2010DETAILED 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 .
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(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kaneko et al. (JP201919046).
The Kaneko et al reference teaches a method and apparatus for growing a crystal from a raw material by melting, float zone, note entire reference. The apparatus consists of a chamber and a means to move a rod of the raw material and final crystal through the chamber, note para 0089. There is a heat mechanism in the chamber. This mechanism heats the chamber and a melts a portion of the raw material rod. The melt zone or area is localized but goes across the rod and as the rod is moved stays in place, note fig 1a. The crystals formed on the opposite side of the melt and started by contact with a seed crystal, note, embodiment 1. The heat mechanism consists of lasers note, fig 1.
With regards to claim 14, the Kaneko et al reference teaches a plurality of lasers on the periphery note fig 1 and 2.
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.
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) 6, 7, 10, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (2010/0037817) in view of Kaneko et al (JP201919046).
The Shindo reference teaches a method and apparatus for growing a crystal from a raw material by melting, float zone, note entire reference. The apparatus consists of a chamber and a means to move a rod of the raw material and final crystal through the chamber, note para 003. There is a heat mechanism in the chamber. This mechanism heats the chamber and a melts a portion of the raw material rod. The melt zone or area is localized but goes across the rod and as the rod is moved stays in place, note fig 1a. The crystals formed on the opposite side of the melt and started by contact with a seed crystal, note, embodiment 1. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the addition of a laser mechanism. However, the Kaneko et al reference teaches a float zone growth apparatus with a laser mechanism note translation para 0089 and 0090. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Shindo reference by the teachings of the Kaneko et al reference to add a laser mechanism to the apparatus in order to increase control over the size and temperature of the molten zone, creating a better crystal.
With regards to claims 7 and 18, the Kaneko et al reference teaches a plurality of lasers surrounding the rod, note fig 2.
With regards to claims 10 and 22, the Shindo reference teaches the heating mechanism includes a spheroidal mirror and xenon lamp, note fig 1b.
With regards to claim 21, the Kaneko et al reference teaches a plurality of lasers surrounding the rod, to heat note fig 2.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 15, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (2010/0037817) in view of Kaneko et al (JP201919046).
The Shindo and Kaneko references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the lasers arrangement including planes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have different lasers in different planes heating the rod in order to uniformly heat the rod and melt.
Claims 11,12, 23 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims are not taught nor render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the art does not show the separation means for the different lasers.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights