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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 13 and 14 are cancelled. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 15 and 16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-12 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (CN 216838266 U, machine translation, “Wang”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a lifting assembly for a guide tube 2 (cylinder) comprising a guide cylinder lifting platform 5 (component) disposed on a water-cooling pipe/pipeline 4 (water-cooling lateral arm) and a lifting rod 7 (lifting bolt) (fig 1, abstract, 0011-0014, 0016, 0024-0026, 0031-0040, 0042, 0046), wherein the lifting bolt (lifting rod 7) is disposed in the guide cylinder lifting component (platform 5) (fig 1), a lower end of the lifting bolt extends downward through a threaded hole (opening) of an upper heat-insulating cover 1 of the guide cylinder (fig 1, 0006, 0015, 0016, 0018, 0024, 0032, 0038-0042, 0045 and 0046), a first fixing block 6 (lifting nut) is disposed at an upper end of the lifting bolt (lifting rod) (fig 1, 0011, 0012, 0022, 0025, 0034-0036, 0039, claims 2 and 3), and the lifting nut (first fixing block 6) is matched to the lifting bolt to raise or lower the guide cylinder (fig 1, abstract, 0006, 0010, 0020, 0025, 0026, 0033, 0034, 0035, 0038, 0039). As addressed above, Wang teaches the guide cylinder and the guide cylinder lifting component, substantially same as instantly claimed flow guide cylinder and flow guide cylinder lifting component. Therefore, it is reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the guide cylinder and the guide cylinder lifting component in Wang is capable of being “a flow guide cylinder” and “a flow guide cylinder lifting component.” 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).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a second fixing block 8 (supporting cap) is disposed on the lower end of the lifting rod/bolt extending through the upper heat-insulating cover of the flow guide cylinder (fig 1, 0016-0018, 0026, 0039-0041, 0045, 0046 and claims 7-9), and a size of the supporting cap (second fixing block) is larger than a diameter of the opening (threaded hole) of the upper heat-insulating cover of the flow guide cylinder (fig 1).
Claims 3, 4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1 and 2, and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 112301418 A, machine translation, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the flow guide cylinder lifting component comprises a supporting platform 5 extending proximodistally along a direction perpendicular to a center axis of the water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/pipeline 4) (fig 1), a distal end of the supporting platform 5 is connected to the water-cooling lateral arm (panel pipe/pipeline) (fig 1), a first threaded hole (groove) is formed in a proximal end of the supporting platform and configured to receive the lifting bolt (rod) (fig 1, 0012, 0034-0036 and claim 3), a positioning member (members at corners without referral number) is disposed on a side of support platform 5 close to water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/ pipeline 4) and is in contact with the water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/pipeline 4) (fig 1), and the member is capable to control to be perpendicular or parallel (an angle of 90º or 0/180º) between the flow guide cylinder supporting platform 5 and the water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/pipeline 4). Wang teaches the flow guide cylinder supporting platform and the positioning member disposed on the side of support platform close to water-cooling lateral arm as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the supporting platform being a clamp and the member being a plate. However, Zhang teaches a lifting flow guide cylinder, wherein the cylinder comprises a c-shaped retaining ring (clamp), and a support member being a plate-shaped structure (figs 1-4, abstract, 0013, 0014, 0016, 0035, 0039, 0041, claims 4, 5 and 7). 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 Wang per teachings of Zhang in order to provide suitable structures for moving the flow guide cylinder and suitable conditions for further growing crystal with improved yield (Zhang abstract, 0035 and 0045).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the flow guide cylinder lifting component comprises a supporting platform 5 extending proximodistally along a direction perpendicular to a center axis of the water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/pipeline 4) (fig 1), a distal end of the supporting platform 5 is connected to the water-cooling lateral arm (panel pipe/pipeline) (fig 1), a first threaded hole (groove) is formed in a proximal end of the supporting platform and configured to receive the lifting bolt (rod) (fig 1, 0012, 0034-0036 and claim 3), a positioning member (at corners without referral number) is disposed on a side of support platform 5 close to water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/pipeline 4) and is in contact with the water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/pipeline 4) (fig 1), and the member is capable to control to be perpendicular or parallel (an angle of 90º or 0/180º) between the flow guide cylinder supporting platform 5 and the water-cooling lateral arm (pipe/pipeline 4). Wang teaches the flow guide cylinder supporting platform and the positioning member disposed on the side of support platform close to water-cooling lateral arm as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the supporting platform being a clamp and the member being a plate. However, Zhang teaches a lifting flow guide cylinder, wherein the cylinder comprises a c-shaped retaining ring (clamp), and a support member being a plate-shaped structure (figs 1-4, abstract, 0013, 0014, 0016, 0035, 0039, 0041, claims 4, 5 and 7). 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 Wang per teachings of Zhang in order to provide suitable structures for moving the flow guide cylinder and suitable conditions for further growing crystal with improved yield (Zhang abstract, 0035 and 0045).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Wang/Zhang teaches the positioning plate and the flow guide cylinder lifting clamp close to the water-cooling lateral arm as addressed above, and further teaches that an upper surface of the positioning plate is connected to a surface of the clamp close to the lateral arm (Wang fig 1; Zhang figs 1-4, 0016, 0041, claim 7), a side surface of the positioning plate is in contact with the water-cooling lateral arm, and the upper surface of the positioning plate is perpendicular to the side surface of the positioning plate (Wang fig 1; Zhang figs 1-4). It has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The court has held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wang/Zhang teaches the flow guide cylinder lifting clamp and the water-cooling lateral arm as addressed above, and further teaches a third fixing block (protrusions) arranged on the cover close to the water-cooling lateral arm and configured to prevent the lifting bolt from falling out of the flow guide cylinder lifting clamp (Wang fig 1, 0018, 0019, 0026, 0041, 0046; Zhang figs 1-4). It has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The court has held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Also, it is well established that 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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 3 and 4, and further in view of Cho et al (KR 20010056550 A, machine translation, “Cho”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang/Zhang teaches the groove and the water-cooling lateral arm as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that an end of the groove away from the arm is open to form a U-shaped groove. However, Cho teaches a connecting component, wherein an end of the groove away from a lateral member is open to form a U-shaped groove (figs 3a/3b, abstract, pages 5 and claims). 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 Wang/Zhang per teachings of Cho in order to provide suitable structures generating conditions for growing crystal with high quality (Cho page 4 and 6). It is also well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding claim 6, Wang/Zhang teaches the groove and the water-cooling lateral arm as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that an end of the groove away from the arm is open to form a U-shaped groove. However, Cho teaches a connecting component, wherein an end of the groove away from a lateral member is open to form a U-shaped groove (figs 3a/3b, abstract, pages 5 and claims). 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 Wang/Zhang per teachings of Cho in order to provide suitable structures generating conditions for growing crystal with high quality (Cho page 4 and 6). It is also well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Wang/Zhang/Cho teaches two sides of the groove are arcuate matching a surface arc of the lifting bolt (Cho figs 2-4). It is also well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Response to Arguments/Affidavit
Applicant's arguments based on the affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The affidavit is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-12 based upon CN 216838266 U to Wang. Specifically, the US effective filing dated of the instant application is 07/31/2023, while the publication date of the reference CN 216838266 U to Wang is 06/28/2022. It is clear that the publication dated 06/28/2022 of the CN 216838266 U to Wang is more than one year before the US effective filing date 07/31/2023 of the instant application, thus CN 216838266 U is qualified as prior art. Furthermore, it is clear that the CN 216838266 U has named additional person as joint inventors; the application names fewer joint inventors than a publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A and B, and the publication names as authors A, B and C), it would not be readily apparent from the publication that it is by the inventor (i.e., the inventive entity) or a joint inventor and the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1); MPEP 2153.01(a). Therefore, the rejection appears to be proper and therefore is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights