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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (WO 2015147367), an English computer translation (CT1) is provided, in view of Wang et al (CN 206986325 U), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, and Cao et al (US 2023/0243061).
Park et al teaches a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus comprising a cooling device: the cooling device comprising water cooling tube (21) of a circular tube structure
having a hollow (23) formed so as to be placed on the surface of the inner shield (41), for example, the upper surface (46) of the inner shield (41) and make surface contact, or a receiving groove (46a) formed on the upper surface (46) of the inner shield (41); a circulation path (22) formed inside the water cooling tube (21) so that the cooling water (W) can circulate; a fixed part (25) protruding on both sides of the outer periphery of the water cooling tube (21); a support part (24) fitted and fixed to the lower end of each of the two lifting bars (61); and a connecting member (26) connecting the fixed part (25) and the support part (24) (CT1 page 4; Figs 1-9), wherein the support part 24 clearly suggesting a lifting beam and the lifting bar 61 clearly suggests a lifting bolt. Park et al also teaches the water cooling tube (21) of the cooling device (20) into contact with the surface of the inner shield (41) of the heat insulating member (4), and the water-cooling tube of the cooling device can be installed in the lifting means of the heat insulating member and configured to rise and fall along the lifting means of the heat
insulating member (CT1 pg 4 and 13; Fig 1-9), which clearly suggests the lifting beam is connected to a surface of the water cooling cross arm 21.
Park et al does not teach a positioning plate is disposed on a bottom side of the lifting beam close to the water cooling cross arm, and the positioning plate is configured to control an angle between the lifting beam and the water cooling cross arm.
In a single crystal growth furnace, Wang et al teaches a lifting plate 2 is suspended on a furnace cover of the single-crystal furnace, a support ring 4 is fixedly installed inside the furnace body, and a sealing ring 3 is fixedly installed on the support ring 4; a portion of the support ring protruding from the inner side of the sealing ring forms an annular sealing part; and a guide tube is fixedly installed on the lifting plate, and the top of the side wall of the guide tube has an outwardly pointing annular outer edge (CT1 [0008]-[0013], [0026]; Fig 1-2). Wang et al also teaches the lifting plate 2 has a positioning plate 3/4 disposed on the bottom side of the lifting plate. In regards the positioning plate is configured to control an angle of the lifting beam and the water cooling cross arm, the lifting plate is equipped with the support ring and sealing ring to maintain contact with the lifting beam 2 and a seal (CT1 [0008]-[0013], [0026]; Fig 1-2), thus matching the angle of the sealing ring, which meets the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Park et al by providing positioning plate is disposed on a bottom side of the lifting beam close to the water cooling cross arm, and the positioning plate is configured to control an angle between the lifting beam and the water cooling cross arm, as taught by Wang et al, to provide a seal thereby preventing deposits from forming (CT1 [0026]).
The combination of Park et al and Wang et al does not teach a groove configured to receive a lifting bolt.
In a single crystal growth apparatus, Cao et al teaches a lifting tube; 11 represents a first vertical portion; 12 represents a transverse portion; 13 represents a second vertical portion; 110 represents a connecting plate for hooks; 111 represents a clamping slot (groove); 120 represents a flexible shaft; 20 represents a heat exchanger 20; a lifting hook 310; a limiting end 311; a lifting mechanism 40 (Fig 1-3; [0044]-[0050]). Cao et al teaches the connecting plate 110 for lifting hooks 310 has a plurality of clamping slots 111 arranged along a radial direction of the guiding tube 30, and the lifting tube 10 can be adapted to limiting installations of guiding tubes 30 with different sizes, which in turn allows the lifting tube 10 to be adapted to heat exchangers 20 with different sizes ([0047]), which clearly suggests a groove 111 configured to receive a lifting bolt 310.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park et al and Wang et al by providing a groove configured to receive a lifting bolt, as taught by Cao et al, so the lifting apparatus can be adapted to different sized heat exchangers (cooling tubes).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al does not explicitly teach the claimed ratio of the length of lifting beam and diameter of the cross arm is 1.5<x<3Y. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al by having the claimed ratio of the length of lifting beam and diameter of the cross arm is 1.5<x<3Y to providing a structure with suitable strength for a cross arm having a particular diameter.
Referring to claim 3-4, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches the connection plate 110 with a U-shaped groove 111 and the groove 111 can be located centrally on one side of connecting plate 110 (Cao Fig 3; [0043]-[0047]), which clearly suggests the groove extends through the front side of the lifting beam to define the lifting beam as U-shaped as a whole.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches the slot 111 of the connecting plate 110 for hooks 310 can be a curved structure to meet use of lifting hook 310 clamping into the slot 111; and the lifting tube can be installed with other means, such as a screw connection (Cao Fig 3; [0040]- [0045]), which clearly suggests the groove is provided with arcuate surfaces to match the lifting bolt.
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches the lifting tube 10 of the connecting plate 110 for hooks has a plurality of clamping slots 111 arranged along a radial direction of the guiding tube 30, and the lifting tube 10 can be adapted to limiting installations of guiding tubes 30 with different sizes (Cao [0047]), which clearly suggests different sizes groove and bolts can be used and matched. Furthermore, changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches the width of the groove is greater than the diameter of the bolt (Cao Fig 3 shows the bolt 310 having a diameter smaller than the groove 111).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches screw and nut can be used (Cao [0044]-[0048]), and a width of the groove is less than the a diameter of he a nut screwed on the lifting bolt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to attach the screw and nut to the groove.
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al does not explicitly teach the claimed diameter of the bolt and groove. The combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al lifting tube 10 can be adapted to limiting installations of guiding tubes 30 with different sizes (Cao [0047]), which clearly suggests different sizes groove and bolts can be used and matched; therefore, changes in size to meet the claimed relationship would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Furthermore, changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al does not explicitly teach the claimed depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al by having the claimed depth to providing a structure with suitable strength for a particular diameter bolt.
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches a upper side of the plate is connected to the lifting beam close to the water cooling cross arm, a rear side of the plate is in contact, and the upper side of the positioning plate is perpendicular to the rear side of the positioning plate (Wang teaches the lifting plate 2 has a positioning plate 3/4 disposed on the bottom side of the lifting plate; the lifting plate is equipped with the support ring and sealing ring to maintain contact with the lifting beam 2 and a seal (Wang CT1 [0008]-[0013], [0026]; Fig 1-2). Also, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Park et al by providing positioning plate is disposed on a bottom side of the lifting beam close to the water-cooling cross arm, to provide a seal thereby preventing deposits from forming (CT1 [0026]).
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al does not explicitly teach the width of the positioning plate in relation to the width of the lifting beam. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al by having the width of the upper side of the positioning plate be greater than a half of a width of the lifting beam defined by a sidewall of the groove to provide greater strength.
Referring to claims 13-14, 16, and 18, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches a projection for preventing the lifting bolt from falling, wherein the projection is provided on a front side of the lifting beam (Cao [0046] and Fig 3 teaches a limiting end 311 (projection) of the lifting hook 310 (lifting beam) greater in diameter than the groove 111).
Referring to claim 15, 17, and 19, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches a projection protruding from the lifting beam. The combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al does not teach the distance is 3 to 5 mm. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al by having the distance of the projection protruding from the lifting beam of 3 to 5 mm to provide suitable strength to the projection.
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al teaches the lifting beam 61 is retractable (i.e. able to be retracted upward to lifting the cooler/heat shield) (See Park Fig 1). The combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al does not explicitly teach the claimed ratio of the length of lifting beam and diameter of the cross arm is 1.5<x<3Y. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park et al, Wang et al and Cao et al by having the claimed ratio of the length of lifting beam and diameter of the cross arm is 1.5<x<3Y to providing a structure with suitable strength for a cross arm having a particular diameter.
Conclusion
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