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 of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Claims 1-8 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “height of the straight cylinder portion” and “arc length of the arc-shaped portion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4-6 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second slot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first slot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first slot" and “the second slot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Xin et al (CN 203923445 U, machine translation, “Xin”)..
Regarding claim 1, Xin teaches a combined heater (heater) comprising main heater 9 and auxiliary heater 10 (heating body) (figs 1-3, abstract, 0013-0021, 0029, 0031-0036, claims 1-5); wherein the heating body has a bowl shape which is adapted to a shape of a bottom portion of a crucible 7 (figs 1 and 3, 0034-0036), and a bottom of the heating body is provided with an opening (figs 1-3); and wherein the heating body is provided with heating elements 2/22/23/zone without a notch 4 (first heating zone) and with heating elements 20/21/zone with the notch 4 (second heating zone) in a circumferential direction (figs 1 and 2, 0017, 0018, 0023, 0029, 0034, claims 1 and 2), the first heating zone (heating elements 2/22/23/zone without the notch) comprises a first main heating area and the second heating zone (heating elements 20/21/zone with the notch) comprises a second main heating area (figs 1-3, 0023, 0034), and the first main heating area (without the notch 4) and the second main heating area (zone with the notch 4) are located at different positions with different heights in an axial direction of the heating body (fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Xin teaches that the heating body comprises a straight cylinder portion 1 and an arc-shaped portion 5 which are arranged up and down in the axial direction of the heating body and integrated as a whole (fig 1, 0013-0016, 0019, 0020, 0029, 0031-0034, claims 1, 3 and 4); and wherein the first main heating area in the first heating zone is located in the straight cylinder portion (portion without the notch) (fig 1), and the second main heating area in the second heating zone is located in the arc-shaped portion (portion with the notch) (fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Xin teaches that the heating body is provided with first slots/grooves and second slots/grooves which are alternately distributed in the circumferential direction to divide the heating body into a plurality of heating strips connected to each other in an end-to-end manner (fig 1, abstract, 0021, 0029, 0031, claim 1 and 5); wherein the first slots/grooves extend from an upper end of the heating body to a lower end of the heating body and do not penetrate through the lower end of the heating body (fig 1), the second slots/grooves extend from the lower end of the heating body to the upper end of the heating body and do not penetrate through the upper end of the heating body (fig 1); and wherein the second slots/grooves located in the first heating zone extend to an area between two adjacent first slots/grooves, and the first slots/grooves located in the second heating zone extend to an area between two adjacent second slots/grooves (fig 1).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sakurada et al (US 20050205004 A1, “Sakurada”).
Regarding claim 4, Xin teaches the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots and the straight cylinder portion as addressed above, and further teaches a length of a portion of the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots and a height of the straight cylinder portion (fig 1), but does not explicitly teach a ratio of the length of a portion of the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots to the height of the straight cylinder portion is in a range from 1/2 to 2/3. However, Sakurada teaches a heater, wherein a portion of second/lower slot extending to the area between two adjacent first/upper slots to a height of the straight cylinder portion (figs 1, 5, 9, 10, 14 and 20), a length of the upper slits/slots of the heater and/or a length of the lower slits/slots of the heater can be adjusted/changed easily and highly precisely in order to produce crystal with a predetermined defect-free region or a predetermined defect region (abstract, 0019, 0020, 0022, 0025-0029, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0043, 0050-0052, 0059-0061, 0074, 0075, 0146, 0156), e.g., the length of the portion of the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots to the height of the straight cylinder portion (ratio of the length to the height) is result effective variable. Thus, 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 Xin as motivated by Sakurada, and optimized/obtained various ratios including the instantly claimed “ratio of the length of the portion of the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots to the height of the straight cylinder portion in a range from 1/2 to 2/3” in order to produce crystal with a predetermined defect-free region or a predetermined defect region, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is also 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 6, Xin teaches the first slot extending to the area between the two adjacent second slots and the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots as addressed above, and further teaches a length of a portion of the first slot extending to the area between the two adjacent second slots and a length of a portion of the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots (fig 1), but does not explicitly teach a length of a portion of the first slot extending to the area between the two adjacent second slots is greater than a length of a portion of the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots. However, Sakurada teaches a heater, wherein a length of a portion of the first/upper slot extends to the area between the two adjacent second/lower slots and a length of a portion of the second/lower slot extends to the area between the two adjacent first/upper slots (figs 1, 5, 9, 10, 14 and 20), a length of the upper slits/slots of the heater and/or a length of the lower slits/slots of the heater can be adjusted/changed easily and highly precisely in order to produce crystal with a predetermined defect-free region or a predetermined defect region (abstract, 0019, 0020, 0022, 0025-0029, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0043, 0050-0052, 0059-0061, 0074, 0075, 0146, 0156), e.g., the length of a portion of the first slot and the length of the portion of the second slot is result effective variable. Thus, 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 Xin as motivated by Sakurada, and optimized/obtained various lengths including the instantly claimed “length of the portion of the first slot extending to the area between the two adjacent second slots being greater than the length of a portion of the second slot extending to the area between the two adjacent first slots” in order to produce crystal with a predetermined defect-free region or a predetermined defect region, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is also 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.
Claims 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin as applied to claims 1-3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Xin teaches the portion of the first slot extending to the area between two adjacent second slots and the arc-shaped portion as addressed above, and further teaches a length of a portion of the first slot extending to the area between two adjacent second slots and an arc length of the arc-shaped portion (fig 1), but does not explicitly teach a ratio of the length of a portion of the first slot extending to the area between two adjacent second slots to an arc length of the arc-shaped portion is 3/4. 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 7, Xin teaches a height of the straight cylinder portion and an arc length of the arc-shaped portion (fig 1), but does not explicitly teach that the height of the straight cylinder portion is less than the arc length of the arc-shaped 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 8, Xin teaches the first heating zone and the second heating zone are obtained through dividing the heating body equally in the circumferential direction (fig 1). It is also 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.
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