DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/9/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 have been amended. Claims 2 and 5 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-10 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have made claim objections and the § 112(b) to claim 5 moot as claim 5 was cancelled. Therefore, the claim objection and the § 112(b) rejection set forth in the office of 9/16/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 in regards to FALCOETTI have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues the present invention aligns the upper positioning protrusion and the lower positioning groove for precise joining of the upper ring and the lower ring before bonding the upper ring and the lower ring completely, and FALCOETTI’s parts are not meant for being bonded together, therefore, it would not be obvious for a person skill in the art toe derive the present invention by combining FACOETTI with KANG and ROGERS and the Applicant points to the their Specification.
The Examiner would kindly like to note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2015/199500 A1, provided in the IDS of 7/6/2022), hereinafter KANG, in view of Rogers (U.S. 9,123,650), hereinafter ROGERS, and Qi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0278681), hereinafter QI.
Regarding claim 1, KANG teaches: A method of bonding silicon parts using silicon powder and high-frequency heating device (KANG teaches a method of bonding silicon parts [⁋56].), the method comprising the steps of: forming concave and convex coupling surfaces on the bonding surfaces of a lower ring and an upper ring (KANG teaches preparing two polysilicon fragments (110/120) in which a bonding surface may be conformed in shape with each other [⁋56]. KANG shows the bonding surfaces are concave and convex coupling surfaces [Fig. 2; ⁋63].); mounting the lower ring and the upper ring on a silicon part fusion bonding apparatus (KANG shows the fragments are mounted on a silicon part fusion bonding apparatus [Figs. 2, 5, 7]); injecting single crystal silicon powder into the concave and convex coupling surfaces on the bonding surfaces of the lower ring and the upper ring (KANG teaches filling the concave groove part of the bonding surface with silicon nanopowder [⁋56; Figs. 2-5]); and heating and fusing the bonding surfaces of the lower ring and the upper ring (KANG teaches heating and fusing the bonding surfaces [Figs. 2-5; ⁋56]), wherein the step of forming the concave and convex coupling surfaces on the bonding surfaces of the lower ring and the upper ring is carried out by forming a protrusion protruding from the underside of the upper ring and a concave groove on top of the lower ring in such a manner as to be coupled to the protrusion of the upper ring (KANG teaches the lower faces of the upper fragment (110) form protrusions (112) and the upper faces of the lower fragments (120) form recesses to engage with the upper fragment protrusions (112) [Figs. 2-5; ⁋63-66]), . . . .
KANG is silent as to the fragments being an upper ring and a lower ring, and wherein the upper ring has an upper positioning protrusion protruding from the underside thereof, and the lower ring has a lower positioning groove formed on a given portion of top thereof in such a manner as to be coupled to the upper positioning protrusion of the upper ring, the lower positioning groove being formed between an outer center line and an outer circumferential line of the lower ring or being formed between an inner center line and an inner circumferential line of the lower ring, wherein the outer center line is located between a central circumferential line and the outer circumferential line of the lower ring and the inner center line is located between the central circumferential line and the inner circumferential line of the lower ring.
KANG is silent as to the fragments being an upper ring and a lower ring. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, ROGERS teaches a plasma processing chamber comprises a plasma confinement ring, wherein the plasma confinement ring has a two-piece structure comprising an upper ring portion (362) and a lower ring portion (364) and the upper loop portion (362) and the lower loop portion (364) thereof are bonded along the interface (370) by a suitable bonding method [Col. 7, lines 4-7; Col. 7, lines 21-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG, by having the fragments be an upper ring and a lower ring, as suggested by ROGERS, in order to enhance heat transfer and minimize polymer deposition on the inner diametric surface [Col. 7, lines 39-41].
KANG and ROGERS are silent as to: wherein the upper ring has an upper positioning protrusion protruding from the underside thereof, and the lower ring has a lower positioning groove formed on a given portion of top thereof in such a manner as to be coupled to the upper positioning protrusion of the upper ring, the lower positioning groove being formed between an outer center line and an outer circumferential line of the lower ring or being formed between an inner center line and an inner circumferential line of the lower ring, wherein the outer center line is located between a central circumferential line and the outer circumferential line of the lower ring and the inner center line is located between the central circumferential line and the inner circumferential line of the lower ring. In the same field of endeavor, confinement rings, QI teaches an upper ring (1002) and a lower ring (1000) [0081; Figs. 10-11]. QI teaches the upper ring (1002) has an upper positioning (1006) protruding from the underside and the lower ring (1000) has a lower positioning groove (1004) formed between an outer center line and an outer circumferential line of the lower ring, wherein the outer center line is located between a central circumferential line and the outer circumferential line of the lower ring and the inner center line is located between the central circumferential line and the inner circumferential line of the lower ring [Figs. 10-11; 0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG and ROGERS, by having a protrusion in a groove between an outer center line and an outer circumferential line, as suggested by QI, in order to overcome problems caused by asymmetric plasma [0084].
In the same field of endeavor, joining, FACOETTI teaches an upper ring (44) that has upper protrusions (48) protruding from the underside [Fig. 6; Col. 5, lines 18-21]. FACOETTI teaches the lower ring (40) has lower positioning grooves (41) formed on a portion of the top in such a manner as to be coupled to the upper positioning protrusion of the upper ring [Fig. 6; Col. 5, lines 6-7; Col. 5, lines 18-20]. FACOETTI teaches the groove is between an outer center line between the central circumferential line and an outer circumferential line of the lower ring or is between an inner center line between the central circumferential line and an inner circumferential line of the lower ring [Fig. 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG and ROGERS, by having the positioning grooves and positioning protrusions in the rings, as suggested by FACOETTI, in order for centering [Col. 5, lines 18-21].
Regarding claim 3, KANG teaches: wherein the concave groove is symmetrically formed around a central circumferential line on top of the lower ring and has the shape of a circular groove formed over the entire width of top of the lower ring (KANG teaches the lower faces of the upper fragment (110) form protrusions (112) and the upper faces of the lower fragments (120) form recesses to engage with the upper fragment protrusions (112) [Figs. 2-5; ⁋63-66]. ROGERS teaches two rings being formed together and the grooves being symmetrical as circular grooves along the center of the ring as KANG shows the protrusions and recesses are in the center.).
Regarding claim 6, ROGERS teaches: wherein the lower positioning groove is a hemispherical groove (ROGERS teaches positioning grooves (361) are semicircular [Fig. 3B; Col. 7, lines 8-15].).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2015/199500 A1), hereinafter KANG, Rogers (U.S. 9,123,650), hereinafter ROGERS, and Qi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0278681), hereinafter QI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KAWAGUCHI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0236494), hereinafter KAWAGUCHI.
Regarding claim 4, KANG, ROGERS and QI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein a distance to the deepest portion of the concave groove from top of the lower ring is 3 to 5 mm, and a length of the deepest portion of the concave groove along the width direction of top of the lower ring is within 70% of the entire width of top of the lower ring. In the same field of endeavor, rings, KAWAGUCHI teaches a ring with a surface length of 7 mm. The ring has a groove with a height of 3 mm and a width of 3 mm and the width is within 70% of the width direction of the entire width of the top of the ring [0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG, ROGERS and QI, by having depth of the groove be 3 mm and the width be within 70% of the width of the top surface of the ring, as suggested by KAWAGUCHI, in order to assure strength of the ring [0066].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2015/199500 A1), hereinafter KANG, Rogers (U.S. 9,123,650), hereinafter ROGERS, and Qi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0278681), hereinafter QI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0130724), hereinafter HE.
Regarding claim 7, KANG teaches: wherein after the silicon powder as a fusing agent is filled in a fusion portion between the lower ring and the upper ring (KANG teaches the silicon nanopowder is filled in the groove in a fusion portion between the two fragments [⁋64]), but is silent as to: the lower ring and the upper ring are mounted on a lower ring fixing device made of molybdenum and an upper ring fixing device made of molybdenum in the silicon part fusion bonding apparatus, respectively. In the same field of endeavor, rings, HE teaches two holders that are made from molybdenum [0112]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG, ROGERS, and QI, by having a holder made of molybdenum, as suggested by HE, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2015/199500 A1), hereinafter KANG, Rogers (U.S. 9,123,650), hereinafter ROGERS, and Qi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0278681), hereinafter QI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0283882), hereinafter CHO, and ARITA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0100058), hereinafter ARITA.
Regarding claim 8, KANG, ROGERS and QI teaches: applying a given pressure to a space between the lower ring and the upper ring by means of the lower ring fixing device and the upper ring fixing device (KANG teaches pressing the bonding surfaces together to connect the bonding surface to the molten silicon nanopowder [⁋12, 56].) and cooling the fusion portion (KANG teaches cooling the fusion portion [⁋20, 56].), but are silent as to: forming a vacuum atmosphere of 90 to 110 torr; injecting argon gas to maintain a vacuum level of 50 to 70 torr; operating upper heaters and lower heaters to increase an atmospheric temperature of a vacuum furnace in which a crucible is mounted; and operating side heaters capable of performing high-frequency induction heating to locally heat the fusion portion of the bonding surfaces.
In the same field of endeavor, bonding, CHO teaches vacuum is applied to the inside of the device to remove the air inside the device, and then argon gas is supplied into the device of a vacuum state to change the internal pressure of the device [0007]. CHO teaches operating upper heaters (222) and lower heaters (222) to increase an atmospheric temperature of a vacuum furnace (210) [0019; 0021; Fig. 2]. CHO teaches operating side heaters (221) capable of performing high-frequency induction heating [0021; Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG, ROGERS and QI, by having upper, lower, and side heaters and vacuuming the chamber and then filing it with argon gas, as suggested CHO, in order to prevent loss of heat [0009-0010].
KANG, ROGERS, QI and CHO do not teach forming a vacuum atmosphere of 90 to 110 torr and maintaining a vacuum level of 50 to 70 torr. In the same field of endeavor, silicon processes, ARITA teaches the atmosphere in the chamber (7) can be regulated in the range of about 0.01 to 2x105 Pa (7.5x10-5 torr to 150 torr), which falls within the claimed range [0094]. ARITA also teaches a crucible in a high-frequency induction furnace [0098; 0071]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG, ROGERS, QI and CHO, by forming a vacuum and mainlining the vacuum via argon in a range of 7.5x10-5 torr to 150 torr, as suggested by ARITA, in order to decrease the production rate [0006].
Regarding claim 9, ARITA further teaches: wherein a fusing temperature of the fusion portion through the operation of the side heaters capable of performing the high-frequency induction heating is in the range of 1500 to 1600°C (ARITA further teaches that the fusing temperature is preferably in the lower limit of 1,450°C and the upper limit is preferable 2,000°C or lower, which includes the claimed range [0050].).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 a s being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2015/199500 A1), hereinafter KANG, Rogers (U.S. 9,123,650), hereinafter ROGERS, Qi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0278681), hereinafter QI, Cho et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0283882), hereinafter CHO, and ARITA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0100058), hereinafter ARITA, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shimooka et al. (U. S. PGPUB 2010/0213822), hereinafter SHIMOOKA.
Regarding claim 10, KANG, ROGERS, QI, CHO and ARITA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including cooling and turning off the side heaters and decreasing the temperature [CHO: 0022-0023], but are silent as to decreasing the temperatures to 1400°C, 1200°C, 10000C, 900°C, 700°C, 500°C, and 300°C, while the temperature by the respective step being maintained for 10 to 20 minutes. In the same field of endeavor, silicon, SHIMOOKA teaches a cooling process from a temperature of at least 1600°C [0277]. SCHIMOOKA teaches the cooling speed is usually 100°C/min or lower, which would meet the claimed range of increments [0282]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KANG, ROGERS, QI, CHO, and ARITA, by having a cooling speed of 100°C/min, as suggested by SCHIMOOKA, in order to prevent deterioration of the productivity [0282].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights