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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-6 are cancelled. Claims 12-21 are newly added. Claims 1, 12 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 7-21 are pending. Claims 1, 7 and 9 are amended. Claims 1 and 7-21 are currently examined on the merits.
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, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al (JP 2009215126 A, machine translation, “Takano”), and further in view of Takano Kiyotaka (JP 2011126730 A, machine translation, “Kiyotaka”), Quan Hongyong (CN 112281209 A, machine translation, “Quan”), Orschel et al (US 20110060467 A1, “Orschel”) and Izumi et al (JP 2021088478 A, machine translation, “Izumi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takano teaches a single crystal pulling device (furnace) comprising a furnace chamber 2 (body) having a sleeve holding an electrode 9 (an electrode hole) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0023-0024, 0049); a thermal-field assembly located in the furnace body (chamber 2) (figs 1 and 2, 0024, 0031-0042), the thermal-field assembly including a crucible 3 for carrying a polycrystalline raw material/molten/ melt (forming material) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0023-0024, 0027-0032), a heater 6 for heating the forming material from a polycrystalline raw material (solid state) into a melt/molten 5 (figs 1 and 2, 0020, 0023-0024, 0027), and an insulating plate 4 (insulation member) located below the crucible 3 and including a hole 18 (an overflow hole) (figs 2, 4 and 6, abstract, 0015, 0031-0042); and a vessel/tray 8 (spill tray) located in the chamber 2 (furnace body) below the plate 4 (insulation member) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0025, 0026, 0029-0031, 0034, 0035), the vessel/tray 8 (spill tray) receiving any portion of the melt 5 leaking from the crucible 3 and flowing through the hoe 18 (overflow hole) (figs 2, 4 and 6, 0035, 0036, 0038); an electrode 9 passing through the electrode hole of the furnace body (figs 1 and 2, 0024, 0026), the electrode being connected to the heater 6 and passing through to the spill tray 8 (figs 1 and 2, 0024).
Takano teaches the furnace body as addressed above, and further teaches an alarm assembly being electrically coupled to a detector 11 (sensor) and the alarm assembly being configured to issue an alarm notification when the melt flows into the spill tray through the overflow hole and makes contact with the detector 11 (sensor) (figs 1 and 2, 0010-0022, 0032, 0033), but does not explicitly teach that the alarm assembly located outside the furnace body. However, it is well established that mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Furthermore, Kiyotaka teaches a single crystal pulling device, wherein an alarm assembly comprising detectors is located outside the furnace chamber 12 (figs 1-3, abstract, 0008-0018, 0022-0028, 0034). 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 Takano per teachings of Kiyotaka in order to provide an alternate single crystal pulling apparatus capable of detecting molten leakage from a crucible with high sensitivity and high accuracy (Kiyotaka 0009, 0011-0016, 0022-0023, 0025 and 0034). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka teaches the furnace body, the alarm assembly issuing the alarm notification, and the sensor/detector contacting the melt as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a controller being configured to receive a detection signal. However, Quan teaches a single crystal pulling system, wherein a control device (controller) outside a furnace body 10 (fig 5, 0025, 0060, 0066, 0067, 0072 and 0078), the controller being electrically coupled to an alarm assembly and a sensor (figs 4-6, 0043, 0044, 0060, 0066, 0074, 0075), the control device (controller) being configured to receive a detection signal from the sensor when contact is made between the sensor and the melt (figs 4-6, abstract, 0007-0018, 0044, 0060, 0067, 0073-0074, 0082); and control the alarm assembly to issue the alarm notification in response to receiving the detection signal (figs 4-6, abstract, 0007-0018, 0044, 0060, 0067, 0073-0074, 0082). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka per teachings of Quan in order to provide a system for detecting leakage during the manufacturing process of single crystal silicon and decrease serious damage of the crystal pulling furnace (Quan abstract, 0005, 0029, 0055 and 0072). Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan teaches the forming material, the furnace body, the thermal-field assembly, and further teaches that the apparatus comprises a lifting wire and a winding/rotating mechanism (a lifting member) (Takano 0002, 0003 and 0027; Kiyotaka 0002, 0003, 0019), and the forming material (polycrystalline material) charged into the crucible above the thermal-field assembly (the forming material being separated from the thermal-field assembly) (Takano 0007, 0020, 0027, 0028), but does not explicitly teach a controller being electrically coupled to the lifting member. However, Orschel teaches a system for pulling crystal, wherein a pulling mechanism comprises a motor electrically coupled to a controller (0027-0030, 0059). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan per teachings of Orschel in order to provide an improved crystal pulling system (Orschel 0085). Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/ Orschel teaches the lifting system, and the lifting system is similar to the instantly claimed structural feature. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Takano/Kiyotaka/ Quan/Orschel is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of to cause movement of the lifting member such that the forming material is positioned above the thermal-field assembly in response to receiving the detection signal. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel teaches teaches the heater, the controller and the detection signal as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the heater is electrically coupled to the controller and the controller being further configured to stop the heater from heating in response to receiving the detection signal. However, Izumi teaches a crystal growth apparatus, wherein a heater is electrically coupled to a control unit (controller), the control unit (controller) being further configured to stop the heater from heating in response to receiving an abnormality detection (detection signal) (0024, 0026, 0042-0045, 0071, 0097 and claim 7). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel per teachings of Izumi in order to detect the abnormalities for example the molten leakage and reduce manufacturing cost (Izumi 0040, 0098). Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Regarding claim 7, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray has a bottom surface connected with a side wall (Takano figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0011, 0012, 0019, 0025; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3), the side wall surrounding the bottom surface in a circumferential direction of the bottom surface (Takano figs 1 and 2; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3), the side wall having a mounting hole (Takano figs 1 and 2; Kiyotaka figs 1-3), and wherein the sensor is in the form of a resistance wire that is disposed on the bottom surface through the mounting hole for electrically connecting the sensor to the alarm assembly (Takano fig 2, 0032; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3, 0034).
Regarding claim 8, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that a seal between the resistance wire and a hole surface of the mounting hole (Kiyotaka fig 2, 0024), the seal being configured to seal a gap between the resistance wire and the hole surface (Kiyotaka fig 2, 0024). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Regarding claim 10, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray is mounted in contact with a bottom surface of the furnace body (Takano figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray is mounted on an inner side wall of the furnace body (Takano figs 1 and 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano/ Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi as applied to claim 7 above, and as evidenced by Bronson et al (US 20130276722 A1, “Bronson”).
Regarding claim 9, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the resistance wire is wrapped with stainless steel and the stainless steel isolating the resistance wire from the bottom surface to avoid electrical conduction between the resistance wire and the bottom surface (Kiyotaka figs 1-3, 0024), and stainless steel is an insulating material as evidenced by Bronson (0038, 0048, 0049, 0054, 0055, 0057). 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, if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al (JP 2009215126 A, machine translation, “Takano”), and further in view of Takano Kiyotaka (JP 2011126730 A, machine translation, “Kiyotaka”), Quan Hongyong (CN 112281209 A, machine translation, “Quan”), Orschel et al (US 20110060467 A1, “Orschel”) and Izumi et al (JP 2021088478 A, machine translation, “Izumi”).
Regarding claim 12, Takano teaches a single crystal pulling device (furnace) comprising a furnace chamber 2 (body) having a sleeve holding an electrode 9 (an electrode hole) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0023-0024, 0049); a thermal-field assembly located in the furnace body (chamber 2) (figs 1 and 2, 0024, 0031-0042), the thermal-field assembly including a crucible 3 for carrying a polycrystalline raw material/molten/melt (forming material) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0023-0024, 0027-0032), a heater 6 for heating the forming material from a polycrystalline raw material (solid state) into a melt/molten 5 (figs 1 and 2, 0020, 0023-0024, 0027), and an insulating plate 4 (insulation member) located below the crucible 3 and including a hole 18 (an overflow hole) (figs 2, 4 and 6, abstract, 0015, 0031-0042); and a vessel/tray 8 (spill tray) located in the chamber 2 (furnace body) below the plate 4 (insulation member) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0025, 0026, 0029-0031, 0034, 0035), the vessel/tray 8 (spill tray) receiving any portion of the melt 5 leaking from the crucible 3 and flowing through the hoe 18 (overflow hole) (figs 2, 4 and 6, 0035, 0036, 0038); an electrode 9 passing through the electrode hole of the furnace body (figs 1 and 2, 0024, 0026), the electrode being connected to the heater 6 and passing through to the spill tray 8 (figs 1 and 2, 0024).
Takano teaches the furnace body as addressed above, and further teaches an alarm assembly being electrically coupled to a detector 11 (sensor) and the alarm assembly being configured to issue an alarm notification when the melt flows into the spill tray through the overflow hole and makes contact with the detector 11 (sensor) (figs 1 and 2, 0010-0022, 0032, 0033), but does not explicitly teach that the alarm assembly located outside the furnace body. However, it is well established that mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Furthermore, Kiyotaka teaches a single crystal pulling device, wherein an alarm assembly comprising detectors is located outside the furnace chamber 12 (figs 1-3, abstract, 0008-0018, 0022-0028, 0034). 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 Takano per teachings of Kiyotaka in order to provide an alternate single crystal pulling apparatus capable of detecting molten leakage from a crucible with high sensitivity and high accuracy (Kiyotaka 0009, 0011-0016, 0022-0023, 0025 and 0034). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka teaches the furnace body, the alarm assembly issuing the alarm notification, and the sensor/detector contacting the melt as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a controller being configured to receive a detection signal. However, Quan teaches a single crystal pulling system, wherein a control device (controller) outside a furnace body 10 (fig 5, 0025, 0060, 0066, 0067, 0072 and 0078), the controller being electrically coupled to an alarm assembly and a sensor (figs 4-6, 0043, 0044, 0060, 0066, 0074, 0075), the control device (controller) being configured to receive a detection signal from the sensor when contact is made between the sensor and the melt (figs 4-6, abstract, 0007-0018, 0044, 0060, 0067, 0073-0074, 0082); and control the alarm assembly to issue the alarm notification (figs 4-6, abstract, 0007-0018, 0044, 0060, 0067, 0073-0074, 0082). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka per teachings of Quan in order to provide a system for detecting leakage during the manufacturing process of single crystal silicon and decrease serious damage of the crystal pulling furnace (Quan abstract, 0005, 0029, 0055 and 0072). Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan teaches the forming material, the furnace body, the thermal-field assembly, but does not explicitly teach a controller being electrically coupled to the lifting member. However, Orschel teaches a system for pulling crystal, wherein a pulling mechanism comprises a motor electrically coupled to a controller (0027-0030, 0059). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan per teachings of Orschel in order to provide an improved crystal pulling system (Orschel 0085).
Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel teaches the heater, the controller and the detection signal as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the controller being further configured to stop the heater from heating in response to receiving the detection signal. However, Izumi teaches a crystal growth apparatus, wherein a heater is electrically coupled to a control unit (controller), the control unit (controller) being further configured to stop the heater from heating in response to receiving an abnormality detection (detection signal) (0024, 0026, 0042-0045, 0071, 0097 and claim 7). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka/ Quan/ Orschel per teachings of Izumi in order to detect the abnormalities for example the molten leakage and reduce manufacturing cost (Izumi 0040, 0098). Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Regarding claim 13, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray has a bottom surface connected with a side wall (Takano figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0011, 0012, 0019, 0025; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3), the side wall surrounding the bottom surface in a circumferential direction of the bottom surface (Takano figs 1 and 2; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3), the side wall having a mounting hole (Takano figs 1 and 2; Kiyotaka figs 1-3), and wherein the sensor is in the form of a resistance wire that is disposed on the bottom surface through the mounting hole for electrically connecting the sensor to the alarm assembly (Takano fig 2, 0032; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3, 0034).
Regarding claim 14, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that a seal between the resistance wire and a hole surface of the mounting hole (Kiyotaka fig 2, 0024), the seal being configured to seal a gap between the resistance wire and the hole surface (Kiyotaka fig 2, 0024). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Regarding claim 15, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray is mounted in contact with a bottom surface of the furnace body (Takano figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray is mounted on an inner side wall of the furnace body (Takano figs 1 and 2).
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al (JP 2009215126 A, machine translation, “Takano”), and further in view of Takano Kiyotaka (JP 2011126730 A, machine translation, “Kiyotaka”), Quan Hongyong (CN 112281209 A, machine translation, “Quan”), Orschel et al (US 20110060467 A1, “Orschel”) and Izumi et al (JP 2021088478 A, machine translation, “Izumi”).
Regarding claim 17, Takano teaches a single crystal pulling device (furnace) comprising a furnace chamber 2 (body) having a sleeve holding an electrode 9 (an electrode hole) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0023-0024, 0049); a thermal-field assembly located in the furnace body (chamber 2) (figs 1 and 2, 0024, 0031-0042), the thermal-field assembly including a crucible 3 for carrying a polycrystalline raw material/molten/ melt (forming material) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0023-0024, 0027-0032), a heater 6 for heating the forming material from a polycrystalline raw material (solid state) into a melt/molten 5 (figs 1 and 2, 0020, 0023-0024, 0027), and an insulating plate 4 (insulation member) located below the crucible 3 and including a hole 18 (an overflow hole) (figs 2, 4 and 6, abstract, 0015, 0031-0042); and a vessel/tray 8 (spill tray) located in the chamber 2 (furnace body) below the plate 4 (insulation member) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0025, 0026, 0029-0031, 0034, 0035), an electrode 9 passing through the electrode hole of the furnace body (figs 1 and 2, 0024, 0026), the electrode being connected to the heater 6 and passing through to the spill tray 8 (figs 1 and 2, 0024); a lifting wire and a winding/rotating mechanism (a lifting member) configured to lift the forming material into the furnace body (Takano 0002, 0003 and 0027), it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano teaches the furnace body as addressed above, and further teaches an alarm assembly being electrically coupled to a detector 11 (sensor) and the alarm assembly being configured to issue an alarm notification when the melt flows into the spill tray through the overflow hole and makes contact with the detector 11 (sensor) (figs 1 and 2, 0010-0022, 0032, 0033), but does not explicitly teach that the alarm assembly located outside the furnace body. However, it is well established that mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Furthermore, Kiyotaka teaches a single crystal pulling device, wherein an alarm assembly comprising detectors is located outside the furnace chamber 12 (figs 1-3, abstract, 0008-0018, 0022-0028, 0034). 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 Takano per teachings of Kiyotaka in order to provide an alternate single crystal pulling apparatus capable of detecting molten leakage from a crucible with high sensitivity and high accuracy (Kiyotaka 0009, 0011-0016, 0022-0023, 0025 and 0034). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka teaches the furnace body, the alarm assembly issuing the alarm notification, and the sensor/detector contacting the melt, the lift member and the heater as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a controller being configured to receive a detection signal. However, Quan teaches a single crystal pulling system, wherein a control device (controller) outside a furnace body 10 (fig 5, 0025, 0060, 0066, 0067, 0072 and 0078), the controller being electrically coupled to an alarm assembly and a sensor (figs 4-6, 0043, 0044, 0060, 0066, 0074, 0075), the control device (controller) being configured to receive a detection signal from the sensor when contact is made between the sensor and the melt (figs 4-6, abstract, 0007-0018, 0044, 0060, 0067, 0073-0074, 0082); and control the alarm assembly to issue the alarm notification in response to receiving the detection signal (figs 4-6, abstract, 0007-0018, 0044, 0060, 0067, 0073-0074, 0082). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka per teachings of Quan in order to provide a system for detecting leakage during the manufacturing process of single crystal silicon and decrease serious damage of the crystal pulling furnace (Quan abstract, 0005, 0029, 0055 and 0072). Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan teaches the forming material, the furnace body, the thermal-field assembly, and further teaches that the apparatus comprises a lifting wire and a winding/rotating mechanism (a lifting member) (Takano 0002, 0003 and 0027; Kiyotaka 0002, 0003, 0019), and the forming material (polycrystalline material) charged into the crucible above the thermal-field assembly (the forming material being separated from the thermal-field assembly) (Takano 0007, 0020, 0027, 0028), but does not explicitly teach a controller being electrically coupled to the lifting member. However, Orschel teaches a system for pulling crystal, wherein a pulling mechanism comprises a motor electrically coupled to a controller (0027-0030, 0059). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan per teachings of Orschel in order to provide an improved crystal pulling system (Orschel 0085). Takano/Kiyotaka/ Quan/ Orschel teaches the lifting system, and the lifting system is similar to the instantly claimed structural feature. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Takano/Kiyotaka/ Quan/Orschel is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of to cause movement of the lifting member such that the forming material is positioned above the thermal-field assembly in response to receiving the detection signal, and the forming material being separated from the thermal-field assembly A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel teaches teaches the heater, the controller and the detection signal as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the heater is electrically coupled to the controller and the controller being further configured to stop the heater from heating in response to receiving the detection signal. However, Izumi teaches a crystal growth apparatus, wherein a heater is electrically coupled to a control unit (controller), the control unit (controller) being further configured to stop the heater from heating in response to receiving an abnormality detection (detection signal) (0024, 0026, 0042-0045, 0071, 0097 and claim 7). 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 Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel per teachings of Izumi in order to detect the abnormalities for example the molten leakage and reduce manufacturing cost (Izumi 0040, 0098). Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Regarding claim 18, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray has a bottom surface connected with a side wall (Takano figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0011, 0012, 0019, 0025; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3), the side wall surrounding the bottom surface in a circumferential direction of the bottom surface (Takano figs 1 and 2; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3), the side wall having a mounting hole (Takano figs 1 and 2; Kiyotaka figs 1-3), and wherein the sensor is in the form of a resistance wire that is disposed on the bottom surface through the mounting hole for electrically connecting the sensor to the alarm assembly (Takano fig 2, 0032; Kiyotaka figs 1 and 3, 0034).
Regarding claim 19, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that a seal between the resistance wire and a hole surface of the mounting hole (Kiyotaka fig 2, 0024), the seal being configured to seal a gap between the resistance wire and the hole surface (Kiyotaka fig 2, 0024). Also, it is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Regarding claim 20, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray is mounted in contact with a bottom surface of the furnace body (Takano figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21, Takano/Kiyotaka/Quan/Orschel/Izumi teaches that the spill tray is mounted on an inner side wall of the furnace body (Takano figs 1 and 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that none of the numerous cited references (Takano, Kiyotaka, Quan, Izumi, Orschel, and Bronson) appears to disclose, individually or in combination with other references, all the elements of the claim 1, including the “electrode” element have been considered, but not found persuasive. Primary reference to Takano explicitly teach a furnace chamber 2 (body) having a sleeve holding an electrode 9 (an electrode hole) (figs 1 and 2, abstract, 0023-0024, 0049), and an electrode 9 passing through the electrode hole of the furnace body (figs 1 and 2, 0024, 0026), the electrode being connected to the heater 6 and passing through to the spill tray 8 (figs 1 and 2, 0024), thus meeting the newly recited electrode. 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
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 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