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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2 and 8-11 are cancelled. 1, 4, 5 and 7 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claim 12 is newly added. Claims 1, 3-7 and 12 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "... estimating whether the oxygen concentration in the silicon single crystal will be in a high-oxygen mode or a low-oxygen mode based on a minute variation in the height position of the melt surface …", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 4 recites "... estimating whether the oxygen concentration in the silicon single crystal will be in the high-oxygen mode or the low-oxygen mode based on the identified correlation …", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “high” and “low” in claims 1 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” and “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the upper end". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi et al (US 20130263773 A1, “Takanashi”) in view of Manabu et al (WO 2009025336 A1, machine translation, “’Manabu”) and Wakabayashi et al (US 5408952 A, “Wakabayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takanashi teaches a method of estimating an oxygen concentration in a silicon single crystal comprising measuring a distance/gap (height position) of a melt level 13a (melt surface) of a silicon melt 13 in a quartz crucible 11 when pulling up the silicon single crystal 15 (figs 1 and 11, abstract, 0018, 0024, 0029, 0035, 0039, 0040, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0072, 0125, 0126, 0139, 0140, 0151, 0152); and controlling/regulating/estimating the oxygen concentration in the silicon single crystal within a certain value (whether the oxygen concentration in the silicon single crystal will be in a high-oxygen mode or a low-oxygen mode) base on a measured minute variation in the distance/gap (height position) of the melt surface during the entire period of pulling the silicon single crystal (0018, 0020, 0024, 0034, 0035, 0039-0041, 0072, 0073, 0125, 0141, 0142, 0152, 0156).
Takanashi teaches measuring the height position when pulling the silicon single crystal as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach applying a lateral magnetic field to the silicon melt. However, Manabu teaches a method of estimating an oxygen concentration in a silicon single crystal, wherein pulling up the silicon single crystal is performed while applying a lateral magnetic field to a silicon melt (0023, 0027, 0067-0070, 0082, 0088, 0094, 0099, 0104, 0109, 0114-0117, 0123). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Takanashi per teachings of Manabu in order to control the convection in the silicon melt (Manabu 0023, 0027).
Takanashi/Manabu teaches the height position of the melt surface being measured/calculated during the entire process of pulling the crystal as addressed above, and further teaches that it takes about 2 seconds for taking information/data and about 100ms or 30 ms for processing the measured information/data (0120-0125), inexplicitly teaches the height position of the melt surface is periodically measured with a sampling period of 50 seconds or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); also see MPEP 2144.05 I. Also, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process (e.g., Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (C). Furthermore, Wakabayashi teaches a method, wherein a liquid level is repeatedly/periodically measured, and a sampling time is 0.1 sec and a response time is 10 seconds (col 9 line 35 to col 10 line 65; col 12 lines 5-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Takanashi/Manabu per teachings of Wakabayashi in order to provide suitable sampling inspection for producing crystal with improved quality (Wakabayashi col 3 line 60 to col 4 line 25 and col 9 line 35 to col 10 line 65; col 12 lines 5-30). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Takanashi/Manabu/Wakabayashi teaches a resolution of a measurement value of the height position of the melt surface is 0.1mm (Wakabayash col 9 lines 63-65; col 12 lines 10-21). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Takanashi/Manabu/Wakabayashi teaches the minute variation in the height position of the melt surface and silicon single crystal pull-up as addressed above, and further teaches a relationship of the minute variation in the height position of the melt surface with respect to the oxygen concentration of a crystal length direction is identified from previous result data on silicon single crystal pull-up (Takanashi fig 1, 0075, 0147, 0148, 0154; Manabu 0014-0016, 0022, 0023, 0034, 0035, 0068, 0070, 0071, 0096, 0101, 0103, 0106, 0111, 0113-0114, 0117, 0119, 0120, 0122, 0123, table 16, 17, 18; Wakabayashi col 12 lines 1-21), e.g., forming a correlation between the minute variation in the height position of the melt surface and a change in the oxygen concentration is identified from previous previously collected result data on silicon single crystal pull-up, and estimating whether the oxygen concentration in the silicon single crystal will be in the high-oxygen mode or the low-oxygen mode based on the identified correlation (Takanashi fig 1, 0018, 0021, 0034, 0035, 0039-0041, 0072, 0075, 0147, 0148, 0154; Wakabayashi col 8 lines 46-66, col 11 line 55 to col 12 line 30), it still would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the oxygen concentration in the silicon single crystal can be estimated based on the identified correlation because Manabu explicitly teaches the correlation between the minute variation in the height position of the melt surface and a change in the oxygen concentration is identified from previously collected result data on silicon single crystal pull-up as just addressed above.
Regarding claim 5, Takanashi/Manabu/Wakabayashi teaches the oxygen concentration and silicon single crystal pull-up as addressed above, and further teaches a crystal length direction (crystal part) where the oxygen concentration of a crystal length direction appears is identified from previous result data on silicon single crystal pull-up (Takanashi 0018, 0021, 0034, 0035, 0039-0041, 0072, 0075, 0126, 0147, 0148, 0154; Manabu 0014-0016, 0022, 0023, 0068, 0070, 0071, 0096, 0101, 0103, 0106, 0111, 0113-0114, 0117, 0119, 0120, 0122, 0123, table 16, 17, 18; Wakabayashi col 8 lines 46-66, col 11 line 55 to col 12 line 30), and measuring the height position of the melt surface at a period in which the crystal having the crystal length direction (crystal part) is grown (Takanashi 0018, 0021, 0034, 0035, 0039-0041, 0072, 0075, 0083, 0118, 0126, 0147, 0148, 0154; Manabu 0023, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0114-0117, 0123; Wakabayashi col 8 lines 46-66, col 11 line 55 to col 12 line 30), reading on a period in which the identified crystal part is grown is set as an oxygen concentration estimation period for measuring the height position of the melt surface.
Regarding claim 6, Takanashi/Manabu/Wakabayashi teaches that the oxygen concentration in the silicon single crystal is estimated (measured/evaluated) from the minute variation (fluctuation) in the height position of the melt surface measured within a certain range ranging downward from the upper end of a body section of the silicon single crystal (Manabu 0091, 0096, 0101, 0106, 0111, 0114-0117, tables 16-18).
Regarding claim 7, Takanashi/Manabu/Wakabayashi teaches the minute variation (fluctuation) in the height position of the melt surface as addressed above, and further teaches a heat shield (shielding body) disposed above the silicon melt (Takanashi figs 1 and 11, abstract, 0018, 0024, 0029, 0035, 0039, 0040, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0072, 0125, 0126, 0139, 0140, 0151, 0152; Manabu 0048, 0051, 0052), and the minute variation in the height position of the melt surface is grasped by measuring the height position of the melt surface with reference to a lower end of the heat shielding body disposed above the silicon melt (Takanashi figs 1 and 11, abstract, 0018, 0024, 0029, 0035, 0039, 0040, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0072, 0125, 0126, 0139, 0140, 0151, 0152; Wakabayashi fig 7).
Regarding claim 12, Takanashi/Manabu/Wakabayashi teaches that the oxygen concentration estimation period is a period during which the silicon single crystal grows as an entire pulling length as addressed above, and further teaches the pulling length is up to 1000 mm/1200 mm (Manabu 0094, 0101, 0106, 0111, 0120, Wakabayashi fig 5), overlapping the instantly claim 100mm. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714