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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov et al (SU 1319641), an English computer (CT) is provided, in view of Takagi et al (US 3,951,729).
Ivanov et al teaches growing single crystal of gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) having a diameter of 127-135 mm by pulling monocrystals from a melt using a seed (CT description), which clearly suggests a Czochralski method. Ivanov et al teaches a density of defects of less than 7 cm-2 (CT description). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). Also, sample 2 of the table on page 2 (See the computer translation of the column headings below) has a defect density of 1 cm-2 and a diameter of 127 mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ivanov et al does not teach a density of dislocations of less than 1 cm-2 in a central 80% of the crystal, and wherein an edge pit dislocation of 0.3 cm-2 in the central 80% of the crystal.
In a method of Czochralski crystal growth, Takagi et al teaches growing single crystals of gadolinium gallium garnet according to the Czochralski method, and single crystals free of defects such as dislocation (abstract), which clearly suggests a density of dislocations of less than 1 cm-2 in a central 80% of the crystal. Takagi et al teaches forming a single crystal of a large diameter free of a dislocation defect as a body portion, wherein a dislocation present in the seed crystal or dislocation introduced at the time of seeding can be taken out in the surface and removed therefrom by forming a slender part (col 2, ln 1-68; col 5, ln 1-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ivanov et al by controlling the Czochralski crystal growth, as taught by Takagi et al to produce a defect/dislocation free crystal having a dislocation density of less than 1 cm-2.
In regards to “an edge pit dislocation of 0.3 cm-2 in the central 80% of the crystal,” the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al teaches crystals of gadolinium gallium garnet according to the Czochralski method, and single crystals free of defects such as dislocation (Takagi Abstract), therefore, would include edge pit dislocations. The examiner maintains that the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al would clearly suggests an edge pit dislocation of 0.3 cm-2 which is nominally larger than 0, i.e. defect/dislocation free, and overlaps Ivanov et al teaches of a density of defects of less than 7 cm-2 (CT description). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claims 3-4, 6, and 9-13, the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al teaches a diameter of 127-135 mm by pulling monocrystals from a melt using a seed (Ivanov CT description). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 7, see remark above regarding claim 1. The combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al teaches producing dislocation free GGG single crystal which would clearly suggests less than 0.5 dislocations/cm-2.
Referring to claims 8, 9 and 14, the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al teaches Czochralski crystal growth of GGG comprising dipping a seed in a melt and then pulling a single crystal having a body with desired diameter (Ivanov CT description; Takagi col 2, ln 1-67, Example 1). The combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al does not explicitly teach cooling the crystal after it has reached the diameter, however this feature is inherent with Czochralski crystal growth because the crystal is removed from the furnace after being cooled.
Referring to claim 5 and 12, the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al does not explicitly teach a diameter of greater than 150 mm. Takagi et al teaches in general, the maximum diameter of the resulting crystal is approximately a half of the crucible diameter (col 6, ln 45-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al by growing a GGG crystal having a diameter of greater than 150 mm by using a larger crucible because larger crystals are more desirable for device manufacturing.
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al teaches an iridium crucible (Takagi col 4, ln 55-68).
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov et al (SU 1319641), an English computer (CT) is provided, in view of Takagi et al (US 3,951,729), as applied to claim 1,3-14 and 20 above, and further in view of Tao et al (CN 103397385), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
The combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, except the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al does not explicitly teach the cooling rate is not greater than 300°C/hr.
In a method of Czochralski growth of a ytterbium-doped lutetium gadolinium gallium garnet laser crystal, Tao et al teaches when the crystal grows to the required size, the crystal is lifted out, cooled to room temperature at a rate of 10-60°C/hour, and an example with a cooling rate of 40°C/hour (CT2 [0019], [0060], [0066]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al by cooling at less than 300°C/hr, as taught by Tao et al, to prevent cracking.
Referring to claim 16-19, the combination of Ivanov et al and Takagi et al and Tao et al teaches a cooling rate of 10-60°C (Tao CT2 [0019]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that scaling up to a diameter than 105 mm would not be easy is noted but not found persuasive. Applicant alleges that Takagi itself exemplifies to a person of ordinary skill in the art that scaling up to a diameter of 105 mm would be difficult if growth parameter are too broad. Takagi is an improvement over the conventional technique because Takagi teaches obtaining a single crystal of good quality free of such defects as dislocation and facet, it is sufficient that at the initial stage of growth of the crystal, namely during growth of a slender part, the velocity of rotation is maintained at a low level to thereby make the form of the solid-liquid interface convex on the melt side and to remove dislocation (col 3, ln 16-30). Takagi teaches the parameters to enable of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to grow a dislocation free crystal. Takagi et al teaches single crystal being rotated during formation of said slender portion at a rate such that H/D is about 0.2 to about 0.7, said single crystal thereafter being rotated during formation of said single crystal body at a rate such that H/D is about -0.05 to about 0.1, wherein D is the diameter of the growing crystal and H is the distance by which the center of the solid-liquid interface is below the level of the melt, said slender portion being grown sufficiently long so that dislocations in said slender portion extend to the side surfaces of said slender portion whereby the part of the slender portion attached to said single crystal body is free of dislocations (claim 1). The scaling up is already taught by Ivanov which teaches the growth of a single crystal of gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) having a diameter of 127-135 mm by pulling monocrystals from a melt using a seed (CT description), which clearly suggests a Czochralski method. Ivanov et al teaches a density of defects of less than 7 cm-2 (CT description). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to control the growth of slender, neck, region of Ivanov, to produce a dislocation free neck and then grow a body free of dislocations having the claimed diameter.
Applicant’s argument that there are difficulties in growing a GGG crystal if the growth parameters are too broad is noted but not found persuasive. Takagi does not teach overly broad growth parameter. Takagi et al teaches single crystal being rotated during formation of said slender portion at a rate such that H/D is about 0.2 to about 0.7, said single crystal thereafter being rotated during formation of said single crystal body at a rate such that H/D is about -0.05 to about 0.1, wherein D is the diameter of the growing crystal and H is the distance by which the center of the solid-liquid interface is below the level of the melt, said slender portion being grown sufficiently long so that dislocations in said slender portion extend to the side surfaces of said slender portion whereby the part of the slender portion attached to said single crystal body is free of dislocations (claim 1). Takagi does not claim an upper limit to the crystal diameter and the examiner maintains that Takagi is enable to grow GGG crystal diameters, such as a diameters of 127-135 mm, as taught by Ivanov (CT description).
Applicant’s argument that Takagi does not enable a crystal diameter of more than 20 mm is noted but not found persuasive. Takagi teaches Czochralski crystal pulling method of growth, likewise Ivanov teaches crystal pulling method of growth for GGG; therefore, growth of large, 102 mm or more, diameter crystal was known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since larger diameter crystals are more desirable for device manufacturing. Also, Takagi et al teaches the maximum diameter of the resulting crystal is approximately half of the crucible diameter (col 6, ln 40-65); therefore, the examiner maintains that Takagi et al clearly enables one of ordinary skill in the art to grow a larger diameter crystal by using a larger diameter crucible.
Applicant’s argument that precise temperature control is require to grow large crystal is noted but not found persuasive. Temperature control is well known in the art of Czochralski crystal growth to be required to produce dislocation free crystals. Takagi explicitly teaches temperatures of the surface of the melt was about 1680°C at the central portion and about 1760°C at the circumferential position and controlling rotation velocity to produce a desired H/D value to produce a dislocation free crystal (Example 1). The examiner maintains that precise process parameter control is well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Furthermore, US 5,746,828 teaches a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus comprising temperature monitoring and control to grow dislocation free crystal, and a crystal neck is formed and then a crystal body having a diameter of 200 or 300 mm is pulled (col 4, ln 10-67; col 7, ln 1 to col 8, ln 67). Therefore, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be capable of Czochralski crystal growth of 200 mm crystal while precisely controlling temperature to produce dislocation free crystals. Furthermore, Takagi et al teaches single crystal being rotated during formation of said slender portion at a rate such that H/D is about 0.2 to about 0.7, said single crystal thereafter being rotated during formation of said single crystal body at a rate such that H/D is about -0.05 to about 0.1, wherein D is the diameter of the growing crystal and H is the distance by which the center of the solid-liquid interface is below the level of the melt, said slender portion being grown sufficiently long so that dislocations in said slender portion extend to the side surfaces of said slender portion whereby the part of the slender portion attached to said single crystal body is free of dislocations (claim 1). Therefore, the claimed product can be obtained using a different method, such as the method taught by Takagi et al.
Applicant’s argument that there are complex technical interactions that can lead to failure is mere attorney argument which lacks evidence; therefore, is not persuasive. Ivanov teaches crystal pulling method of growth for GGG; therefore, growth of large, 102 mm or more, diameter crystal was known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since larger diameter crystals are more desirable for device manufacturing. Also, Takagi et al teaches the maximum diameter of the resulting crystal is approximately half of the crucible diameter (col 6, ln 40-65); therefore, the examiner maintains that Takagi et al clearly enables one of ordinary skill in the art to grow a larger diameter crystal by using a larger diameter crucible.
Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to alter Ivanov by Takagi since Takagi is used for crystals with diameters less than 20 mm is noted but not found persuasive. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Takagi is not limited to crystals with diameters as alleged by applicant. Takagi is an improvement over the conventional technique because Takagi teaches obtaining a single crystal of good quality free of such defects as dislocation and facet, it is sufficient that at the initial stage of growth of the crystal, namely during growth of a slender part, the velocity of rotation is maintained at a low level to thereby make the form of the solid-liquid interface convex on the melt side and to remove dislocation (col 3, ln 16-30). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to control the growth of slender, neck, region of Ivanov, to produce a dislocation free neck and then grow a body having the claimed diameter. Furthermore, Takagi is not limited to the disclosed examples. Takagi teaches Czochralski crystal pulling method of growth, likewise Ivanov teaches crystal pulling method of growth for GGG; therefore, growth of large, 102 mm or more, diameter crystal was known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since larger diameter crystals are more desirable for device manufacturing.
The examiner maintains that Ivanov et al teaches growing single crystal of gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) having a diameter of 127-135 mm by pulling monocrystals from a melt using a seed (CT description), which clearly suggests a Czochralski method. Ivanov et al teaches a density of defects of less than 7 cm-2 (CT description); and Takagi et al teaches growing single crystals of gadolinium gallium garnet according to the Czochralski method, and single crystals free of defects such as dislocation (abstract), wherein a dislocation present in the seed crystal or dislocation introduced at the time of seeding can be taken out in the surface and removed therefrom by forming a slender part (col 2, ln 1-68; col 5, ln 1-35); therefore, the prior art clearly teaches a method of producing a GGG having the claimed diameter and a method of removing dislocation during seeding, thus the single crystal boule would not have dislocation, which would including being essentially free of edge dislocations which is a specific type of dislocation. Ivanov teaches a CZ growth for large diameter 127-135 mm GGG, and Takagi teaches a method of removing dislocation during seeding of GGG Cz growth; therefore, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ivanov by using the method of removing dislocation in GGG CZ growth taught by Takagi to reduce dislocations. Furthermore, Brandle (US 4,199,396) teaches a Czochralski method of growing unicrystalline gadolinium gallium garnet, and producing a massive virtually perfect crystal free of edge dislocations (col 1, ln 1-67; col 4, ln 1-67); therefore, producing edge dislocation GGG by Cz is conventionally known.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,476,274 teaches growing low stress single crystals, such as Gadolinium-Gallium-Garnet (GGG) using a Czochralski method, wherein single crystal having a diameter of 160 mm, or at least 200 mm is more preferably (abstract; col 1, ln 15-55, col 2, ln 1-35, col 6, ln 1-50, col 11, ln 1-55).
Sakaguchi et al (US 4,483,734) teaches a method of growing a single crystal GGG (gadolinium gallium garnet) by Czochralski technique, and it is always necessary to very slowly cool the grown single crystal after completion of pulling-up in the Czochralski method in order to minimize crack formation in the single crystal boules (abstract; col 3, ln 1-67, col 4, ln 15).
JP 2019014630 teaches a Gadolinium gallium garnet (SGGG) having a dislocation density of 0.1 cm-2 or less (computer translation [0057]-[0058]).
US 5,746,828 teaches a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus comprising temperature monitoring and control to grow dislocation free crystal, and a crystal neck is formed and then a crystal body having a diameter of 200 or 300 mm is pulled (col 4, ln 10-67; col 7, ln 1 to col 8, ln 67).
Brandle (US 4,199,396) teaches a Czochralski method of growing unicrystalline gadolinium gallium garnet, and producing a massive virtually perfect crystal free of edge dislocations (col 1, ln 1-67; col 4, ln 1-67).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
