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 .
The amendment of February 3, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
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 2 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 2 is now confusing and indefinite as worded. Parent claim 1 now provides “contacting one side of the quartz substrate with a thermally conductive material” and thermal spraying is provided to “a surface opposite the one side”. Claim 2 has that the thermal spraying is on to “the one side” (which in claim 1 is where the thermally conductive material contact is) and the thermally conductive material contact is to “the surface opposite the one side” (which in claim 1 is where the silica is thermally sprayed). Therefore, the claims contradict each other and it is confusing as to what is intended by claim 2. As well, in claim 2, “the thermally spraying silica onto the one side” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that this is a typographical error, and it is understood for the contact and thermal spraying to be to the sides described in claim 1, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EITHER Inukai et al (US 2013/0088232) as evidenced by Coors et al (US 2016/0109065) OR Yamada et al (US 2009/0011243) as evidenced by Coors is withdrawn due to the change in scope of the claims provided by the amendment of February 3, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US 2010/0055222) EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by WO 2021/124978 (hereinafter ‘978) is withdrawn due to the change in scope of the claims provided by the amendment of February 3, 2026.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2010-155765 (hereinafter ‘765, used as provided with the IDS of September 16, 2024, including the translation) in view of Sato (US 2010/0055222) and Bailey et al (US 4048348), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by WO 2021/124978 (hereinafter ‘978).
*** Please Note that Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002) is used as the translation for WO 2021/124978, so the citations to paragraph numbers are to Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002). ***
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10: ‘765 teaches a method of manufacturing a quartz member (such as a quartz glass crucible) fr0m a quartz substrate (note outer layer 11 of quartz glass can be considered a substrate) (note 0020, 0021, can be made from natural quartz, 0041), where the process includes contacting one side of the quartz glass substrate with a rotating carbon mold surface (note 0041, 0044, would be carbon material as desired by claim 7). As to further thermal spraying silica onto a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substate, it is provided by ‘765 that silica powder is arc sprayed (thermally sprayed) onto the inner surface of the quartz substrate layer 11 (note 0044). As to the quartz substrate contacting the surface the one side of the quartz substrate with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold) during the thermal spraying of the silica, this would at least be suggested by ‘765, where ‘765 describes another applying of a silica layer to previously applied quartz, where this is done in the mold (note 0041-0042), suggesting that it would be predictably acceptable to provide the application of silica to the inner surface of the quartz while the outer/opposite surface of the quartz contacts the carbon mold (the is understood to provide the features of claim 2, noting the 35 USC 112 rejection above).
‘765 does not teach the specific thermal conductivity of the carbon mold. However, Sato teaches that when providing rotating molds that can be used for forming silica crucibles (and can be used with application of silica or quartz powder), the mold is preferably a carbon mold with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (so thermally conductive), which gives desirable crucible formation (note 0022-0023, 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘765 to use a carbon mold surface with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (in the range of claims 1 and 6) as suggested by Sato with an expectation of predictably acceptable result since ‘765 is using a carbon mold for forming crucibles made with quartz and Sato indicates in a similar case, the carbon mold desirably has a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K. As to the thermal conductivity measured at 25 degrees C, Sato gives no temperature limitations for measurement, and thus the results would have been expected to apply when measured at 25 degrees C as well.
Optionally, further as evidenced by ‘978, ‘978 would further evidence that carbon based material used to form a chamber can conventionally have a thermal conductivity overlapping that of Sato (‘978 with 80 W/m-K or more, for example) when measured at 25 degrees C (note 0049), further evidencing that it would be expected for the thermal conductivity of Sato to acceptably be in the described range at 25 degrees C.
As to the thermal spraying being performed using a burner, ‘765 indicates providing thermal spraying silica powder in the form of arc spraying (note 0044).
Bailey describes how thermal spraying of silica powder material can be provided by an arc spraying process in the form of arc plasma spraying (note figure 1, column 1, lines 5-15, column 2, lines 15-45). The process includes providing the powder into an arc plasma spray gun, which can be considered a burner as it forms a plasma flame that melts the particles as projects them to the surface to be sprayed to form a coating (note figure 1, column 2, lines 15-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘765 in view of Sato, EITHER alone OR as evidenced by ‘978 to provide the thermal spraying using a burner as suggested by Bailey with an expectation providing a predictably acceptable silica spraying and application, since ‘765 describes arc spraying the silica and Bailey indicates an arc spraying process for silica by providing plasma arc spraying of silica powder using an arc plasma spray gun/burner to provide an acceptable silica application. The combined process would also provide the features of claim 8. The features of claim 10 would be suggested as discussed for claim 6 above.
Claims 3, 9: The process of ‘765 in view of Sato and Bailey, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘978 also provides depositing silica powder on one side/upper side of the quartz substrate by thermal spraying (described for claim 1 as a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substrate) and contacting a surface opposite the one side of the quartz substrate/lower side (described for claim 1 as the one side) with a thermally conductive material having a thermal conductivity of more than 30 W/cmK at 25 degrees C during the thermal spraying (note the discussion of claim 1 above). Furthermore, as to the heating and melting of the powder using a burner and the heating and melting during the substrate contact with the thermally conductive material, Bailey would further suggest that the arc plasma spraying acts to heat and melt the silica powder for application (note column 2, lines 35-45, column 3, lines 5-20, where the melting process is part of forming a desirably adhered coating). This provides the features claimed of claims 3 and 9.
Claim 4: ‘765 would further suggest heating one surface of the quartz member to smooth the surface, where heating occurs while contacting the quartz substrate surface opposite that being heated with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold), where the entire inner surface of the silica/quartz powder is heated and melted, pressure is further reduced from the mold side at the same time as heating, gas within the quartz is sucked into the outer layer side through a vent in mold and discharged to outside the vent, so removing air bubbles in the inner side of the crucible and forming a transparent quartz glass layer 12, substantially free from bubbles (note 0042), so the surface understood to be smoothed to at least some degree.
Claim 5: when providing the heating and melting in ‘765, the temperature can be to a surface temperature of 1720 degrees C or higher, in the claimed range (note 0042).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2010-155765 (hereinafter ‘765, used as provided with the IDS of September 16, 2024, including the translation) in view of Sato (US 2010/0055222) and Japan 2004-002082 (hereinafter ‘082), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by WO 2021/124978 (hereinafter ‘978).
*** Please Note that Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002) is used as the translation for WO 2021/124978, so the citations to paragraph numbers are to Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002). ***
Claims 3, 9: ‘765 teaches a method of manufacturing a quartz member (such as a quartz glass crucible) fr0m a quartz substrate (note outer layer 11 of quartz glass can be considered a substrate) (note 0020, 0021, can be made from natural quartz, 0041), where the process includes depositing silica powder onto one side of the quartz substrate and heating and melting the silica powder, where the surface opposite the side of the quartz substrate on which the silica is deposited contacts a thermally conductive material (carbon mold) during the heating and melting of the silica powder (note 0041-0042, where the synthetic quartz powder would have silica powder, note reference to silica powder in 0042). For claim 9, the upper surface of the quartz substrate can be considered the silica deposition side and the lower surface the side contacting the quartz substrate.
‘765 does not teach the specific thermal conductivity of the carbon mold. However, Sato teaches that when providing rotating molds that can be used for forming silica crucibles (and can be used with application of silica or quartz powder), the mold is preferably a carbon mold with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (so thermally conductive), which gives desirable crucible formation (note 0022-0023, 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘765 to use a carbon mold surface with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (in the range of claims 1 and 6) as suggested by Sato with an expectation of predictably acceptable result since ‘765 is using a carbon mold for forming crucibles made with quartz and Sato indicates in a similar case, the carbon mold desirably has a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K. As to the thermal conductivity measured at 25 degrees C, Sato gives no temperature limitations for measurement, and thus the results would have been expected to apply when measured at 25 degrees C as well.
Optionally, further as evidenced by ‘978, ‘978 would further evidence that carbon based material used to form a chamber can conventionally have a thermal conductivity overlapping that of Sato (‘978 with 80 W/m-K or more, for example) when measured at 25 degrees C (note 0049), further evidencing that it would be expected for the thermal conductivity of Sato to acceptably be in the described range at 25 degrees C.
Additionally, as to the melting using a burner, ‘765 describes that the silica melting can be performed using arc discharge (note 0042). ‘765 describes that quartz glass can be conventionally silica glass (note 0020, 0022, as to layer 12) and also that quartz powder can be considered silica powder (note 0041-0042).
‘082 provides making quartz glass crucibles (abstract) and indicates melting of quartz glass by an arc discharge or an oxyhydrogen flame burner (note 0014, 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘765 in view of Sato, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by ‘978 to provide the melting using a oxyhydrogen flame burner instead of arc discharge as suggested by ‘082 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘765 indicates that the quartz/silica material can be melted by arc discharge, and ‘082 indicates that quartz can similarly be melted by arc discharge or an oxyhydrogen flame burner.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2010-155765 (hereinafter ‘765, used as provided with the IDS of September 16, 2024, including the translation) in view of Sato (US 2010/0055222), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by WO 2021/124978 (hereinafter ‘978).
*** Please Note that Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002) is used as the translation for WO 2021/124978, so the citations to paragraph numbers are to Nishida et al (US 2022/0313002). ***
Claims 11-12: ‘765 teaches a method of manufacturing a quartz member (such as a quartz glass crucible) fr0m a quartz substrate (note outer layer 11 of quartz glass can be considered a substrate) (note 0020, 0021, can be made from natural quartz, 0041), where the process includes contacting the quartz glass substrate with a rotating carbon mold surface (note 0041, 0044, would be carbon material). ‘765 would further suggest heating one surface of the quartz member to smooth the surface, where heating occurs while contacting the quartz substrate surface opposite that being heated with the thermally conductive material (carbon mold), where the entire inner surface of the silica/quartz powder is heated and melted, pressure is further reduced from the mold side at the same time as heating, gas within the quartz is sucked into the outer layer side through a vent in mold and discharged to outside the vent, so removing air bubbles in the inner side of the crucible and forming a transparent quartz glass layer 12, substantially free from bubbles (note 0042), so the surface understood to be smoothed to at least some degree. When providing the heating and melting in ‘765, the temperature can be to a surface temperature of 1720 degrees C or higher, in the claimed range (note 0042).
‘765 does not teach the specific thermal conductivity of the carbon mold. However, Sato teaches that when providing rotating molds that can be used for forming silica crucibles (and can be used with application of silica or quartz powder), the mold is preferably a carbon mold with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (so thermally conductive), which gives desirable crucible formation (note 0022-0023, 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘765 to use a carbon mold surface with a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K (in the range of claims 11 and 12) as suggested by Sato with an expectation of predictably acceptable result since ‘765 is using a carbon mold for forming crucibles made with quartz and Sato indicates in a similar case, the carbon mold desirably has a thermal conductivity of between 70-125 W/m-K. As to the thermal conductivity measured at 25 degrees C, Sato gives no temperature limitations for measurement, and thus the results would have been expected to apply when measured at 25 degrees C as well. This would also provide the features of claim 12 as well.
Optionally, further as evidenced by ‘978, ‘978 would further evidence that carbon based material used to form a chamber can conventionally have a thermal conductivity overlapping that of Sato (‘978 with 80 W/m-K or more, for example) when measured at 25 degrees C (note 0049), further evidencing that it would be expected for the thermal conductivity of Sato to acceptably be in the described range at 25 degrees C.
DE 10160451 notes how a plasma spray torch can be referred to as a burner (note abstract and page 3, translation). Tsuji et al (US 6524668) notes providing a quartz glass layer in contact with a carbonaceous material (note abstract, figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustments to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the new references to Bailey and ‘082.
It is argued as to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that the references do not provide the now claimed use of the burner. The Examiner notes that the rejections of claim 11-12 using ‘765 in view of Sato, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘978 is maintained, as no arguments are provided against this rejection, where claims 11 and 12 do not require the use of a burner. As to claims 1-10, the new references to Bailey and ‘082 provide the suggested use of a burner.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718