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The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 16-19, 21-27, and 29 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ arguments and claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 16-18, 21, 23, 26, and 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,329,195 to Bosshi Kudo (“Kudo”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0211917 to Glabbeek, et al. (“Glabbeek”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0213295 to Mackintosh, et al. (“Mackintosh”).
Regarding claim 1, Kudo teaches an apparatus for controlling a thickness of a crystalline ribbon grown on a surface of a melt (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and entire reference), the apparatus comprising:
a crucible and a crucible edge configured to hold the melt, wherein the crucible is a deep, flat-bottomed crucible (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 22 which teach a deep, flat-bottomed crucible (3) configured to hold a melt (1); moreover, the crucible has an edge at a top thereof);
a cold initializer configured to be facing the exposed surface of the melt and to form the crystalline ribbon on the surface of the melt (see, e.g., Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach a gas cooler (19) which faces an exposed surface of the melt (1); moreover, the portion of the cooler (19) located to the left of the gas inlet may be considered as a cold initializer which is capable of forming the crystalline ribbon on the surface of the melt as claimed since it initiates cooling of the surface of the melt (1));
a segmented cooled thinning controller including gas jets disposed above the crucible on a side of the crucible with the cold initializer, wherein the segmented cooled thinning controller is disposed downstream of the cold initializer along a pull direction of the crystalline ribbon (see, e.g., Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach that gas cooler (19) includes a plurality of nozzles (31) which supply a cooling gas to locally cool the surface of the melt (1); moreover, the portion of the cooler (19) located to the right of the gas inlet may be considered as a segmented cooled thinning controller as claimed since it is disposed downstream along a pull direction of the crystalline ribbon and includes segmented portions separated by the gas nozzles (31));
a uniform melt-back heater disposed below the crucible opposite the segmented cooled thinning controller, wherein the uniform melt-back heater is configured to uniformly heat the melt to melt back an underside of the crystalline ribbon while the segmented cooled thinning controller cools the crystalline ribbon, thereby producing a targeted thickness profile before the crystalline ribbon separates from the melt (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 7, l. 23 which teach that heaters (5) and (6) are configured to uniformly heat the melt (1), are disposed below the crucible (3), and are located opposite the gas cooler (19); moreover, the heaters (5) and (6) are capable of melting back an underside of the ribbon (22) while the gas cooler (19) cools a topside of the ribbon (22) to produce a targeted thickness profile); and
a puller configured to i) pull the crystalline ribbon formed on a surface of the melt in the crucible (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 7, ll. 5-23 which teach that a pulling mechanism including guide rollers (20) and (21) is used to pull the ribbon crystal from the melt (1)) and ii) separate the crystalline ribbon from the melt at a selected and maintained raised height above the crucible edge, the raised height being configured to maintain a meniscus and to prevent overflow of the melt (See, e.g., Fig. 3(a) and col. 8, l. 44 to col. 9, l. 48 which teach that in one embodiment the crystal growth apparatus is configured to separate the crystalline ribbon (22) from the melt at a selected and predetermined raised height above the crucible edge under conditions which maintain a meniscus and which prevents overflow of the melt. See also col. 6, ll. 8-19 which specifically teaches that the surface of the melt can be held up to about 10 mm higher than the edge of the crucible at the pulling port. Moreover, since the height of the crystalline ribbon above the crucible edge determines the size and shape of the meniscus it 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 and set the optimal raised height of the crystalline ribbon within the disclosed range of up to 10 mm in order to form a meniscus having the desired shape and, subsequently, a ribbon crystal having the desired materials properties and thickness.).
Kudo does not teach that each of the gas jets are individually-controllable with each of the individually-controllable gas jets being independently adjustable to direct a discrete flow to a different lateral portion of the crystalline ribbon. However, in at least Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶[0033]-[0066] Glabbeek teaches an analogous system and method for the growth of ribbon crystals (10B) from a melt which is cooled using a plurality of gas nozzles (32). In Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0036]-[0044] Glabbeek specifically teaches that the gas jets (32) each strike a relatively small part of the sheet wafer (10B) with the total size of the area being cooled depending on factors such as the gas flow rate, gas type, jet (32) size, speed of the growing crystal (10B), the temperature of the molten Si, and the location of the gas jets (32). Any number and types of gases and flow rates may be used to control the localized thickness of the growing sheet wafer (10B). Moreover, as explained specifically in ¶[0052], the thickness is monitored during crystal (10B) growth using detectors (35) which continually measure the thickness and adjust the fluid flow through individual jets (32) in order to ensure that there is a rapid response to any changes in growth conditions and a more uniform sheet crystal can be grown. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Glabbeek and would be motivated to utilize individually-controllable and adjustable gas jets to deliver a discrete gas flow to different lateral portions of the surface of the melt as part of the gas cooler (19) of Kudo in order to obtain greater lateral control over the width and thickness of the entire crystalline sheet independent of the melt depth during crystal growth such that a more uniform sheet crystal having the desired materials properties is obtained.
Kudo and Glabbeek do not teach that the segmented cooled thinning controller is configured to selectively cool thinner lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon after the crystalline ribbon has been formed by the cold initializer and while the crystalline ribbon remains floating on the melt. However, in at least Figs.5A-C and ¶¶[0050]-[0056] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mackintosh teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for initializing, widening, and sustaining growth of a crystalline ribbon on a surface of the melt. The apparatus includes, inter alia, a cold initializer (502), a widener (504), and a sustainer (506) which are used to initiate crystal growth and then selectively cool thinner lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon (514) in order to widen the solidified ribbon. Thus a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Mackintosh and would be motivated to supply the gas cooler (19) of Kudo and Glabbeek as a cold initializer (502) and a widener (504) which functions as a segmented cooled thinning controller that selectively cools lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon as claimed in order to produce a ribbon crystal having the desired lateral size, thickness, and materials properties. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 3, Kudo does not teach that the gas flow rates of the individually-controllable gas jets are adjusted, at least in part, on a measurement of a lateral thickness profile of the crystalline ribbon, measured after the crystalline ribbon has been formed by the cold initializer and before the crystalline ribbon separates from the melt. However, in at least col. 6, ll. 55-59 of Kudo teaches blowing argon or helium through the nozzles (31) at a controlled flow rate which necessarily means the flow rate is capable of being dynamically controlled (i.e., changed or adjusted in real time) based upon one or more measured materials parameters such as the ribbon thickness after it initially forms. Moreover, in at least Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶[0033]-[0066] Glabbeek teaches an analogous system and method for the growth of ribbon crystals (10B) from a melt which is cooled using a plurality of gas nozzles (32). As explained specifically in ¶[0052], the thickness is monitored during crystal (10B) growth using detectors (35) which continually measure the thickness and adjust the fluid flow through the jets (32) in order to ensure that there is a rapid response to any changes in growth conditions and a more uniform sheet crystal can be grown. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Glabbeek and would be motivated to dynamically adjust the gas flow through the gas cooler (19) of Kudo in response to the lateral thickness profile of the sheet (10B) in order to produce a more uniform sheet crystal.
Alternatively, it is noted that the aspect of claim 3 which relates to adjusting the gas flow rates of the gas jets based on a measurement of a lateral thickness profile of the crystalline ribbon after it has been formed by the cold initializer appears to relate to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its actual structure. It has previously been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. In this case since the gas cooler (19) of Kudo either alone or as modified by Glabbeek and Mackintosh is capable of adjusting the gas flow rates of the gas jets based on a lateral thickness profile of the crystalline ribbon it therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Kudo and Glabbeek do not teach that the segmented cooled thinning controller includes a cold block and a plurality of heaters. However, in Figs. 6A-B and ¶¶[0057]-[0058] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mackintosh teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for forming ribbon crystals on a surface of the melt which includes, inter alia, a cold initializer (602) and a widener (604) which utilize radiative cooling to initiate and then control ribbon formation. The widener (604) includes a cold block and a plurality of independently controlled zoned heaters (608a-f) in addition to the cold block (604) itself in order to provide localized heating such that the width of the cold zone above melt (610) can be controlled. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Mackintosh and would be motivated to provide the gas cooler (19) of Kudo in the form of a widener (604) comprised of a cold block and a plurality of heaters (608a-f) in order to obtain greater control over the initiation and propagation of the crystal growth front during growth of a ribbon crystal.
Regarding claim 5, Kudo and Glabbeek do not teach that the segmented cooled thinning controller includes one or more heat shields between or among the heaters. However, in ¶¶[0040]-[0041] Mackintosh teaches that in some embodiments the cold block is surrounded by shielding which facilitates confinement of the radiative cooling effect of the cold block to a predetermined region of the melt surface. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0043]-[0044] an exemplary shielding element (306) is provided which surrounds insulator (304) and the cold block (308). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide one or more heat shields between or among the cold block (604) and the plurality of heaters (608a-f) in Figs. 6A-B of Mackintosh with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate confinement of the heating and/or cooling effect from each individual heater (608a-f).
Regarding claim 16, Kudo teaches a system for controlling formation of a ribbon grown on a surface of a melt (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and entire reference), the system comprising:
a crucible and a crucible edge configured to hold the melt, wherein the crucible is a deep, flat-bottomed crucible (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 22 which teach a deep, flat-bottomed crucible (3) configured to hold a melt (1); moreover, the crucible has an edge at a top thereof);
a cold initializer configured to be above and facing the surface of the melt and to form the ribbon on the surface of the melt (see, e.g., Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach a gas cooler (19) which faces an exposed surface of the melt (1); moreover, the portion of the cooler (19) located to the left of the gas inlet may be considered as a cold initializer which is capable of forming the crystalline ribbon on the surface of the melt as claimed since it initiates cooling of the surface of the melt (1));
a segmented cooled thinning controller including gas jets and disposed above the crucible, wherein the segmented cooled thinning controller is configured to cool at least a portion of the ribbon, wherein the segmented cooled thinning controller is disposed downstream of the cold initializer along a pull direction of the crystalline ribbon (see, e.g., Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach that gas cooler (19) includes a plurality of nozzles (31) which supply a cooling gas to locally cool the surface of the melt (1); moreover, the portion of the cooler (19) located to the right of the gas inlet may be considered as a segmented cooled thinning controller as claimed since it is disposed downstream along a pull direction of the crystalline ribbon and includes segmented portions separated by the gas nozzles (31));
a uniform melt-back heater disposed below the crucible opposite the segmented cooled thinning controller, wherein the uniform melt-back heater is configured to uniformly heat the melt to melt back an underside of the crystalline ribbon while the segmented cooled thinning controller cools the ribbon, thereby producing a targeted thickness profile before the crystalline ribbon separates from the melt (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 7, l. 23 which teach that heaters (5) and (6) are configured to uniformly heat the melt (1), are disposed below the crucible (3), and are located opposite the gas cooler (19); moreover, the heaters (5) and (6) are capable of melting back an underside of the ribbon (22) while the gas cooler (19) cools a topside of the ribbon (22) to produce a targeted thickness profile); and
a puller configured to i) pull the crystalline ribbon formed on a surface of the melt in the crucible (See Fig. 1 and col. 7, ll. 5-23 which teach that a pulling mechanism including guide rollers (20) and (21) is used to pull the ribbon crystal from the melt (1)) and ii) separate the crystalline ribbon from the melt at a raised height above the crucible edge, the raised height being configured to stabilize a meniscus of the melt (See, e.g., Fig. 3(a) and col. 8, l. 44 to col. 9, l. 48 which teach that in one embodiment the crystal growth apparatus is configured to separate the crystalline ribbon (22) from the melt at a selected and predetermined raised height above the crucible edge under conditions which maintain a meniscus and which prevents overflow of the melt. See also col. 6, ll. 8-19 which specifically teaches that the surface of the melt can be held up to about 10 mm higher than the edge of the crucible at the pulling port. Since Kudo teaches that the melt and, hence, the ribbon may be maintained up to 10 mm higher than the edge of the crucible this necessarily will improve meniscus stability and prevent overflow of the melt beyond the crucible edge. Moreover, since the height of the crystalline ribbon above the crucible edge determines the size and shape of the meniscus it 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 and set the optimal raised height of the crystalline ribbon within the disclosed range of up to 10 mm in order to form a meniscus having the desired shape and stability and, subsequently, a ribbon crystal having the desired materials properties and thickness.).
Kudo also does not teach that each of the gas jets are individually-controllable with each of the individually-controllable gas jets being independently adjustable to direct a discrete flow to a different lateral portion of the ribbon, and wherein the gas jets are cooperatively controlled to establish a selected lateral thickness profile across the ribbon having a minimum lateral feature size. However, in at least Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶[0033]-[0066] Glabbeek teaches an analogous system and method for the growth of ribbon crystals (10B) from a melt which is cooled using a plurality of gas nozzles (32). In Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0036]-[0044] Glabbeek specifically teaches that the gas jets (32) each strike a relatively small part of the sheet wafer (10B) with the total size of the area being cooled depending on factors such as the gas flow rate, gas type, jet (32) size, speed of the growing crystal (10B), the temperature of the molten Si, and the location of the gas jets (32). Any number and types of gases and flow rates may be used to control the localized thickness of the growing sheet wafer (10B). Moreover, as explained specifically in ¶[0052], the thickness is monitored during crystal (10B) growth using detectors (35) which continually measure the thickness and adjust the fluid flow through individual jets (32) in order to ensure that there is a rapid response to any changes in growth conditions and a more uniform sheet crystal can be grown. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Glabbeek and would be motivated to utilize individually-controllable and adjustable gas jets to deliver a discrete gas flow to different lateral portions of the surface of the melt as part of the gas cooler (19) of Kudo in order to obtain greater lateral control over the width and thickness of the entire crystalline sheet independent of the melt depth during crystal growth such that a more uniform sheet crystal having the desired materials properties is obtained.
Kudo also does not explicitly teach that the flow rate is dynamically adjusted in response to a measurement of thickness variations across the ribbon. However, in at least col. 6, ll. 55-59 of Kudo teaches blowing argon or helium through the nozzles (31) at a controlled flow rate which necessarily means the flow rate is capable of being dynamically controlled (i.e., changed or adjusted in real time) based upon one or more measured materials parameters such as the ribbon thickness. Alternatively, as explained specifically in ¶[0052], Glabbeek teaches that the thickness is monitored during crystal (10B) growth using detectors(35) which continually measure the thickness and adjust the fluid flow through the jets (32) in order to ensure that there is a rapid response to any changes in growth conditions and a more uniform sheet crystal can be grown. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Glabbeek and would be motivated to dynamically adjust the gas flow through the gas cooler (19) of Kudo in response to the measured sheet (10B) thickness in order to produce a more uniform sheet crystal.
Kudo and Glabbeek do not teach that the segmented cooled thinning controller is configured to selectively cool thinner lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon after the crystalline ribbon has been formed by the cold initializer and while the crystalline ribbon remains floating on the melt. However, in at least Figs.5A-C and ¶¶[0050]-[0056] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Mackintosh teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for initializing, widening, and sustaining growth of a crystalline ribbon on a surface of the melt. The apparatus includes, inter alia, a cold initializer (502), a widener (504), and a sustainer (506) which are used to initiate crystal growth and then selectively cool thinner lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon (514) in order to widen the solidified ribbon. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Mackintosh and would be motivated to supply the gas cooler (19) of Kudo and Glabbeek as a cold initializer (502) and a widener (504) which functions as a segmented cooled thinning controller that selectively cools lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon as claimed in order to produce a ribbon crystal having the desired lateral size, thickness, and materials properties. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
With respect to the aspects of claim 16 which relate to dynamically adjusting the flowrate in response to a measurement of thickness variations across the ribbon, it is noted that this limitation appears to relate to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its actual structure. It has previously been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. In this case since the gas cooler (19) of Kudo as modified by Glabbeek and Mackintosh is capable of being dynamically adjusted in response to measurements of thickness variations across the ribbon it therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Kudo teaches that operation of the uniform melt-back heater and the segmented cooled thinning controller is configured to establish a thermal gradient across the ribbon that maintains the underside in a molten state and the topside in a solid state (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach that the heater (5) melts an underside of the ribbon (22) while the gas cooler (19) maintains a topside of the ribbon (22) in a solid state).
Regarding claim 18, Kudo teaches that the segmented cooled thinning controller is adjacent to the cold initializer (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach that the left and right halves of the gas cooler (19) on either side of the gas inlet which constitute the cold initializer and the segmented cooled thinning controller are adjacent to each other).
Regarding claim 21, Kudo teaches that the melt is molten silicon and the ribbon is crystalline silicon (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 6, ll. 14-17 and col. 7, ll. 5-18 which teach the melt (1) and crystalline ribbon (22) are comprised of Si).
Regarding claim 23, Kudo does not teach that each of the individually controllable gas jets is controlled in response to a measurement of thickness variations across the ribbon. However, as explained specifically in ¶[0052], Glabbeek teaches that the thickness is monitored during crystal (10B) growth using detectors (35) which continually measure the thickness and adjust the fluid flow through the jets (32) in order to ensure that there is a rapid response to any changes in growth conditions and a more uniform sheet crystal can be grown. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Glabbeek and would be motivated to dynamically adjust the gas flow through individual gas jets in the gas cooler (19) of Kudo in response to localized measurements of the sheet (10B) thickness in order to produce a more uniform sheet crystal.
Regarding claim 26, Kudo teaches that the selected and maintained raised height of the crystalline ribbon above the crucible edge is between 0.2 mm and 2 mm to maintain meniscus stability and to prevent overflow of the melt beyond the crucible edge (See, e.g., col. 6, ll. 8-19 which teach that the surface of the melt can be held up to about 10 mm higher than the edge of the crucible at the pulling port which covers the entirety of the claimed range. Since Kudo teaches that the melt and, hence, the ribbon may be maintained up to 10 mm higher than the edge of the crucible this necessarily will improve meniscus stability and prevent overflow of the melt beyond the crucible edge. Moreover, since the height of the crystalline ribbon above the crucible edge determines the size and shape of the meniscus it 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 and set the optimal raised height of the crystalline ribbon within the disclosed range of up to 10 mm in order to form a meniscus having the desired shape and stability and, subsequently, a ribbon crystal having the desired materials properties and thickness.).
Regarding claim 30, Kudo teaches that the segmented cooled thinning controller and the uniform melt-back heater define a melt-back thickness-control zone disposed between the cold initializer and the crucible edge at which the crystalline ribbon separates from the melt (see, e.g., Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach that the gas cooler (19) and the heaters (5) and (6) define what may be considered as a melt-back thickness control zone where the crystalline ribbon (22) separates from the melt).
Regarding claim 31, Kudo, Glabbeek, and Mackintosh do not explicitly teach that the segmented cooled thinning controller is configured to locally increase growth or thickening of the crystalline ribbon at the thinner lateral portions while the uniform melt-back heater uniformly reduces a thickness of the crystalline ribbon from below. However, this limitation does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. It has previously been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. In this case at least the gas cooler (19) of Kudo as modified by Glabbeek and Mackintosh is capable of increasing growth or thickening of the crystalline ribbon (22) at the thinner lateral portions while the heaters (5) and (6) of Kudo are capable of reducing a thickness of the crystalline ribbon from below as claimed.
Regarding claim 32, Kudo, Glabbeek, and Mackintosh do not explicitly teach that the targeted thickness profile is produced while an underside of the crystalline ribbon remains in contact with the melt and before the puller separates the crystalline ribbon from the melt. However, this limitation does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. It has previously been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. In this case at least the gas cooler (19) and heaters (5) and (6) of Kudo as modified by Glabbeek and Mackintosh are capable of producing a targeted thickness profile while an underside of the crystalline ribbon remains in contact with the melt and before the puller separates the crystalline ribbon from the melt as claimed.
Regarding claim 33, Kudo teaches that each of the individually-controllable gas jets corresponds to a respective lateral control region of the crystalline ribbon (see Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 of Kudo which teach that gas flow emerging from different gas nozzles within the gas cooler (19) reach a corresponding lateral control region of the ribbon (22); also, see supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1 in which Glabbeek teaches the use of individually controllable gas jets while Mackintosh teaches cooling lateral regions of the crystalline ribbon), but does not explicitly teach that the gas flow rate of each individually-controllable gas jet is independently adjusted to correct a thickness of the respective lateral control region. However, this limitation does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. It has previously been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. In this case the gas cooler (19) of Kudo as modified by Glabbeek to include individually-controllable gas jets is capable of being independently adjusted to correct a thickness of the respective lateral control region.
Regarding claim 34, Kudo and Glabbeek teach that the discrete flows from the individually-controllable gas jets reach the crystalline ribbon without passing through an interposed gas-diffusing structure (see, e.g., Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, l. 22 to col. 10, l. 2 which teach that gas flow emerging from each individual gas nozzle or jet within the gas cooler (19) directly reaches the crystalline ribbon (22) without passing through any other gas diffusing structure).
Claims 2, 8, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo in view of Glabbeek and further in view of Mackintosh and still further in view of International Patent Appl. Publ. No. WO 2015/148181 A1 to Kellerman, et al. (“Kellerman”).
Regarding claim 2, Kudo, Glabbeek, and Mackintosh do not teach two insulating diffusion barriers disposed on the crucible between the segmented cooled thinning controller and the uniform melt-back heater, wherein the two insulating diffusion barriers are disposed in the melt on opposite sides of the crystalline ribbon formed on the melt. However, in at least Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0023]-[0033] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Kellerman teaches an analogous embodiment of an apparatus (100) for the horizontal growth of a ribbon crystal from a melt (106) contained within a crucible (104). A heat diffusion barrier assembly (108) comprised of two heat diffusion barriers (110) and (111) is provided within the crucible and on opposite sides of the ribbon crystal (308) in order to control the upward flow of heat and provide a more uniform heat flow density. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kellerman and would be motivated to provide two insulating diffusion barriers within the crucible of Kudo which is located between the gas cooler (19) and heater (5) and on opposite sides of the ribbon crystal in order to provide a more uniform heat flow density during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 8, Kudo, Glabbeek, and Mackintosh do not teach an insulating diffusion barrier disposed on the crucible between the cold initializer and the segmented cooled thinning controller. However, in at least Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0023]-[0033] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Kellerman teaches an analogous embodiment of an apparatus (100) for the horizontal growth of a ribbon crystal from a melt (106) contained within a crucible (104). A heat diffusion barrier assembly (108) comprised of two heat diffusion barriers (110) and (111) is provided within the crucible and on opposite sides of the ribbon crystal (308) in order to control the upward flow of heat and provide a more uniform heat flow density. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kellerman and would be motivated to provide two insulating diffusion barriers within the crucible of Kudo and between the gas cooler (19) and heater (5) in order to provide a more uniform heat flow density during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 19, Kudo, Glabbeek, and Mackintosh do not teach two insulating diffusion barriers disposed on the crucible between the segmented cooled thinning controller and the uniform melt-back heater, wherein the insulating diffusion barriers are disposed in the melt on opposite sides of the ribbon formed on the melt. However, in at least Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0023]-[0033] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Kellerman teaches an analogous embodiment of an apparatus (100) for the horizontal growth of a ribbon crystal from a melt (106) contained within a crucible (104). A heat diffusion barrier assembly (108) comprised of two heat diffusion barriers (110) and (111) is provided within the crucible and on opposite sides of the ribbon crystal (308) in order to control the upward flow of heat and provide a more uniform heat flow density. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kellerman and would be motivated to provide two insulating diffusion barriers within the crucible of Kudo which is located between the gas cooler (19) and heater (5) and on opposite sides of the ribbon crystal in order to provide a more uniform heat flow density during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 22, Kudo, Glabbeek, and Mackintosh do not teach an insulating diffusion barrier disposed on the crucible between the cold initializer and the segmented cooled thinning controller. However, in at least Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0023]-[0033] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Kellerman teaches an analogous embodiment of an apparatus (100) for the horizontal growth of a ribbon crystal from a melt (106) contained within a crucible (104). A heat diffusion barrier assembly (108) comprised of two heat diffusion barriers (110) and (111) is provided within the crucible and on opposite sides of the ribbon crystal (308) in order to control the upward flow of heat and provide a more uniform heat flow density. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kellerman and would be motivated to provide two insulating diffusion barriers within the crucible of Kudo and between the gas cooler (19) and heater (5) in order to provide a more uniform heat flow density during crystal growth.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo in view of Glabbeek and further in view of Mackintosh and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0271899 to Kellerman, et al. (“Kellerman III”).
Regarding claim 27, Kudo and Glabbeek do not teach an impinging gas jet locally directed at the meniscus between the crystalline ribbon surface and the crucible edge. However, in Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶[0037]-[0042] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Kellerman III teaches an analogous system and method for the growth of a ribbon crystal (13) from a melt (10). In Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0037]-[0038] Kellerman III specifically teaches that a gas jet (22) may be used under the meniscus (27) in order to stabilize the meniscus by increasing local pressure in the melt. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide a gas jet (22) under the meniscus in the apparatus of Kudo in order to further stabilize the meniscus by increasing the local pressure in the melt.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 8, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action which were necessitated by applicants’ claim amendments.
Applicants initially argue that Kudo does not teach the claimed sequence in which the ribbon is first formed by a cold initializer, the segmented thinning controller is disposed downstream along a pull direction to selectively cool thinner lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon, or the claimed cooperative operation with the uniform melt-back heater. See applicants’ 7/8/26 reply, pp. 9-12 and 14-15. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive and is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. First, it is noted that the aspects of the claim which relate to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus do not distinguish it from a prior art apparatus as long as the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. In this case the language of claims 1 and 16 does not clearly identify the “cold initializer” and “segmented cooled thinning controller” as two structurally separate components which operate independent of each other. In this regard, the left side of the gas cooler (19) in Fig. 1 of Kudo may be considered as a “cold initializer” while the right side of that same gas cooler (19) may be broadly considered as a “segmented cooled thinning controller” which is located downstream of the cold initializer while the heaters (5) and (6) are equated with the “uniform melt-back heater” as claimed. Moreover, the gas cooler (19) of Kudo as modified by the adjustable gas nozzles (32) of Glabbeek is capable of initiating formation of the crystalline ribbon and then independently adjusting different gas flows while the heaters (5) and (6) of Kudo are capable of uniformly heating the melt to melt back an underside of the crystalline ribbon as claimed. Then Figs.5A-C and ¶¶[0050]-[0056] of Mackintosh are specifically relied upon to teach that the use of, inter alia, a cold initializer (502) with a separate widener (504) and a sustainer (506) located downstream in the pulling direction is known in the art and that these components are used to initiate crystal growth and then selectively cool thinner lateral portions of the crystalline ribbon (514) in order to widen the solidified ribbon and produce the desired materials properties.
Applicants then argue that Glabbeek does not remedy deficiencies in Kudo as Glabbeek does not disclose a cold initializer, the claimed downstream thickness-control arrangement, or the cooperation between selective top-side cooling and uniform underside melt-back. Id. at pp. 12-13. Applicants’ arguments are noted, but remain unpersuasive as it amounts to arguing against the references individually. In this case it is Kudo (and now Mackintosh) rather than Glabbeek that is relied upon to teach the cold initializer, segmented cooled thinning controller, and melt-back heater as claimed. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, as acknowledged by applicants, Glabbeek is merely introduced to show that the use of variable-flow gas jets and thickness feedback during the growth of ribbon crystals is known in the art and the Examiner has provided the requisite motivation to modify Kudo to include the individually-controllable gas jets of Glabbeek to meet the claim. Moreover, as explained supra, the aspects of the claims which relate to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus do not carry patentable weight as long as the apparatus is capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Applicants then specifically argue against the rejection of claim 16 by contending that claim 16 additionally requires that each gas jet have “an independently adjustable flow rate to direct a discrete flow to a different lateral portion of the ribbon” with the flow rate being “dynamically adjusted in response to a measurement of thickness variations across the ribbon” while the gas jets are “cooperatively controlled to establish a selected lateral thickness profile across the ribbon having a minimum lateral feature size.” See applicants’ 7/8/2026 reply, pp. 15-16. This argument is not persuasive since the features that applicants are relying upon again relate to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. As detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 16, the gas cooler (19) of Kudo as modified by the adjustable gas nozzles of Glabbeek (32) and the cold initializer (502), widener (504), and sustainer (506) of Mackintosh is capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Applicants refer specifically to the dependent claims at pp. 16-17 of their July 8, 2026, reply and argue that the dependent claims are also patentable as the cited references do not remedy the deficiencies in Kudo and Glabbeek. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it is the Examiner’s position that the combination of Kudo, Glabbeek, and Mackintosh teach each and every limitation recited in claims 1 and 16 for reasons noted supra.
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on (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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights