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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 13 recite that the width of the edge line is determined by “interface edge curve extraction, curvature calculation, and comparison between a curvature change and a threshold.” However, the steps and/or structure necessary to determine the width of the edge line by performing an interface edge curve extraction, a curvature calculation, and/or a comparison between a curvature change and a threshold is not defined by the claims or the specification as originally filed. Consequently, it is unclear exactly how the width of the edge line is determined in the claims. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, claims 8 and 13 are therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 4,943,160 to Gevelber, et al. (hereinafter “Gevelber”).
Regarding claim 1, Gevelber teaches a system for controlling temperature of semiconductor single crystal growth (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and entire reference), comprising:
an image collection apparatus, configured to capture an image of an edge line of a crystal rod that grows at a solid-liquid interface. so as to determine a width of the edge fine at the solid-liquid interface (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4-5, 7 and col. 4, l. 61 to col. 9, l. 66 which teach an image collection apparatus comprised of, inter alia, a surface measurement system (23) and/or cameras (51) and (53) which capture an image of an edge of a crystal rod growing at a solid-liquid interface; see specifically col. 5, ll. 16-26 which teach that various characteristics of the melt interface shape including a width of the solid-liquid interface may be determined);
a heating apparatus, configured to heat a crucible (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and col. 5, ll. 5-15 which teach crucible wall (33) and bottom (35) heaters which are configured to heat a crucible from the side and bottom, respectively); and
a temperature control apparatus, configured to control a heating power of the heating apparatus, wherein the temperature control apparatus controls the heating power of the heating apparatus according to the width of the edge line (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and col. 4, l. 61 to col. 6, l. 40 which teach the use of, inter alia, an interface shape controller (31) that controls the heater power to the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters according to parameters such as the width of the edge line).
Regarding claim 3, Gevelber teaches that the healing apparatus comprises a plurality of heaters respectively arranged al a side wall and a bottom of the crucible. wherein the heater at the side wall heats the crucible from the side wall, and the heater at the bottom heats the crucible from the bottom (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and col. 5, ll. 5-15 which teach crucible wall (33) and bottom (35) heaters which are configured to heat a crucible from the side and bottom, respectively).
Regarding claim 8, Gevelber teaches that determining the width of the edge line from the image comprises steps of interface edge curve extraction, curvature calculation, and comparison between a curvature change and a threshold (see, e.g., Figs. 1-4 and col. 2, l. 48 to col. 6, l. 40 which teach performing calculations of parameters such as the interface angle qi which relate to a curvature of the melt-solid interface in order to determine a variable such as a width of the edge line).
Regarding claim 9, Gevelber teaches a method for controlling temperature of semiconductor single crystal growth (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and entire reference), comprising:
capturing, by an image collection apparatus, an image of an edge line of a crystal rod that grows at a solid-liquid interface (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4-5, 7 and col. 4, l. 61 to col. 9, l. 66 which teach an image collection apparatus comprised of, inter alia, a surface measurement system (23) and/or cameras (51) and (53) which capture an image of an edge of a crystal rod growing at a solid-liquid interface); and
determining a width of the edge line according to the captured image (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4-5, 7, and col. 5, ll. 16-26 which specifically teach that various characteristics of the melt interface shape including a width of the solid-liquid interface may be determined using the captured image(s)),
wherein heating a crucible according to the width of the edge line (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and col. 4, l. 61 to col. 6, l. 40 which specifically teach the use of, inter alia, an interface shape controller (31) that controls the heater power to the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters in order to control parameters such as the width of the edge line).
Regarding claim 13, Gevelber teaches that determining the width of the edge line from the image comprises steps of interface edge curve extraction, curvature calculation, and comparison between a curvature change and a threshold (see, e.g., Figs. 1-4 and col. 2, l. 48 to col. 6, l. 40 which teach performing calculations of parameters such as the interface angle qi which relate to a curvature of the melt-solid interface in order to determine a variable such as a width of the edge line).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 7, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevelber in view of Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Regarding claim 2, Gevelber does not teach that a growth direction of the crystal rod comprises a direction 100, a direction 110, or a direction 111. However, in ¶¶[0003]-[0004] of the published application AAPA teaches that Czochralski growth of single crystal Si ingots conventionally is performed by pulling in the [100] direction in order to, for example, obtain wafers having a (001) surface plane for the fabrication of electronic devices thereupon. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a [100] direction as the growth direction in the Czochralski crystal growth system and method of Gevelber in order to obtain Si(001) wafers for the formation of electronic devices thereupon.
Regarding claim 7, Gevelber teaches that the image collection apparatus is a dual-line scan camera or a single-line scan camera at a viewing window (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, & 7 and col. 5, ll. 35-49 which teach the use of a camera (23), (51), and/or (53) such as a CCD camera whose signal is based on the intensity of light defected which necessarily means that single or dual line scans across linear arrays of individual pixels within the CCD may be performed), but does not explicitly teach the use of a viewing window. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0003]-[0004] of the published application AAPA teaches the use of a diameter control sensor which is positioned outside the growth chamber and above a viewing window. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to position the imaging camera(s) of Gevelber outside a viewing window in order to obtain a clear image of the melt-solid interface while protecting the camera from the harsh environment within the crystal growth system.
Regarding claim 14, Gevelber does not teach that a growth direction of the crystal rod comprises a direction 100, a direction 110, or a direction 111. However, in ¶¶[0003]-[0004] of the published application AAPA teaches that Czochralski growth of single crystal Si ingots conventionally is performed by pulling in the [100] direction in order to, for example, obtain wafers having a (001) surface plane for the fabrication of electronic devices thereupon. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a [100] direction as the growth direction in the Czochralski crystal growth system and method of Gevelber in order to obtain Si(001) wafers for the formation of electronic devices thereupon.
Regarding claim 18, Gevelber teaches that the image collection apparatus is a dual-line scan camera or a single-line scan camera at a viewing window (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, & 7 and col. 5, ll. 35-49 which teach the use of a camera (23), (51), and/or (53) such as a CCD camera whose signal is based on the intensity of light defected which necessarily means that single or dual line scans across linear arrays of individual pixels within the CCD may be performed), but does not explicitly teach the use of a viewing window. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0003]-[0004] of the published application AAPA teaches the use of a diameter control sensor which is positioned outside the growth chamber and above a viewing window. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to position the imaging camera(s) of Gevelber outside a viewing window in order to obtain a clear image of the melt-solid interface while protecting the camera from the harsh environment within the crystal growth system.
Regarding claim 19, Gevelber teaches that the image collection apparatus is a dual-line scan camera or a single-line scan camera at a viewing window (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, & 7 and col. 5, ll. 35-49 which teach the use of a camera (23), (51), and/or (53) such as a CCD camera whose signal is based on the intensity of light defected which necessarily means that single or dual line scans across linear arrays of individual pixels within the CCD may be performed), but does not explicitly teach the use of a viewing window. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0003]-[0004] of the published application AAPA teaches the use of a diameter control sensor which is positioned outside the growth chamber and above a viewing window. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to position the imaging camera(s) of Gevelber outside a viewing window in order to obtain a clear image of the melt-solid interface while protecting the camera from the harsh environment within the crystal growth system.
Claims 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevelber in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,162,072 to Farzin Azad (“Azad”).
Regarding claim 4, Gevelber teaches that when the width of the edge line is less than or larger than a preset range, the temperature control apparatus is further configured to increase or decrease the heating power of the sidewall and bottom heaters (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and col. 4, l. 61 to col. 6, l. 40 which teach the use of, inter alia, an interface shape controller (31) that increases or decreases the heater power to the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters in response to measurements of parameters such as the width of the edge line using the thermal imager (21) and/or camera (23)), but does not explicitly teach increasing a heating power of the heater at the side wall and decreasing a heating power of the heater at the bottom when the width is less than a preset range, so as to decrease an axial temperature gradient at the solid-liquid Interface; and decreasing the heating power of the healer at the side wall and increasing the heating power of the heater at the bottom when the width of the edge line is greater than the preset range so as to increase the axial temperature gradient at the solid-liquid interface. However, in Figs. 1-5 and col. 3, l. 54 to col. 8, l. 43 Azad teaches an analogous system and method for controlling the melt-solid interface during crystal growth by the Czochralski method which utilizes independent control of side (18) and bottom (42) heating elements. In Figs. 3-5 and col. 5, l. 13 to col. 6, l. 51 Azad specifically teaches that it is desirable to have a single-cell flow pattern (110) which produces a convex solidification interface (108) in order to produce less stress and a lower dislocation density in the crystal lattice and that this is achieved by independently controlling the thermal boundary condition along the bottom of the crucible (12) using the bottom heating elements (42). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Azad and would recognize that the heat output from the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters utilized in the system and method of Gevelber influence both axial and radial temperature gradients within the melt and, consequently, the properties of the melt-solid interface, including the width of the edge line. In this regard the heating power delivered to the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine how much the heater power to the side and bottom heaters need to be increased or decreased in order to produce a corresponding increase or decrease in the axial temperature gradient within the melt such that the desired width of the edge line may be maintained during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 10, Gevelber teaches that when the width of the edge line is less than or larger than a preset range, the heating power to the sidewall and bottom heaters is increased or decreased (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and col. 4, l. 61 to col. 6, l. 40 which teach the use of, inter alia, an interface shape controller (31) that increases or decreases the heater power to the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters in response to measurements of parameters such as the width of the edge line using the thermal imager (21) and/or camera (23)), but does not explicitly teach increasing a heating power of the heater at the side wall and decreasing a heating power of the heater at the bottom when the width is less than a preset range, so as to decrease an axial temperature gradient at the solid-liquid Interface; and decreasing the heating power of the healer at the side wall and increasing the heating power of the heater at the bottom when the width of the edge line is greater than the preset range so as to increase the axial temperature gradient at the solid-liquid interface. However, in Figs. 1-5 and col. 3, l. 54 to col. 8, l. 43 Azad teaches an analogous system and method for controlling the melt-solid interface during crystal growth by the Czochralski method which utilizes independent control of side (18) and bottom (42) heating elements. In Figs. 3-5 and col. 5, l. 13 to col. 6, l. 51 Azad specifically teaches that it is desirable to have a single-cell flow pattern (110) which produces a convex solidification interface (108) in order to produce less stress and a lower dislocation density in the crystal lattice and that this is achieved by independently controlling the thermal boundary condition along the bottom of the crucible (12) using the bottom heating elements (42). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Azad and would recognize that the heat output from the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters utilized in the system and method of Gevelber influence both axial and radial temperature gradients within the melt and, consequently, the properties of the melt-solid interface, including the width of the edge line. In this regard the heating power delivered to the side (33) and bottom (35) heaters is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine how much the heater power to the side and bottom heaters need to be increased or decreased in order to produce a corresponding increase or decrease in the axial temperature gradient within the melt such that the desired width of the edge line may be maintained during crystal growth.
Claims 5-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevelber in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2002/0043206 to Mutti, et al. (“Mutti”).
Regarding claim 5, Gevelber does not teach that the temperature control apparatus is further configured to increase or decrease the heating power of the heater by a stepwise prior intermittent heating method. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0054] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mutti teaches an analogous Czochralski crystal growth system and method of controlling the meniscus height and the diameter of a Si single crystal during crystal growth by adjusting the pull rate and heater power. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0050]-[0054] Mutti teaches a method in which N values of the steady state pull rate Vgs are accumulated in step (81) over N observation periods of equal duration in order to deduce a current value of Vgs in step (83). Then an incremental change in heater power is generated in step (85) as a function of the deduced variables and in step (87) a power action is supplied to the heater power (27) in response to the power increment specified. Thus, the heater power is increased or decreased in periodic increments (i.e., in a stepwise manner) in order to accurately maintain the desired crystal diameter and quality during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Mutti and would be motivated to utilize a system and method which is configured to increase or decrease the heater power in a periodic stepwise manner in order to minimize deviations from the targeted crystal diameter during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 6, Gevelber does not teach that with the stepwise prior intermittent heating method, the heating power is gradually increased in an alternating manner of increase-decrease-increase according to an increase rate of the heating power, or is gradually decreased in an alternating manner of decrease-increase-decrease according to a decrease rate of the heating power. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 5, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0054] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mutti teaches an analogous Czochralski crystal growth system and method of controlling the meniscus height and the diameter of a Si single crystal during crystal growth by adjusting the pull rate and heater power. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0050]-[0054] Mutti teaches a method in which N values of the steady state pull rate Vgs are accumulated in step (81) over N observation periods of equal duration in order to deduce a current value of Vgs in step (83). Then an incremental change in heater power is generated in step (85) as a function of the deduced variables and in step (87) a power action is supplied to the heater power (27) in response to the power increment specified. Thus, the heater power is increased and decreased in periodic increments (i.e., in a stepwise manner) in response to fluctuations in the temperature in order to accurately maintain the desired crystal diameter and quality during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Mutti and would be motivated to utilize a system and method which is configured to increase or decrease the heater power in a periodic stepwise manner which would necessarily involve alternating increase-decrease-increase and/or decrease-increase-decrease rates of applying heater power to maintain the desired temperature and crystal diameter in response to thermal fluctuations that occur during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 16, Gevelber does not teach that the temperature control apparatus is further configured to increase or decrease the heating power of the heater by a stepwise prior intermittent heating method. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0054] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mutti teaches an analogous Czochralski crystal growth system and method of controlling the meniscus height and the diameter of a Si single crystal during crystal growth by adjusting the pull rate and heater power. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0050]-[0054] Mutti teaches a method in which N values of the steady state pull rate Vgs are accumulated in step (81) over N observation periods of equal duration in order to deduce a current value of Vgs in step (83). Then an incremental change in heater power is generated in step (85) as a function of the deduced variables and in step (87) a power action is supplied to the heater power (27) in response to the power increment specified. Thus, the heater power is increased or decreased in periodic increments (i.e., in a stepwise manner) in order to accurately maintain the desired crystal diameter and quality during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Mutti and would be motivated to utilize a system and method which is configured to increase or decrease the heater power in a periodic stepwise manner in order to minimize deviations from the targeted crystal diameter during crystal growth.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevelber in view of AAPA and further in view of Mutti.
Regarding claim 15, Gevelber and AAPA do not teach that the temperature control apparatus is further configured to increase or decrease the heating power of the heater by a stepwise prior intermittent heating method. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0054] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mutti teaches an analogous Czochralski crystal growth system and method of controlling the meniscus height and the diameter of a Si single crystal during crystal growth by adjusting the pull rate and heater power. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0050]-[0054] Mutti teaches a method in which N values of the steady state pull rate Vgs are accumulated in step (81) over N observation periods of equal duration in order to deduce a current value of Vgs in step (83). Then an incremental change in heater power is generated in step (85) as a function of the deduced variables and in step (87) a power action is supplied to the heater power (27) in response to the power increment specified. Thus, the heater power is increased or decreased in periodic increments (i.e., in a stepwise manner) in order to accurately maintain the desired crystal diameter and quality during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Mutti and would be motivated to utilize a system and method which is configured to increase or decrease the heater power in a periodic stepwise manner in order to minimize deviations from the targeted crystal diameter during crystal growth.
Claims 11-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevelber in view of Azad and further in view of Mutti.
Regarding claim 11, Gevelber and Azad not teach that the heating power is increased or decreased by a stepwise prior intermittent heating method. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0054] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mutti teaches an analogous Czochralski crystal growth system and method of controlling the meniscus height and the diameter of a Si single crystal during crystal growth by adjusting the pull rate and heater power. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0050]-[0054] Mutti teaches a method in which N values of the steady state pull rate Vgs are accumulated in step (81) over N observation periods of equal duration in order to deduce a current value of Vgs in step (83). Then an incremental change in heater power is generated in step (85) as a function of the deduced variables and in step (87) a power action is supplied to the heater power (27) in response to the power increment specified. Thus, the heater power is increased or decreased in periodic increments (i.e., in a stepwise manner) in order to accurately maintain the desired crystal diameter and quality during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Mutti and would be motivated to utilize a system and method which is configured to increase or decrease the heater power in a periodic stepwise manner in order to minimize deviations from the targeted crystal diameter during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 12, Gevelber and Azad do not teach that with the stepwise prior intermittent heating method, the heating power is gradually increased in an alternating manner of increase-decrease-increase according to an increase rale of the heating power, or is gradually decreased in an alternating manner of decrease-increase-decrease according to a decrease rate of the heating power. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0054] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mutti teaches an analogous Czochralski crystal growth system and method of controlling the meniscus height and the diameter of a Si single crystal during crystal growth by adjusting the pull rate and heater power. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0050]-[0054] Mutti teaches a method in which N values of the steady state pull rate Vgs are accumulated in step (81) over N observation periods of equal duration in order to deduce a current value of Vgs in step (83). Then an incremental change in heater power is generated in step (85) as a function of the deduced variables and in step (87) a power action is supplied to the heater power (27) in response to the power increment specified. Thus, the heater power is increased and decreased in periodic increments (i.e., in a stepwise manner) in response to fluctuations in the temperature in order to accurately maintain the desired crystal diameter and quality during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Mutti and would be motivated to utilize a system and method which is configured to increase or decrease the heater power in a periodic stepwise manner which would necessarily involve alternating increase-decrease-increase and/or decrease-increase-decrease rates of applying heater power to maintain the desired temperature and crystal diameter in response to thermal fluctuations that occur during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 17, Gevelber and Azad do not teach that the temperature control apparatus is further configured to increase or decrease the heating power of the heater by a stepwise prior intermittent heating method. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0054] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mutti teaches an analogous Czochralski crystal growth system and method of controlling the meniscus height and the diameter of a Si single crystal during crystal growth by adjusting the pull rate and heater power. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0050]-[0054] Mutti teaches a method in which N values of the steady state pull rate Vgs are accumulated in step (81) over N observation periods of equal duration in order to deduce a current value of Vgs in step (83). Then an incremental change in heater power is generated in step (85) as a function of the deduced variables and in step (87) a power action is supplied to the heater power (27) in response to the power increment specified. Thus, the heater power is increased or decreased in periodic increments (i.e., in a stepwise manner) in order to accurately maintain the desired crystal diameter and quality during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Mutti and would be motivated to utilize a system and method which is configured to increase or decrease the heater power in a periodic stepwise manner in order to minimize deviations from the targeted crystal diameter during crystal growth.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevelber in view of Azad and further in view of AAPA.
Regarding claim 20, Gevelber teaches that the image collection apparatus is a dual-line scan camera or a single-line scan camera at a viewing window (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, & 7 and col. 5, ll. 35-49 which teach the use of a camera (23), (51), and/or (53) such as a CCD camera whose signal is based on the intensity of light defected which necessarily means that single or dual line scans across linear arrays of individual pixels within the CCD may be performed), but does not explicitly teach the use of a viewing window. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0003]-[0004] of the published application AAPA teaches the use of a diameter control sensor which is positioned outside the growth chamber and above a viewing window. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to position the imaging camera(s) of Gevelber outside a viewing window in order to obtain a clear image of the melt-solid interface while protecting the camera from the harsh environment within the crystal growth system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday, 7:30 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Michael Kornakov can be reached on (571) 272-1303. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714