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 I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-19 are currently examined on the merits.
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, 13 and 19 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 “…a plurality of the grooves …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the grooves” in the claim. It is noted that parent claim 8 already recites a groove (one groove), while a plurality of the grooves apparently includes two or more grooves. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 12 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 13 and 19 are rejected because they depend on claim 12.
The term “uniformly” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniformly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo Tae Kim (US 20210025076 A1, “Kim”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a supporting rod for single crystal furnace comprising a shaft/jig portion 410/620 (rod portion) (figs 1-7, 0012-0015, 0071-0074, 0069-0072), and a tapered bush 630 (cone head) provided at a bottom rod portion (figs 1, 2, 4 and 6, 0015, 0018, 0069-0073), wherein a planar/top portion is provided at where the cone head (tapered bush 630) is connected with the rod portion (shaft/jig portion 410/620) (figs 1, 2, 4 and 6), the cone head (tapered bush 630) is completely inserted into a tapered groove (conical hole) at a top of parts 420/430 of a crucible driving unit/shaft (figs 1, 2, 4 and 6, 0049, 0051-0053, 0071-0073). Kim further teaches the cone head (tapered bush 630 having the planar portion) tightly coupled/inserted in a tapered groove at a top edge portion of the crucible shaft/driving unit (figs 1 and 6, 0071-0073). Even if it is not clearly envisaged that the planar portion is in contact with a top edge of the crucible shaft, it would still have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this limitation is within the teachings of Kim, because Kim explicitly teaches the cone head having the top portion (planar portion) is tightly inserted/coupled in the tapered groove at the top edge portion of the crucible shaft/driving unit as just addressed above.
Claims 2, 3, 8-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a diameter of the cone head and a diameter of the rod portion (figs 1, 2, 4 and 6), and the planar portion is defined by a difference between the diameter of the cone head and the diameter of the rod portion (figs 1 and 6), but does not explicitly teach a maximum diameter of the cone head is less than the diameter of the rod portion. However, it is well-established that “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.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that a flange is provided at where the cone head is connected with the rod portion, and the planar portion is defined by a bottom of the flange (fig 6).
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 10, Kim teaches the cone head as addressed above, and further teaches a conical surface and a generatrix of the conical surface (figs 1, 2, 4 and 6), but does not explicitly teach a groove being provided on the conical surface. However, absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, 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, e.g., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Further, the court has held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the conical surface of the cone as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a plurality of the grooves being provided on the conical surface. However, absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, 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, e.g., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Further, the court has held that making the structure separated or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the conical surface of the cone as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a plurality of the grooves uniformly distributed on the conical surface. However, absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, 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, e.g., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Further, the court has held that making the structure separated or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Fang et al (CN 207155628 U, machine translation, “Fang”).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 6, Kim teaches the planar portion and the cone head as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a vertical portion is provided between the planar portion and the cone head. However, Fang teaches a single crystal furnace, wherein a vertical portion is provided between a planar portion and a frustrum portion (cone head) (fig 1, 0009, 0010, 0013, 0021, 0022, claims 3 and 4). 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 Fang in order to provide supporting assembly for producing crystal with improved quality (Fang abstract, 0006 and 0026).
Regarding claims 14, 15 and 16, Kim teaches the rod portion, and further teaches that the rod portion is T-shaped (figs 1-7), but does not explicitly teach a stepped hole is provided in the rod portion along an axis of the rod portion. However, Fang teaches a single crystal furnace, wherein a stepped hole is provided in the rod portion along an axis of the rod portion (fig 1, 0022). 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 Fang in order to provide supporting assembly for producing crystal with improved quality (Fang abstract, 0006 and 0026).
Claims 7, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Fang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of D. Petit (US 3173666 A, “Petit”).
Regarding claim 7, Kim/Fang teaches the planar portion and the vertical portion as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a fillet. However, Petit teaches a furnace, wherein a fillet is provided between an upper member and a lower member (col 1 lines 64-72). 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/Fang per teachings of Petit in order to provide suitable member for connecting members (Petit col 1 lines 64-72).
Regarding claim 11, Kim/Fang/Petit teaches the cone head as addressed above, and further teaches a conical surface and a generatrix of the conical surface (Kim figs 1, 2, 4 and 6), but does not explicitly teach a groove being provided on the conical surface. However, absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, 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, e.g., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Further, the court has held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claim 17, Kim/Fang/Petit teaches that the rod portion is T-shaped (figs 1-7; Fang fig 1, 0022), and a stepped hole is provided in the rod portion along an axis of the rod portion (Fang fig 1, 0022). Also, absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, 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).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Fang et al (CN 207155628 U, machine translation, “Fang”).
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Kim teaches the rod portion, and further teaches that the rod portion is T-shaped (figs 1-7), but does not explicitly teach a stepped hole is provided in the rod portion along an axis of the rod portion. However, Fang teaches a single crystal furnace, wherein a stepped hole is provided in the rod portion along an axis of the rod portion (fig 1, 0022). 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 Fang in order to provide supporting assembly for producing crystal with improved quality (Fang abstract, 0006 and 0026). Also, absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, 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).
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