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 § 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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 1 “A manufacturing method of a quartz glass crucible comprising: producing a quartz glass crucible…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “quartz glass crucible” refers to the previously recited “quartz glass crucible” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. For examining purpose, this limitation is assumed as “A manufacturing method of a quartz glass crucible comprising: producing [[a]] the quartz glass crucible”. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-6 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the amount of water" “the water temperature” and “the washing step”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the degree”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 4 “… hat a peak of…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “hat a peak of” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 5 “… the entire quartz glass crucible with pure water …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “pure water” refers to the previously recited pure water. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the entire”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 5 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamagata et al (US 20110256330 A1, “Yamagata”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata in view of Hiroyuki et al (JP H1143392 A, machine translation, “Hiroyuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamagata teaches a manufacturing method of a container made of quartz (quartz glass crucible) comprising producing a container made of quartz (quartz glass crucible) by arc-melting powered quartz/silica (raw material quartz powder) deposited on an inner surface of a rotating a molded substrate 41 in an outer frame 101 (mold) (figs 3, 4 and 7-12, 0136-0138, 0140-0144, 0150, 0151, 0162-0165, 0171, 0172, 0177, 0178, 0187, 0188, 0194); washing an inner surface of the quartz glass crucible with pure water (0182 and 0190), a total concentration of Na, K, and Ca contained in a silica glass around the inner surface (0023, 0035, 0039, 0040, 0044, 0049, 0093, 0094, 0097, 0103, 0113, 0132, claims 17, 21, 22, 24, and 27), and etching the inner surface with washing liquid containing hydrofluoric acid (0182, 0190, 0233).
Yamagata teaches washing an inner surface of the quartz glass crucible with pure water and Na, K, and Ca contained in a silica glass around the inner surface as addressed above. Even if it is not clearly envisaged reducing a total concentration of Na, K, and Ca contained in a silica glass around the inner surface as compared to that before washing, it still would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that washing an inner surface of the quartz glass crucible with pure water would have reduced a total concentration of Na, K, and Ca contained in a silica glass around the inner surface as compared to that before washing, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. Furthermore, it is a known practice that the presence of Na, K, Ca, in the inner surface of a quartz glass crucible is reduced by washing an inner surface of the quartz glass crucible with pure water as compared to that before washing as taught by Hiroyuki (abstract, 0007, 0021-0030 and claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Yamagata per teaching of Hiroyuki in order to provide a crucible for growing crystals in a high yield (Hiroyuki abstract, 0007).
Claims 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata/Hiroyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terui Tatsuya (JP 2012017241 A, machine translation, “Tatsuya”).
Regarding claim 2, Yamagata/Hiroyuki teaches the pure water used in the washing step of the inner surface of the quartz glass crucible as addressed above, and further teaches a specific resistance of the pure water used in the washing step of the inner surface of the quartz glass crucible with the pure water is 18 MΩ (0028), but does not explicitly teach that the amount of water to be used per quartz glass crucible is 125 liters or more, and the water temperature is 45 to 99°C. However, Tatsuya teaches a method of cleaning a crucible, wherein a temperature of pure water for the crucible is 35 to 45 °C, a flow rate is 10 to 25 liters/min, and a washing time is 15 to 20 minutes (0017), e.g., an amount of the pure water is 150 liters to 500 liters. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); also see MPEP 2144.05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Yamagata/Hiroyuki per teaching of Tatsuya in order to provide suitable conditions for cleaning the crucible for growing crystals with an improved yield (Tatsuya abstract, 0014). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Yamagata/Hiroyuki teaches washing the crucible with pure water and etching the inner surface as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that finish-washing the entire quartz glass crucible with pure water after the etching of the inner surface. However, Tatsuya teaches a method of cleaning a crucible, wherein the crucible is washed with a pure water after etching (abstract, claim 1, 0005, 0011, 0015, 0023, 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Yamagata/Hiroyuki per teaching of Tatsuya in order to provide suitable conditions for cleaning the crucible for growing crystals with an improved yield (Tatsuya abstract, 0014).
Regarding claim 6, Yamagata/Hiroyuki/Tatsuya teaches the pure water used in the finish-washing as addressed above, and further teaches that a temperature of pure water for the crucible is 35 to 45 °C (0017), overlapping the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata/Hiroyuki as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, as addressed above, Yamagata/Hiroyuki teaches etching the inner surface with washing liquid containing hydrofluoric acid and Na, K, and Ca contained in the silica glass, same process/chemicals of etching as instantly claimed. Yamagata/Hiroyuki further teaches that an etched thickness of the inner layer is less than 3 mm (Yamagata, 0229), overlapping the instantly claimed range; overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that a peak of the total concentration of Na, K, and Ca is within a depth range of 16 µm or more and 32 µm or less from the inner surface, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 4, as addressed above, Yamagata/Hiroyuki teaches a sustainably same process of manufacturing the quartz glass crucible as instantly claimed. Therefore, it would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that a peak of a distribution of a total concentration of Na, K, and Ca in a depth direction from an inner surface of the crucible is present at a position deeper than the inner surface, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights