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 1-9, in the reply filed on 12-17-2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12-17-2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the graphs of Figs. 4-9 lack x-axis labels. 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 Interpretation
In claim 1, line 13, “the position” is interpreted as referring to the position of the graphite electrode, with antecedent basis in line 8 at the step of controlling positioning of the graphite electrode.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “high-quality quartz crucible” should be preceded by the article --a-- since it is the first time this element is recited.
In line 2, “vacuum arc method” should be preceded by the article --a-- since it is the first time this element is recited.
In line 2, “following steps” should be preceded by the article --the-- to make grammatical sense.
In line 5, “quartz sand” should be recited as --quartz sand raw material-- in order to be consistent with the rest of the claim.
In line 7, “in process” should be recited as --in the process-- in order to make grammatical sense.
In lines 7-8, “high-temperature arc” should be preceded by the article --the-- since the limitation has been recited previously.
In line 8, “control” should be recited as --controlling-- to be grammatically consistent with the rest of the claim.
In line 8, “dwell time” should be preceded by the article --a-- since it is the first time this element is recited.
In line 9, “meet following” should be recited as --meet the following-- in order to make grammatical sense.
In line 11, “marked” should be preceded by the conjunction --and-- in order to make grammatical sense.
In lines 23-24, “at this position” should be preceded by the conjunction --and-- in order to make grammatical sense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “graphite electrode positioning process” in lines 1-2 should be preceded by the article --the-- since the limitation has already been recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “graphite electrode positioning process” in lines 1-2 should be preceded by the article --the-- since the limitation has already been recited. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-quality” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-quality” 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. It is unclear what properties a crucible must have to be considered “high-quality”.
The term “high-purity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-purity” 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. The specification provides examples in which “the purity of high-purity quartz is ≥99.99%” in ¶ [0056], but it is not clear if this range is a definition or merely a preferred embodiment.
Claim 1, line 4, recites the limitation “a mold”. However, line 3 already recites “a crucible mold”. It is unclear if the mold of line 4 is the same as the mold of line 3. If they are the same, then line 4 should recite --the mold-- or --the crucible mold--.
The term “high-temperature” in claim 1 (referring both to “high-temperature arc” and “high-temperature polishing”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” 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. The specification states that “When high-temperature arc is released, the temperature can reach 3000-3600 degrees” in ¶ [0042] (presumably degrees Celsius, based on background ¶ [0004]), but it is not clear if this range is a definition or merely a preferred embodiment.
The term “rapidly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapidly” 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. It is unclear what rates of cooling are encompassed by the term.
Claim 1, lines 6-7, recites the limitation “a quartz crucible blank”. However, line 4 already recites “a crucible blank”. It is unclear if the blank of lines 6-7 is the same as the blank of line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each position" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No positions have been previously recited.
Claim 1, line 12, recites the limitation “during melting process”. It is unclear if “melting process” is a new limitation since it is not proceeded by an article (--a-- or --the--). Line 5 recites a step of “melting”, but it is unclear if this is the only step that is intended to be encompassed by “melting process”. Claim 2 and claim 6 each similarly recite “the entire melting process” in lines 1-2, and are likewise unclear.
Claim 1 at line 12, claim 1 at line 23, and claim 6 at line 2 recite ranges with a tilde (“~”). It is unclear if the tilde means an exact range or an approximate range, e.g. if “+0.10~0.30” means about +0.10 to about 0.30, or +0.10 to about 0.30, or exactly +0.10 to 0.30. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as an exact range, the same as a dash (“-“).
Claim 1 refers to “an outer diameter of the crucible” in line 13 and “the outer diameter of the crucible” in line 23. However, the “crucible” is recited in the preamble as the final product of the claimed method, and has not yet been recited in the claim as being produced. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to an outer diameter of the crucible at the future end of the method, or if it intends to refer to an outer diameter of the crucible blank. Claim 1 similarly recites “a bottom of the crucible” in line 19, “the bottom of the crucible” in line 21, and “the quartz crucible” in line 25, which are likewise unclear.
Claim 1 recites “dwell time ≥ 2 minutes” in line 13, and then “staying for a period of time every time descending to a position” in lines 14-15. It is unclear if “a period of time” is the same as “dwell time”. For purposes of examination, “dwell time” and “a period of time” will be interpreted as equivalent, since lines 8-9 recite “dwell time at each position”. It is also unclear if there is a dwell time at the “starting position” recited in line 12, or if it is only intended to apply to the positions established by descending from the starting position.
Claim 1 recites “the graphite electrode ascends again to a finishing position” in lines 22-23. This is unclear because there is no previous recitation of ascending or a finishing position, and thus it is unclear how it can ascend “again” to a finishing position.
Claim 3 recites “a target quartz crucible” in line 6. It is unclear how this limitation is related to the “quartz crucible” recited in the preamble of claim 1 as being produced by the claimed method.
Claim 4 recites “according to quartz crucibles with different specification” in lines 1-2, and then proceeds to recite multiple quartz crucibles. It is unclear how theses quartz crucibles are related to the “quartz crucible” recited in the preamble of claim 1 as being produced by the claimed method, as claim 1 only recites a single quartz crucible. If claim 4 is attempting to recite conditional limitations based on diameter of the quartz crucible of claim 1 (or potentially of the crucible blank of claim 1), it is unclear how to proceed if the quartz crucible has a diameter other than those specifically recited.
Claim 5 recites “positioning accuracy of the graphite electrode at each position is ±5 mm”. It is unclear relative to what the position/positioning accuracy is being measured.
Claim 6 recites “vacuum pressure is controlled” at line 2. This is unclear because no step of applying a vacuum has been previously recited, and thus it is unclear how vacuum pressure is related to or applied to the method of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “when melting a quartz crucible with an outer diameter of [##] inches” in each of lines 1-2, 3, 4, and 5. It is unclear how theses quartz crucibles are related to the “quartz crucible” recited in the preamble of claim 1 as being produced by the claimed method, as claim 1 only recites a single quartz crucible. If claim 7 is attempting to recite conditional limitations based on diameter of the quartz crucible of claim 1 (or potentially of the crucible blank of claim 1), it is unclear how to proceed if the quartz crucible has a diameter other than those specifically recited.
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).
The prior art rejections are made as best the Examiner understands the claims in view of the objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Kishi ‘258 teaches:
pouring high-purity 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 a high-temperature 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 to form a quartz crucible blank (p. 4, lines 48-49)
in the process of using the carbon electrode to release the high-temperature arc, controlling positioning of the carbon electrode 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 the melting, a starting position of the graphite electrode is +0.10-0.30 times an outer diameter of the crucible (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)
the position of the electrode is descended sequentially in accordance with a stepwise positioning method, and staying for a period of time every time descending to a position (p. 2, lines 3-4; p. 3, lines 43-49)
the graphite electrode continuously releases a high-temperature 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 graphite 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
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
after leaving from the bottom polishing position, the electrode ascends again to a finishing position, the finishing position is +0.05-0.07 times the outer diameter of the crucible, and at this position, high-temperature polishing and volatile impurity removal are conducted to an upper part of an inner wall of the quartz crucible.
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 (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 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 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 (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, 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, 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, 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 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 +0.05-0.07 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 entire melting, 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 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). 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 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 as known powers for electrodes in quartz crucible melting processes, as suggested by Sudo ‘733.
Conclusion
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