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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/18/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 3 and 8 are cancelled. Independent claim 1 is amended. Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-14 are currently examined on the merits.
Specification
The amendment filed 03/11/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: for example, “the plates 102, 104 and shaft 150 are disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube 54 during use of the cover member (such as when polycrystalline silicon falls through the silicon feed tube 54 and as the cover member 100 is raised)” recited in newly added para. [0057B]. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 4-7 and 9-14 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 "... the one or more plates and shaft being disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube while adding the secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon to the crucible melt zone after the initial silicon charge has melted," which is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Claims 4-7 and 9-14 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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, 4-7 and 9-14 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 recited in claim 1 “…shaft being disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “shaft” refers to the previously recited shaft or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-14 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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, 6, 7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al (US 20110036860 A1, “Fujiwara”) in view of Chuang et al (US 20150284876 A1, “Chuang”), Taguchi et al (US 5858087 A, “Taguchi”) and Bender et al (US 20130233237 A1, “Bender”).
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara teaches a method for preparing a silicon melt in a crucible assembly of a crystal pulling system, the crystal pulling system comprising a housing defining a growth chamber 1 (figs 1 and 4, 0034), the crucible assembly 3 being disposed within the growth chamber 1 for containing the silicon melt 13 (figs 1 and 4, 0036-0039) and a central passage through which a single crystal (ingot) passes during ingot (single crystal) growth (figs 1, 4 and 5), the crucible assembly 3 comprising a bottom and an outer sidewall (figs 1 and 4), the method comprising adding an initial charge of solid raw material 12A comprising polycrystalline silicon to the crucible assembly 3 (fig 4(a), 0002, 0037, 0038 and 0051); lowering a lid 14 (cover member) through the central passage to cover at least a portion of the initial charge 12A (fig 4(b)-4(f), 0020, 0039-0040), the cover member (lid 14) comprising a bottom portion and a shaft 15 that supports the cover member (0039, 0040, 0051); heating the initial silicon charge 12A to produce the silicon melt 13 in the crucible assembly 3 while the lid 14 (cover member) covers at least a portion of the initial charge 12A (0037); adding a secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon 12B to the crucible melt zone after the initial silicon charge has melted (0037-0038, 0041), the secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon 12B being introduced through a raw material guide tube 25 (a silicon feed tube) (0020-0023, 0042, 0044, 0055, 0056), the cover member (lid 14) and shaft being disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube (raw material guide tube 25) while adding the secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon 12B to the crucible melt zone after the initial silicon charge has melted (figs 4(e) and 4(f)); melting the secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon to cause the silicon melt 13 (0037 and 0060-0061), the lid 14 (cover member) covering at least a portion of the silicon melt while adding the secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon to the crucible melt zone (fig 4(f)); and raising the lid 14 (cover member) after the secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon has melted (0039-0040 and 0065-0066).
Fujiwara teaches the cover member comprising the bottom portion being disposed exterior of the silicon feed tube as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the bottom portion being one or more plates. However, Chuang teaches a crystal growth method, wherein an insulation cover includes a graphite body 28 comprising first/second plates (0021-0028), and a wire/shaft that supports the over (fig 1, 0020, 0021). 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 Fujiwara per teachings of Chuang in order to provide a cover and effectively prevent thermal energy in a crucible from escaping (Chuang 0009-0012).
Fujiwara/Chuang teaches the silicon feed tube, the housing and the crucible assembly as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the silicon feed tube extending through the housing and into the crucible assembly. However, Taguchi teaches a method of pulling a crystal, wherein a silicon feed tube extends through a chamber/housing and into a crucible assembly (figs 12, 13, 21 and 22, col 15 lines 40-50). 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 Fujiwara/Chuang per teachings of Taguchi in order to provide a suitable way to supply source material to the crucible for growing the crystal with reduced defects (Taguchi col 1 lines 4-10; col 4 lines 22-36). It is also well established that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Fujiwara/Chuang/Taguchi teaches the crucible assembly comprising the outer sidewall as addressed above, and further teaches a heat shield that defines a central passage through which an ingot passes during ingot growth (Chuang fig 1, 0019, 0020, 0022, 0023, 0025, 0028; Taguchi figs 12, 13, 21 and 22), an inner weir that extends upward from the bottom, growth zone being disposed within the inner weir, and silicon melt flowing through an inner weir opening to the growth zone disposed within the inner weir (Taguchi figs 12, 13, 19, 21 and 22), but does not explicitly teach a central weir disposed between the outer sidewall and inner weir, a crucible melt zone being disposed between the outer sidewall and the central weir, an intermediate zone being disposed between the central weir and the inner weir, and the silicon melt flowing through a central weir opening to the intermediate zone disposed between the central weir and the inner weir. However, it is a known practice that a weir 407/ 507 (inner weir) that extends upward from the bottom a crucible assembly, and a weir 408/508 (central weir) disposed between the outer sidewall and inner weir, a melting region 412 (melt zone) disposed between the outer sidewall and the central weir 408, an interconnecting region 411 (intermediate zone) disposed between the central weir 408 and the inner weir 407, a growth region 410 (zone) disposed within the inner weir 407, the silicon melt flowing through a passageway 414 (central weir opening) to an interconnecting region 411 (intermediate zone) disposed between the central weir 408 and the inner weir 407, the silicon melt flowing through passageway 409 (inner weir opening) to a growth region 410 (zone) disposed within the inner weir 407, as taught by Bender (figs 4 and 5, 0064-0068, 0071-0073). 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 Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi per teachings of Bender in order to producing high purity silicon while achieving considerable cost savings (Bender 0018-0025). It is noted that the claimed invention calls for process claims, wherein the steps of the process are met by the applied prior art, and the structural limitations of the apparatus do not present a manipulative difference between the claimed process steps and the prior art process. It is also well established that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches the cover member (lid) as addressed above, and further teaches that the lid (cover member) can be made of quartz (insulator) or carbon material coated with SiC (Fujiwara 0040), and the cover comprising first/second plates being silicon carbide coated (Chuang 0021-0028). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07. Also, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches a method for forming a single crystal silicon ingot comprising preparing the melt of silicon in the crucible of the crystal pulling system as addressed in claim 1, and further teaches lowering a seed crystal to contact the melt after the cover member has been raised/removed (Fujiwara figs 4 and 5, 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 10, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches that the lid (cover member) is made of quartz (insulation) (Fujiwara 0040), e.g., at least a bottom surface having a layer of the insulation, meeting the claim. Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches the cover member (lid) comprising the insulation layer as addressed above, and further teaches the cover member having an axis that is parallel to the pull axis (Fujiwara fig 4), and further teaches that the thermal insulation cover 22/44 comprises a top plate member 26/42, a bottom member 286/46, an insulating member 32 is provided between the top member 26 and the bottom member 286 and the top member (second plate) being disposed above the bottom member (first plate) (Chuang figs 1-4, 0019-0029), e.g., the second plate being disposed above the first plate, and the one or more insulation layers being disposed between the first plate and the second plate. Furthermore, regarding apparatus limitations in a process claim, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 12, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches that the main body 24 comprising the top plate member 26 (first plate) and the base member having the bottom member 286 (second plate) is made of graphite (Chuang 0021). It is also well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches that the first and the second plates are silicon carbide coated (Chuang 0028). It is also well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara/Chuang/Taguchi/Bender as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Ooto Yasuhiro (JP 2004292288 A, machine translation, “Yasuhiro”),
Regarding claim 4, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches the cover member (lid) as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the cover member is lowered to within less than 30 mm from a bottom of the heat shield. However, it is a known practice that a heat shielding member 12 (cover member) is arranged at a position within a range of up to 10 cm above the lower end of a radiation screen 8 (heat shield) as taught by Yasuhiro (page 3), overlapping the instantly claimed range. 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 the relative distance between the cover member and the bottom of the heat shield of Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender as suggested by Yasuhiro in order to provide suitable conditions for promoting the melting of the raw material while controlling the gas distribution towards the melt surface (Yasuhiro page 3). Further it is 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 5, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches the cover member (lid) as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the cover member is lowered to a bottom of the heat shield. However, it is a known practice that a heat shielding member 12 (cover member) is Lowered to a bottom portion of a radiation screen 8 (heat shield) as taught by Yasuhiro (fig 1). 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 the relative arrangement of the cover member and the heat shield of Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender as suggested by Yasuhiro in order to provide suitable conditions for promoting the melting of the raw material while controlling the gas distribution towards the melt surface (Yasuhiro page 3).
Regarding claim 9, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches the cover member and seed crystal are raised and lowered by a pulling mechanism comprising a shaft 8/15 (Fujiwara figs 4 and 5, 0039, 0048 and 0071), the method comprising disconnecting/replacing the cover member (lid) after the cover member (lid) is raised (Fujiwara figs 4 and 5, 0039, 0048 and 0071), but does not explicitly teach a seed crystal chuck and connecting the seed crystal to the seed chuck after the cover member is disconnected from the seed chuck. However, it is a known practice that a cover member and a seed crystal are raised and lowered by a pulling mechanism comprising a shaft 5 and a seed crystal holder 6 (chuck) (page 4), disconnecting the cover member (heat shielding member 12) from the chuck after the cover member is raised (page 4); and connecting the seed crystal to the seed crystal holder 6 (chuck) after the cover member is disconnected from the seed crystal holder 6 (chuck) as taught by Yasuhiro (page 4). 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 the relative arrangement of the cover member and the heat shield of Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/ Bender as suggested by Yasuhiro in order to improve the yield of the single crystal with dislocation free (Yasuhiro pages 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender teaches the heat shield has a bottom (Bender figs 4 and 5), the central passage of the heat shield having a diameter at the bottom of the heat shield (Bender figs 4 and 5), the cover member having a diameter (Fujiwara figs 1 and 4), but does not explicitly teach the diameter of the cover member is at least 0.75 times the diameter of the central passage at the bottom of the heat shield. However it is a known practice that by a radiant screen 8 (heat shield) has a bottom (figs 1 and 3, pages 1 and 2), a central passage of the heat shield having an opening at the bottom of the heat shield (figs 1 and 3, pages 1 and 2), a heat shield member 12 (cover member) having disk-shape (a diameter) (figs 1 and 3, pages 1 and 2), the heat shield (having a diameter) surrounding the outer circumference of the growing single crystal (pages 1 and 2), the area of the cover member is 50% to 80% of the area of the opening (central passage) at the lower end (bottom) of the heat shield as taught by Yasuhiro (abstract, pages 3, 4 and claim 2); based on a calculation (area of the cover member)/( area of the opening) = ((diameter of cover member)/ diameter of opening))2 = 50% to 80% = 0.5 to 0.8), the diameter of the cover member is about 0.71 to 0.89 times the diameter of the central passage at the bottom of the heat shield, overlapping the instantly claimed 0.75 times. 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 the relative arrangement of the cover member and the heat shield of Fujiwara /Chuang/Taguchi/Bender as suggested by Yasuhiro in order to improve the yield of the single crystal with dislocation free (Yasuhiro pages 2 and 5). 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C §112 that “Figs. 1 and 2 show that the one or more plates 102 and shaft 150 of the cover member are disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube” have been considered, but not found persuasive. It is noted that possession of an invention may be shown by disclosure of drawing. However, neither fig 1 nor fig 2 shows the one or more plates 102 and shaft 150 of the cover member being disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube. For example, fig 1 does not show the one or more plates 102 and the shaft 150 of the cover member; instead, fig 1 explicitly shows solid polycrystalline silicon added through feed tube 54 during growth of the ingot 20, which is also explicitly described in the instant specification (for example [0038] of PGPUB US 20230145430 A1). Also, it is noted that fig 2 shows the one or more plates 102 and shaft 150 of the cover member. However, fig 2 does not show the feed tube 54. Therefore, neither fig 1 nor fig 2 supports the one or more plates 102 and shaft 150 of the cover member being disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube, and fig 1 and fig 2 are never combined together either in the drawings or in the written description, e.g., the instantly claimed “the one or more plates and shaft being disposed exterior to the silicon feed tube while adding the secondary amount of polycrystalline silicon to the crucible melt zone after the initial silicon charge has melted” is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Therefore, the rejection 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, is maintained.
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner' s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
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