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 Interpretation
The “lifetime value” as recited in at least independent claims 1 and 9 and the claims depending therefrom is interpreted in view of at least ¶[0018] of the published application as the minority carrier lifetime for the minority carriers in monocrystalline silicon.
The “segment-taking” procedure as recited in at least independent claims 1 and 9 and the claims depending therefrom is interpreted in view of at least ¶[0014] of the published application as a procedure of taking out (or removing) the monocrystalline silicon rod being pulled from the pulling equipment while the “material suction procedure” as recited in at least independent claims 1 and 9 is similarly interpreted in view of at least ¶[0014] of the published application as the procedure for removing the leftovers from the crucible.
The “re-feeding” procedure as recited in at least claims 3 and 9 and the claims depending therefrom is interpreted in view of at least ¶[0014] of the published application as a procedure of putting the raw materials used to form the monocrystalline silicon rod into the pulling equipment again during operation of the pulling equipment.
The “time of seeding” as recited in l. 4 and l. 6 of claim 14 is interpreted in view of ¶[0032] and ¶[0096] of the published application as the time at which the Si seed crystal is immersed in the melt to initiate growth of a Si single crystal ingot.
Specification
The amendments to the specification and to Fig. 1 filed on January 29, 2026, are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because they introduce 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:
The amendment to ¶[0016] to state that step S1 includes steps S11 and S12 which may be repeated in an iterative process is new matter which does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The amendment to ¶[0029] to state that step S2 includes steps S21, S22, and S23 is new matter which does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The amendment to ¶[0037] to state that if the answer is “No” at step S22 then step S23 is started is new matter which does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed. In Fig. 1, if the answer to step S22 is no, then step S231 is started.
The amendment to ¶[0039] to state that step S23 includes steps S231, S232, S233, S234, and S235 is new matter which does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The amendment to ¶[0077] to state that step S1 includes steps S11 and S12 which may be repeated in an iterative process is new matter which does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The amendments to ¶¶[0078]-[0093] to recite a first, second, and third iteration as well as a third monocrystalline silicon rod do not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The amendment to ¶[0094] to state that step S2 includes steps S21, S22, and S23 is new matter which does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The amendment to ¶[0095] to state that the monocrystalline silicon rod 310 may be the fourth monocrystalline silicon rod (310) that is being pulled at the time of the third iteration does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The amendment to ¶[0102] to state that step S23 includes steps S231, S232, S233, S234, and S235 is new matter which does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed.
The proposed replacement drawing for Fig. 1 includes notations that step S1 includes steps S11 and S12, that step S2 includes steps S21, S22, and S23, and that step S3 includes steps S231, S232, S233, S234, and S235. This amendment to Fig. 1 does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed and, consequently, is considered to be new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
At least reference characters (S1) in ¶[0016], (S2) in ¶[0029], (S13) in ¶[0082], (S14) in ¶[0084], (S15) in ¶[0087], (S16) in ¶[0089], and (S23) in ¶[0101] of the published application are not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The preceding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 4-20 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 22 appears to be a substantial duplicate of claim 14, but further recites the step of “automatically cooling the suction tool.” The specification as originally filed does not appear to teach or suggest that the step of cooling the suction tool is performed automatically.
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 9-10, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,288,366 to John D. Holder (hereinafter “Holder”) in view of Chinese Patent Appl. Publ. No. CN11020700A to Li, et al. (“Li”).
Regarding claim 9, Holder teaches a method for automatically controlling material suction in a process of pulling-up of a monocrystal (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and entire reference which teach a method of removing and replenishing the melt contained within a crucible during the Czochralski crystal growth process to account for the buildup of impurities in the melt), comprising:
obtaining a lifetime value of a pulled monocrystalline silicon rod, and continuing to operate a monocrystalline silicon rod being pulled (In col. 1, ll. 25-51 Holder teaches that the impurity concentration in the melt gradually increases during crystal growth by the Czochralski method when the segregation coefficient of the impurity is less than one. This therefore means that the melt must eventually be replaced once the impurity concentration reaches an unacceptable level. This is specifically illustrated in Fig. 9(a) and col. 9, l. 53 to col. 10, l. 4 which teach that the minority carrier lifetime in the crystal ingot decreases as the fraction of the melt which has been solidified increases and the minority carrier lifetime also decreases with each successive iteration of crystal growth after the melt has been replenished. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to obtain a minority carrier lifetime value of a previously grown Si ingot in order to determine whether the Si ingot itself has an unacceptable level of impurities and, consequently, the impurity concentration of the melt has exceeded a predetermined threshold such that replacement of the melt becomes necessary before continued crystal growth occurs.);
performing one of:
(A) in response to determining that the lifetime value is greater than a preset lifetime value, continuing to perform a re-feeding and pulling procedure (As explained supra, Fig. 9(a) and col. 9, l. 53 to col. 10, l. 4 of Holder teach that the minority carrier lifetime decreases as the fraction of the melt which has been solidified increases and the minority carrier lifetime also decreases with each successive iteration of crystal growth after the melt has ben replenished. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to measure the minority carrier lifetime value of the grown Si ingot and use this measurement to determine whether the impurity concentration of the melt has exceeded a predetermined threshold. In this regard, as long as the measured minority carrier lifetime value is above a predetermined threshold an ordinary artisan would recognize that the melt may continue to be replenished such that subsequent crystal growth operations may be performed since the resulting ingots will still possess the materials properties required for a particular application); and
(B) in response to determining that the lifetime value is less than or equal to the preset lifetime value or/and the ratio of the lifetime value to the resistivity is less than or equal to the preset ratio value, performing a segment-taking and material suction procedure (It is noted that the claim only requires that one of (A) or (B) is performed. As such, when option (A) is satisfied, then the steps involved in option (B) are not performed and, hence, are not required by the claim.).
Holder does not teach obtaining a resistivity of a pulled monocrystalline silicon rod or that a ratio of the lifetime value to the resistivity is used to determine if the pulled monocrystalline silicon rod is qualified. However, in Fig. 1 and Example A at pp. 7-9 Li teaches an analogous method of automating the replenishment of the Si raw material during crystal growth by the Czochralski process. In the last paragraph on p. 8 and claim 4 Li specifically teaches that when adding polycrystalline Si raw material with a dopant to produce a doped Si single crystal, materials properties that need to be considered include, inter alia, the desired resistivity and minority carrier lifetime of the dopant and grown Si single crystal ingot. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Li and would be motivated to utilize measurements of both the resistivity and minority carrier lifetime of the Si single crystal ingot and, consequently, a ratio thereof in order to determine whether the ingot may no longer be used for a particular application such that the melt needs to be removed via a suction process and replaced with a fresh batch of uncontaminated source material. 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 10, Holder and Li do not explicitly teach that the lifetime value and the resistivity are both obtained by testing at a same position on a head of the pulled monocrystalline silicon rod. However, in Figs. 9(a) & 9(b) and col. 9, l. 53 to col. 10, l. 4 Holder teaches that the minority carrier lifetime in the crystal ingot decreases as the fraction of the melt which has been solidified increases. This therefore means that the highest value for the minority carrier lifetime will be at a head of the pulled Si crystal. Moreover, by obtaining the minority carrier lifetime and resistivity at the same location on the Si ingot this will necessarily facilitate consistent measurement of the same material with the same materials properties. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to measure the lifetime value and resistivity at a same position at a head of the pulled monocrystalline Si rod in order to obtain a more consistent and representative value of the materials properties of the resulting Si crystal at the onset of crystal growth.
Regarding claim 12, Holder does not teach that performing the segment-taking and material suction procedure further comprises: in response to determining that the remaining material in the quartz crucible is within the safety range, continuing to perform the pulling of the monocrystalline silicon rod being pulled until a weight of the remaining material in the quartz crucible is not greater than 25kg. However, in Figs. 1-2, Example A at pp. 7-9, and Example 2 at pp. 9-16 Li teaches an analogous method of automating the replenishment of the Si raw material during crystal growth by the Czochralski process. In pp. 8-9, pp. 12-16, and claim 4 Li specifically teaches that the amount of raw material and dopant to be added to the crucible depends on factors such as the size and volume of the crucible and the size of the Si single crystal ingot to be grown. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to continue pulling a Si single crystal ingot as long as there is sufficient melt in the crucible to support crystal growth, but once there no longer is enough melt remaining to support the growth of a Si single crystal ingot a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to stop the crystal growth process and remove the remaining melt via a material suction process as taught by Holder in order to replenish the crucible with a fresh batch of uncontaminated raw material. With respect to the specific weight of 25 kg used as a cut-off, it is the Examiner’s position that it 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 minimum amount of melt that must remain in the crucible with the motivation for doing so being to determine the cutoff point at which a Si ingot with the desired materials properties can no longer be produced.
Regarding claim 21, Holder teaches a method for automatically controlling material suction in a process of pulling-up of a monocrystal (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and entire reference which teach a method of removing and replenishing the melt contained within a crucible during the Czochralski crystal growth process to account for the buildup of impurities in the melt), comprising:
obtaining a lifetime value of a pulled monocrystalline silicon rod, and continuing to operate a monocrystalline silicon rod being pulled (In col. 1, ll. 25-51 Holder teaches that the impurity concentration in the melt gradually increases during crystal growth by the Czochralski method when the segregation coefficient of the impurity is less than one. This therefore means that the melt must eventually be replaced once the impurity concentration reaches an unacceptable level. This is specifically illustrated in Fig. 9(a) and col. 9, l. 53 to col. 10, l. 4 which teach that the minority carrier lifetime in the crystal ingot decreases as the fraction of the melt which has been solidified increases and the minority carrier lifetime also decreases with each successive iteration of crystal growth after the melt has been replenished. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to obtain a minority carrier lifetime value of a previously grown Si ingot in order to determine whether the Si ingot itself has an unacceptable level of impurities and, consequently, the impurity concentration of the melt has exceeded a predetermined threshold such that replacement of the melt becomes necessary before continued crystal growth occurs.);
performing one of:
(A) in response to determining that the lifetime value is greater than a preset lifetime value, continuing to perform a re-feeding and pulling procedure (As explained supra, Fig. 9(a) and col. 9, l. 53 to col. 10, l. 4 of Holder teach that the minority carrier lifetime decreases as the fraction of the melt which has been solidified increases and the minority carrier lifetime also decreases with each successive iteration of crystal growth after the melt has ben replenished. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to measure the minority carrier lifetime value of the grown Si ingot and use this measurement to determine whether the impurity concentration of the melt has exceeded a predetermined threshold. In this regard, as long as the measured minority carrier lifetime value is above a predetermined threshold an ordinary artisan would recognize that the melt may continue to be replenished such that subsequent crystal growth operations may be performed since the resulting ingots will still possess the materials properties required for a particular application); and
(B) in response to determining that the lifetime value is less than or equal to the preset lifetime value or/and the ratio of the lifetime value to the resistivity is less than or equal to the preset ratio value, performing a segment-taking and material suction procedure (It is noted that the claim only requires that one of (A) or (B) is performed. As such, when option (A) is satisfied, then the steps involved in option (B) are not performed and, hence, are not required by the claim.).
Holder does not teach obtaining a resistivity of a pulled monocrystalline silicon rod or that a ratio of the lifetime value to the resistivity is used to determine if the pulled monocrystalline silicon rod is qualified. However, in Fig. 1 and Example A at pp. 7-9 Li teaches an analogous method of automating the replenishment of the Si raw material during crystal growth by the Czochralski process. In the last paragraph on p. 8 and claim 4 Li specifically teaches that when adding polycrystalline Si raw material with a dopant to produce a doped Si single crystal, materials properties that need to be considered include, inter alia, the desired resistivity and minority carrier lifetime of the dopant and grown Si single crystal ingot. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Li and would be motivated to utilize measurements of both the resistivity and minority carrier lifetime of the Si single crystal ingot and, consequently, a ratio thereof in order to determine whether the ingot may no longer be used for a particular application such that the melt needs to be removed via a suction process and replaced with a fresh batch of uncontaminated source material. 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).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder in view of Li and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,272,119 to Robert Falster (“Falster”).
Regarding claim 11, Holder and Li do not teach that the preset lifetime value ranges from 120 ms to 125 ms, and wherein the preset ratio value ranges from 150 to 250. However, since the minority carrier lifetime and resistivity are determined by the dopant and impurity concentration in the Si ingot, the desired values can be obtained by adjusting the dopant/impurity concentration in the melt. This is specifically disclosed in at least col. 3, ll. 10-24 of Falster which teaches that Si wafers sliced from single crystal Si grown by the Czochralski method typically have an average minority carrier lifetime of less than about 200 microseconds. Since a particular application requires the use of Si wafers having predetermined materials properties such as a minority carrier lifetime of from 120 to 125 ms and a preset ratio of 150 to 250, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Falster and would pick and choose the desired minority carrier lifetime and preset ratio values at which crystal growth is either continued or stopped and a material suction procedure is started such that crystalline Si ingots having the claimed value for the minority carrier lifetime and preset ratio are produced. “Where 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claim 9 is rewritten such that only the segment-taking and material suction procedure (i.e., option (B) in claim 9) is performed. It is noted that since claims 13-15 and 17-20 require performing and further limit the segment-taking and material suction procedure, these claims are operable only when the lifetime value and/or the ratio of the lifetime value to the resistivity are less than or equal to the preset ratio value (i.e., option (B) in claim 9) is performed.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or reasonably suggest a method for automatically controlling material suction in a process of pulling-up of a monocrystal comprising obtaining a lifetime value and a resistivity of a pulled monocrystalline silicon rod and in response to determining that the pulled monocrystalline silicon rod is unqualified based on the lifetime value and a ratio of the lifetime value to the resistivity, performing a segment-taking and material suction procedure which comprises in response to determining that a weight of remaining material in a crucible is less than or equal to a predetermined weight value, performing a material suction process using a suction tool, wherein performing the material suction process comprises performing a stepwise preheating of the suction tool which comprises standing and preheating the suction tool at least twice as the suction tool descends; upon completing the standing and preheating at least twice, controlling the suction tool to descend and determining whether the suction tool is in contact with a liquid surface of the remaining material in the crucible; in response to determining that the suction tool is in contact with the liquid surface and a contact voltage alarm occurs, adjusting the suction tool to be lifted up to a predetermined position, and standing and preheating the suction tool again for a predetermined time; controlling the suction tool to descend towards the liquid surface and determining whether the suction tool is in contact with the liquid surface again; and in response to determining that the suction tool is in contact with the liquid surface and the contact voltage alarm occurs again, adjusting a rotational speed of the crucible to a predetermined value as recited in the context of claim 1. Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-8 are also deemed to be in condition for allowance due to its dependence on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 29, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-8, but are otherwise unpersuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action which were necessitated by applicants’ claim amendments.
It is the Examiner’s position that, for the reasons discussed supra, the amendments to the specification and drawings are not supported by the specification as originally filed and, consequently, introduce new matter into the disclosure. As such, the amendments to the specification and drawings have not been entered.
It is also noted that independent claims 9 and 21 recite “performing one of” two different options which means that the option that contains allowable subject matter (i.e., step (B) via the incorporation of dependent claims 16 and 14, respectively) is not explicitly required by the claim. As discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 21, either step (A) or step (B) may be performed in order to meet the claim and it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art reads upon the limitations encompassed by step (A). It is the Examiner’s position that claims 9 and 21 would be allowable if step (A) were removed such that claims 9 and 21 are rewritten in a manner similar to claim 1.
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 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714