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 1-16 and 19 in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026.
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.
Claim 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “a first stationary part (1)” and “the first part (1)” in lines 4-10 of page 1 of the claims. It is unclear if the “a first stationary part (1)” and “the first part (1)” refer to the same element. It is recommended to change the “the first part (1)” to “the first stationary part.” The same argument applies to dependent claims 2-16 and 19.
Claim 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “a second movable part (2)” and “the second part (2)” in lines 4-10 of page 1 of the claims. It is unclear if the “a second movable part (2)” and “the second part (2)” refer to the same element. It is recommended to change the “the second part (2)” to “the second movable part.” The same argument applies to dependent claims 2-16 and 19.
Claim 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “a second movable part (2)” and “the second part (2)” in lines 4-10 of page 1 of the claims. It is unclear if the “a second movable part (2)” and “the second part (2)” refer to the same element. It is recommended to change the “the second part (2)” to “the second movable part.” The same argument applies to dependent claims 2-16 and 19.
Claim 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “a second movable part (2)”; “the second part (2)” and moving the back (2) of the crucible in lines 4-20 of page 1 of the claims. It is unclear what (2) refers to because it is used a plurality of times associated with different elements.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 recites “such as.” Exemplary claim language is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(d)).
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 recites, “the system (3).” It is unclear if the “system (3)” is the same as “a feed system (3)” in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first part" in line 8, page 1 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a first stationary part” not a “first part.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second part" in line 8, page 1 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a second movable part” not a “first part.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,027,563 teaches a method of continuous crystal growth by supplying molten silicon to a bottomless crystallization chamber (fig 4).
US 2024/0068129 teaches a sapphire crystal growth method using a crucible with a sapphire seed as the bottom of the crucible (Fig 1).
US 2022/0243358 teaches a moving a crucible through a temperature gradient for crystal growth of a metal oxide single crystal (Abstract).
JP2016132599 teaches a sapphire crystal growth method of moving a crystal support section.
US 4,915,723 teaches a silicon crystallization method using a bottom crucible and feeding raw material (Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights