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 .
Status of the Claim
Claims 1-10 are pending wherein claims 1-10 have been preliminarily amended.
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 1-10 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” in the phrase “high purity rare and rare earth metals” in claims 1 and 4-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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.
In regard to claim 2, the claim recites “quartz tubes” and then recites “the quartz tubes are provided with 1 to 5 tubes”, it is unclear if the scope of the claim requires a single tube or more than a single tube.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the quartz tubes" in claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of quartz tubes in claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 104975194 A) in view of Kraiem et al. (Innovative crystallization of multi-crystalline silicon ingots from different ypes of silicon feedstock).
In regard to claims 1 and 3, Wei et al. (CN ‘194) discloses a metal preparing device and method wherein the device comprises a furnace body, a zone smelting crucible, a smelting system, a vacuumizing system, a temperature measurement system and a servo system (abstract and [0011]). Wei et al. (CN ‘194) further discloses wherein water and gas lines (gas input) would be connected to the furnace [0057]. Additionally, Wei et al. (CN ‘194) discloses a heater and an electromagnetic field generator capable of moving along a lengthwise direction of the chamber ([0027] and [0044]). There is induction heating and vertical zone melting [0038].
Wei et al. (CN ‘194) discloses a metal preparing device and method as set forth above, but Wei et al. (CN ‘194) does not specify wherein the crucible would be made of quartz.
In the field of making crucibles, Kraiem et al. teaches making crucibles out of quartz rather than other ceramics such as fused silica drastically reduces contamination of the material in the crucible by solid state diffusion (page 2, left column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to substitute quartz crucibles, as disclosed by Kraiem et al., for the crucibles disclosed by Wei et al. (CN ‘194), in order to reduce contamination of the material in the crucible, as disclosed by Kraiem et al. (page 2, left column).
With respect to the recitation “for preparing high purity rare and rare earth metals” in claim 1, the Examiner notes that this would be an intended use of the device that would not further limit the sue of the device. MPEP 2111.02 II.
Still regarding claim 3, Wei et al. (CN ‘194) discloses a heater and an electromagnetic field generator capable of moving along a lengthwise direction of the chamber ([0027] and [0044]). There is induction heating and vertical zone melting [0038]. As Wei et al. (CN ‘194) would suggest one occurrence, but for more than one, this would be a duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 2, neither Wei et al. (CN ‘194) nor Kraiem et al. specify quartz tubes for placing the quartz crucibles wherein the plurality of quartz tubes are aligned along the lengthwise direction of the chamber.
In regard to claim 4, neither Wei et al. (CN ‘194) nor Kraiem et al. specify zone melting several times or cutting off the end of the metal material which the impurity atoms are enriched to obtain rare and rare earth metals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights