-8. Applicants’ argument is noted, but the Examiner’s position is that the interpretation of the preamble is the same either way so applicants’ argument is moot.
With respect to new apparatus claim 29, applicants argue that the cold cage of Lloyd is not configured to provide a zone of temperature differing by at least 25 °C and refer to Exhibit A to allegedly support their position that only a temperature difference of 12 °K is attained in the melt within a cold cage crucible. Id. at p. 11. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive as the crucible in Exhibit A does not show or include a seed crystal or a single crystal rod being grown or extracted from the melt which will produce a larger temperature difference. Moreover, claim 29 does not specifically recite that the temperature difference is only within the melt itself. Instead, the 25 °C temperature difference is merely recited as a temperature difference between a growth zone and a dissolution zone.
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714