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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 06-05-2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi ‘258 (CN 101624258 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Sudo ‘733 (US 2012/0137733 A1) and He ‘102 (CN 109111102 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 1, Kishi ‘258 teaches:
pouring quartz sand raw material into a crucible mold and using a forming device to evenly mold the quartz sand raw material on an inner surface of the crucible mold to form a crucible blank (p. 2, lines 1-4; p. 3, lines 25-26; p. 4, lines 43-46; p. 5, lines 20-30; Figs. 1-2)
moving the crucible mold as a whole into an arc melting furnace and melting the quartz sand raw material by releasing an arc through a carbon electrode (p. 2, lines 1-4; p. 3, lines 35-49; p. 4, lines 14-19, 46-48; Figs. 1-2, wherein an arc melting furnace is considered to be the location of the mold when it is being treated with the electrode)
cooling within a preset time period to form a quartz crucible blank (p. 4, lines 48-49)
in the process of using the carbon electrode to release the arc, controlling positioning of the carbon electrode along a movement path comprising a sequence of positions in a height direction and a dwell time at each position to meet the following requirements in which (p. 3, lines 40-49):
taking a position of an upper end surface of a mold opening as a zero point, an end of the carbon electrode is marked as + when above the zero point, and marked as - when below the zero point (Figs. 1-2)
during a melting process, a starting position of the graphite electrode is +0.10 to 0.30 times an outer diameter of the crucible blank (p. 5, lines 35-38 - wherein it has been held that in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05)
then the position of the electrode is descended sequentially in accordance with a stepwise positioning method, and staying for a corresponding dwell time every time descending to a position (p. 2, lines 3-4; p. 3, lines 43-49)
the carbon electrode continuously releases the arc to melt the crucible blank during a corresponding period of time at a corresponding position, and reaches a bottom position after moving at least 3 times, the bottom position is a lowest position that the carbon electrode reaches and enters an interior of the crucible blank (p. 2, lines 1-4; p. 3, lines 35-49; p. 4, lines 14-19, 46-48; p. 5, lines 40-44).
Kishi ‘258 is silent regarding:
the carbon electrode being a graphite electrode
dwell time ≥2 minutes
the bottom position being a bottom polishing position, the bottom polishing position being 300-550 mm away from a bottom of the crucible blank
at the bottom polishing position, the electrode stays for a predetermined time to perform high-temperature polishing and volatile impurity removal at the bottom of the crucible blank
after leaving from the bottom polishing position, the electrode ascends again to a finishing position, the finishing position is +0.05 to 0.07 times the outer diameter of the crucible blank, and at this position, the thermal polishing and volatile impurity removal are conducted to an upper part of an inner wall of the quartz crucible blank.
Regarding the dwell time, Kishi ‘258 suggests that dwell time is selected in order to ensure adequate heating and melting of the surface of the blank, and in consideration of the size of the crucible blank (p. 4, lines 6-19, 30-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by selecting dwell time in order to ensure adequate heating and melting of the surface of the blank, and in consideration of the size of the crucible, as suggested by Kishi ‘258.
Regarding the distance of the bottom polishing position, Kishi ‘258 suggests that the bottom position should be selected in accordance with a size of the crucible blank in order to ensure adequate heating of the bottom surface of the blank while also preventing excessive heating (p. 5, lines 40-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by selecting a bottom polishing position in accordance with a size of the crucible blank in order to ensure adequate heating of the bottom surface of the blank while also preventing excessive heating, as suggested by Kishi ‘258.
In analogous art of manufacturing quartz crucibles, He ‘102 suggests utilizing a graphite electrode as a carbon electrode for generating an arc to melt quartz sand to form a quartz crucible (p. 2, lines 10-14, 32-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by making the carbon electrode a graphite electrode as a simple substitution of known carbon-based electrodes for generating an arc to melt quartz sand to form a quartz crucible with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by He’ 102.
Kishi ‘258 teaches that a subsequent step is needed to remove bubbles in the crucible blank (p. 4, lines 24-26; p. 6, lines 8-11), but Kishi ‘258 does not describe polishing as claimed. In analogous art of manufacturing quartz crucibles, Sudo ‘733 suggests melting quartz sand with a high-temperature arc through a carbon electrode as the electrode descends into an interior of the crucible blank (¶ [0012], [0050], [0053]-[0056], [0072], [0075]-[0079]), and then starting from a lowest position which is a bottom polishing position, the electrode stays for a predetermined time at the bottom polishing position to perform high-temperature polishing and volatile impurity removal to the bottom of the crucible blank, and after leaving from the bottom polishing position, the electrode ascends to a finishing position, and high-temperature polishing and volatile impurity removal are conducted to an upper part of an inner wall of the quartz crucible blank, for the benefit of removing bubbles and impurities from the crucible inner surface (¶ [0012], [0020], [0080], [0086]-[0091]; Figs. 10, 15A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by starting from the bottom polishing position, the electrode staying for a predetermined time at the bottom polishing position to perform high-temperature polishing and volatile impurity removal to the bottom of the crucible blank, and after leaving from the bottom polishing position, the electrode ascending to a finishing position, and high-temperature polishing and volatile impurity removal are conducted to an upper part of an inner wall of the quartz crucible blank for the benefit of removing bubbles and impurities from the crucible inner surface, as suggested by Sudo ‘733. Sudo ‘733 is silent regarding a finishing position that is +0.05 to 0.07 times the outer diameter of the crucible. However, Kishi ‘258 suggests that arc may be applied in the range to ensure that all of the surfaces including the inner surfaces around to the top surfaces are treated (p. 5, lines 35-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kishi ‘258 and Sudo ‘733 by selecting a finishing position of the electrode that ensures all of the surfaces of the crucible are treated, as suggested by Kishi ‘258.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kishi ‘258 further teaches during the melting process, the positioning of the electrode comprises the starting position, a second position, a third position, a fourth position, a fifth position, the bottom polishing position, and the finishing position, wherein from the starting position to the bottom polishing position is stepwise descending and staying for a period of time at each position (p. 3, lines 40-49 - wherein “three or more stages” encompasses the recited number of positions).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kishi ‘258 is silent regarding the dwell time allocation as claimed. However, Kishi ‘258 suggests that dwell time in the melting process is selected in order to ensure adequate heating and melting of the surface of the blank, and in consideration of the size of the crucible (p. 4, lines 6-19, 30-35). Regarding the crucible diameter, it has been held that change in size of an element is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by selecting dwell time allocation in order to ensure adequate heating and melting of the surface of the blank, and in consideration of the size of the crucible, as suggested by Kishi ‘258.
Regarding claim 5, Kishi ‘258 teaches positioning the electrode at ach position as described above. It is considered that Kishi ‘258 positions the electrode at desired positions, and thus the positioning accuracy at each position is 0 mm, which falls in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Kishi ‘258 is silent regarding during the graphite electrode positioning process, at the end of melting at each position, the graphite electrode is subjected to air blowing for dust removal, and volatile matter deposited on a surface of the graphite electrode is blown away. He ‘102 suggests a graphite electrode as described above, and further suggests at the end of melting at each position, the graphite electrode is subjected to air blowing for dust removal, and volatile matter deposited on a surface of the graphite electrode is blown away for the benefit of minimizing contamination of the electrode and the crucible (p. 2, line 40-51; p. 9, line 58-p. 10, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by, during the graphite electrode positioning process, at the end of melting at each position, subjecting the graphite electrode to air blowing for dust removal, wherein volatile matter deposited on a surface of the graphite electrode is blown away for the benefit of minimizing contamination of the electrode and the crucible, as suggested by He ‘102.
Regarding claim 9, Kishi ‘258 is silent regarding a height difference between the bottom polishing position and the fifth position. However, Kishi ‘258 suggests that the number of positions can be three or more, such that the fifth position and the bottom polishing position could be consecutive, or could include additional positions between the fifth position and the bottom polishing position (p. 3, lines 48-49). The purpose of melting at the different positions is to ensure that the entirety of the inner surface of the crucible blank is subjected to sufficient melting (p. 3, lines 43-49). Thus, depending on the total number of positions and depending on the overall height of the crucible blank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by selecting a height different between the bottom polishing position and the fifth position such that the entirety of the inner surface of the crucible blank is subjected to sufficient melting. It has been held that where 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi ‘258 (CN 101624258 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein), Sudo ‘733 (US 2012/0137733 A1), and He ‘102 (CN 109111102 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Sudo 704 (US 2012/0141704 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kishi ‘258 further teaches during the entire melting, vacuum pressure is applied (p. 3, lines 28-29, 35-37), but is silent regarding the exact vacuum pressure or power of the electrode.
In analogous art of manufacturing silica crucibles, Sudo ‘704 suggests controlling a vacuum pressure at 50-95 kPa (.05-.095 MPa), which overlaps the claimed range, during a melting process for the benefit of reducing bubbles contained in the fused portion of the crucible surface (¶ [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by controlling a vacuum pressure in a range as suggested by Sudo ‘704 during the melting process for the benefit of reducing bubbles contained in the fused portion of the crucible surface, as suggested by Sudo ‘704. It has been held that in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05.
Sudo ‘733 suggests power of a carbon electrode during a quartz crucible melting process to be 300-12,000 kVA (¶ [0051]), wherein kVA is equivalent to kW in a system of 100% efficiency. While one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a system would not be 100% efficient, the range suggested by Sudo ‘733 is sufficiently broad to encompass the claimed range at a wide range of efficiencies. It has been held that where 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. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding the crucible diameter, it has been held that change in size of an element is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kishi ‘258 by making the power of the graphite electrode to be in the claimed range for respective diameter of quartz crucibles as known powers for electrodes in quartz crucible melting processes, as suggested by Sudo ‘733.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-05-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments are summarized as follows: The cited documents fail to teach or suggest “controlling positioning of the graphite electrode along a movement path comprising a sequence of positions in a height direction and a dwell time at each position” as recited in amended claim 1.
Response: Applicant’s arguments compare the instant claims to a method in which an electrode is in a fixed position during melting. However the cited portions of Kishi ‘258 specifically describe moving the electrode and lowering the electrode into the crucible blank in order to sequentially melt the different portions of the blank. Applicant’s arguments do not address why it is believed that the cited portions of Kishi ‘258 do not teach or suggest this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights