DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,762,49135 to Williams, et al. (hereinafter “Williams”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0132511 to Scheich, et al. (“Scheich”).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a crystal pulling system for growing a monocrystalline ingot from a silicon melt (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and entire reference which teach a Czochralski crystal growth furnace (10) for pulling a moncrystalline Si crystal from a melt),
the system having a pull axis (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l. 38 which teach that the furnace (10) includes a shell (14) and a pulling chamber (16) having a pull axis) and comprising:
a housing defining a growth chamber (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l. 38 which teach that the furnace (10) includes a shell (14) which defines a growth chamber (18) therein);
a crucible assembly disposed within the growth chamber for containing the silicon melt (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l. 38 which teach that the furnace (10) includes crucible assembly (20) for containing a Si melt); and
a composite polycrystalline silicon feed tube that extends through the housing into the growth chamber to feed polycrystalline silicon into the crucible assembly, the composite polycrystalline silicon feed tube being made of quartz and at least one dopant (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2 & 6, col. 4, ll. 39-57, and col. 9, ll. 3-58 which teach a delivery tube (32) made of quartz that extends through the shell (14) and into the crucible (20); moreover the delivery tube (32) necessarily contains or, alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would reasonably expect the delivery tube (32) to contain one or more impurities which may be considered as a dopant as claimed since the feed tube (32) itself will not be comprised of 100% pure quartz).
Williams does not teach that the dopant is elemental silicon with the concentration of dopant being at least 20 ppm. However, in ¶¶[0005]-[0006] Scheich teaches that fused silica is brittle and cannot be easily worked mechanically and that the mechanical working is improved by producing a composite material in which elemental Si powder is mixed with fused silica powder to produce a Si-SiO2 composite material which is comprised of 60 to 85% fused silica (i.e., 40 to 15% Si). Then in ¶¶[0014]-[0073] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Scheich further teaches that the Si-SiO2 composite material may be produced by mixing elemental Si powder with the fused silica powder to produce a slurry which may be cast into the desired shape and then sintered to produce a Si-SiO2 composite material with 0.1 to 5 % Si by weight which exhibits improved mechanical strength, a low porosity, and produces more uniform temperature distributions. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to produce the quartz tube of Williams from a Si-SiO2 composite material which includes a Si concentration of at least 0.1 to 5 wt. % (i.e., greater than 20 ppm) in order to yield a quartz glass product which exhibits improved mechanical strength, reduced porosity, and a more uniform temperature distribution during heating.
Regarding claim 4, Williams does not teach that the concentration of dopant is at least 100 ppm. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in at least ¶¶[0005]-[0006] Scheich teaches that fused silica is brittle and cannot be easily worked mechanically and that the mechanical working is improved by producing a composite material in which elemental Si powder is mixed with fused silica powder to produce a Si-SiO2 composite material which is comprised of 60 to 85% fused silica (i.e., 40 to 15% Si). Then in ¶¶[0014]-[0073] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Scheich further teaches that the Si-SiO2 composite material may be produced by mixing elemental Si powder with the fused silica powder to produce a slurry which may be cast into the desired shape and then sintered to produce a Si-SiO2 composite material with 0.1 to 5 % Si by weight which exhibits improved mechanical strength, a low porosity, and produces more uniform temperature distributions. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to produce the quartz tube of Williams from a Si-SiO2 composite material which includes a Si concentration of at least 0.1 to 5 wt. % (i.e., greater than 100 ppm) in order to yield a quartz glass product which exhibits improved mechanical strength, reduced porosity, and a more uniform temperature distribution during heating.
Regarding claim 5, Williams does not teach that the concentration of dopant is from 100 ppm to 10,000 ppm. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in at least ¶¶[0005]-[0006] Scheich teaches that fused silica is brittle and cannot be easily worked mechanically and that the mechanical working is improved by producing a composite material in which elemental Si powder is mixed with fused silica powder to produce a Si-SiO2 composite material which is comprised of 60 to 85% fused silica (i.e., 40 to 15% Si). Then in ¶¶[0014]-[0073] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Scheich further teaches that the Si-SiO2 composite material may be produced by mixing elemental Si powder with the fused silica powder to produce a slurry which may be cast into the desired shape and then sintered to produce a Si-SiO2 composite material with 0.1 to 5 % Si by weight which exhibits the desired improvement in mechanical strength, a low porosity, and produces more uniform temperature distributions. In this regard the amount of Si in the Si-SiO2 composite material may be considered as 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 the optimal Si concentration, including within the claimed range of 100 to 10,000 ppm, necessary to produce a Si-SiO2 composite material which may be used to produce the quartz tube of Williams which exhibits improved mechanical strength, reduced porosity, and a more uniform temperature distribution during heating.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Scheich and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2008/0196448 to Borens, et al. (“Borens”). It is noted that claim 6 appears to be a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113. Because of the nature of product-by-process claims the Examiner cannot ordinarily focus on the precise difference between the claimed product and the disclosed product. It is then Applicants’ burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (CAFC 1983). See also footnote 11 O.G. Notice 1162 59-61, wherein a 35 USC 102/103 rejection is authorized in the case of product-by-process claims because the exact identity of the claimed product or the prior art product cannot be determined by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that the recited limitations appear to relate to the manner of making the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. In this case, since Williams and Scheich teach a composite polycrystalline silicon feed tube having the claimed composition and structure it must necessarily possess or, alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would reasonably expect it to possess the same properties. Alternatively, in Fig. 1, ¶[0037], and ¶¶[0045]-[0051] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Borens teaches a method of producing a sintered quartz body such as a silicon feed tube by the steps of:
introducing a slip slurry into a mold, the slip slurry comprising silica, elemental silicon, and a liquid carrier (see, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶¶[0009]-[0012], and ¶¶[0045]-[0049] which teach pouring a slurry comprised of silica, metal oxides, and a liquid carrier in the form of alkali-free water into a plaster mold; see also ¶¶[0014]-[0073] of Scheich which teach that the Si-SiO2 composite material may be formed as a slurry comprised of silicon and silica powder particles that is cast into a mold);
removing at least a portion of the liquid carrier from the mold to form a polycrystalline silicon feed tube green body (see, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶[0013], and ¶¶[0045]-[0049] which further teach that the plaster mold takes up water from the slip so that drying of the body of slip occurs);
separating the polycrystalline silicon feed tube green body from the mold (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and ¶[0019] which teach that the intermediate body is removed from the mold); and
sintering the polycrystalline silicon feed tube green body to dry and densify the polycrystalline silicon feed tube green body to form the composite polycrystalline silicon feed tube. (see, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶¶[0014]-[0015], and ¶¶[0045]-[0049] which teach sintering the intermediate body to form a densified quartz product).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the slip casting process of Borens to produce the quartz feed tube of Williams and Scheich in order to produce a high quality, uniform, and dense quartz tube which is capable of supplying polycrystalline Si to the melt in the Czochralski crystal growth system of Williams.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2025, have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0132511 to Scheich, et al. has been introduced to teach the newly added claim limitations.
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