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
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/13/2026.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 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, “activating the crystal growth device to grow the crystal.” This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what steps are performed when “activating the crystal growth device to grow the crystal.” Claim 1 does not recite any particular growth method, and merely recites placing reactant in a temperature field device. For example, a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus would require melting raw material, dipping a seed in the melt and pulling while rotating etc; and a vertical gradient crystal growth apparatus would require melting a raw material and creating a vertical temperature gradient to cause crystal growth from a seed. The examiner suggests reciting the particular method of crystal growth that is performed when the device is activated. The same argument applies to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 152,315 (‘315). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘315 is narrower in scope than the instantly claimed invention; therefore, would anticipate the claimed invention. ‘315 claim 3 would anticipate claim 1 because ‘315 claims placing reactants into a temperature field device of a crystal growth device, wherein the crystal growth device includes an open hearth and the hearth has gas exchange with atmospheric environment; the temperature field device is positioned in the hearth; the temperature field device is sealed and has no gas exchange with the atmospheric environment; an observation unit is mounted on the temperature field device; the observation unit includes a through hole which is communicated with an internal chamber of the observation unit and the temperature field device; and the through hole is configured for gas passing; introducing a flowing gas into the temperature field device through the through hole after sealing the temperature field device; and activating the crystal growth device to grow the crystal.
Referring to claim 2-13, see claims 6-17 of ‘315 which recite the same limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kurata et al (US 2008/0299027) teaches a Czochralski growth method comprising loading starting material into a crucible; melting the starting material in a furnace; dipping a seed into the melt and pulling a single crystal body from the melt, wherein an oxygen concentration in furnace is obtained by continuously flowing N2 and O2 gas during growth ([0060]-[0080]).
Li et al (CN 104674344), an English computer translation (CT) is provided. Li et al teaches a Czochralski crystal growth device includes an open hearth and the temperature field device in the hearth; introducing a flowing gas into the temperature field device after sealing the temperature field device (Fig 1-2; CT [0030]-[0055], [0060]-[0110] teaches a plurality of insulation layers 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (temperature field device) to provide a more stable temperature gradient field within the insulation 2 and in the main chamber 5 which is sealed by a baffle valve 7 and introducing a flowing gas into the temperature field device after sealing the temperature field device (Figs 1-2; CT [0030]-[0050], [ 0110]-[0125] teaches sealing and growth in a protective atmosphere by using filling valve to obtain a desired pressurized sealed inert protective atmosphere).
JP 2008169095 (JP ‘095), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, teaches a tail portion is set in the range of 5 to 75 degrees to prevent cracks before separation (CT [0005]-[0010]), which clearly suggests an ending angle of 30-70 degrees. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
CN 106381524, an English computer translation (CT) is provided teaches a Czochralski growth apparatus comprising an observation window assembly 6 to observe the internal conditions of a furnace body 7 ([0006]-[0010]; Fig 1-2)
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