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 1-3 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1-3 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma et al (US 20100162944 A1, “Azuma”), and further in view of Javidi et al (US 20100107966 A1, “Javidi”) and Basak et al (US 20180291524 A1, “Basak”).
Regarding claim 1, Azuma teaches a method of manufacturing monocrystalline silicon, the method comprising pulling the monocrystalline silicon 20 out of a silicon melt 21 by a Czochralski process (0002, 0023, 0034), the silicon melt 21 being stored in a crucible 14 housed in a chamber 11 (0023, 0034), wherein a pressure decreasing rate (decompression rate ES) for vent/discharge (exhaust) of a gas out of the chamber 11 for preparing the silicon melt (for example step 14 before step 20 (the pulling of the monocrystalline silicon) and before step 15 (melting of polysilicon/polycrystalline silicon loaded/received in the crucible)) is within a range of 0.012-0.3 hPa/sec (= 0.072kPa-1.8kPa/min, i.e. 0.072 kPa/min ≤ ES ≤ 1.8 kPa/min), within the instantly claimed range below 0 kPa/min < ES ≤ 4.2 kPa/min, at least until a pressure inside the chamber decreases to 25-200hPa (=2.5-20 kPa) (fig 2, 0025, 0028, 0029, 0034). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); also see MPEP 2144.05 I. Furthermore, 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). Also, “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Azuma teaches the pressure inside the chamber decreases as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that before introduction of an inert gas into the chamber and replacement of the gas in the chamber with an inert gas atmosphere and the pressure decreases from an atmospheric pressure to 80 kPa. However, Javidi teaches a method of producing a crystal, wherein air/gas is removed/depleted before introduction of an inert gas into a housing/chamber and displacement (replacement) of the gas in the chamber with an inert gas atmosphere (0019, 0037, 0045-0050), and a pressure within a chamber/housing changes from about atmospheric to about 300 torr (about 40kPa) (0048, 0049, claims 26 and 30), and before melting the silicon powder/ polycrystalline silicon, a rate of the ambient/pressure is controlled to be less than 4 torr per second (e.g., less than 32 kPa/min) (0048, 0049, claims 23, 30-32 and 36-38). 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 Azuma per teachings of Javidi in order to provide suitable/controlled ambient for preparing a silicon melt and further growing the crystal (Javidi 000-0011, 0048, 0049, claims 23, 30-32 and 36-38).
Azuma/Javidi teaches the silicon melt as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the silicon melt being added with a volatile dopant. However, Basak teaches a method of producing crystal, wherein the silicon melt is added with a volatile dopant (0039, 0046, 0069-0072, 0118, 0128). 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 Azuma/Javidi per teachings of Basak in order to produce doped crystal having uniform resistivity (Basak 0002, 0039, 0046, 0069-0072, 0118, 0128). 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).
Regarding claim 2, Azuma/Javidi/Basak teaches the pressure decrease rate (decompression rate ES) is within the range at least until the pressure inside the chamber decreases from the atmospheric pressure to 40 kPa (overlapping the pressure inside the chamber decreases from the atmospheric pressure to 80 kPa) as addressed above, and further teaches that the pressure decrease rate (decompression rate ES) is less than 2 torr per second (= less than 16kPa/min) (Javidi 0048), overlapping the instantly claimed range of 2.0 kPa/min ≤ ES ≤ 4.2 kPa/min. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Azuma/Javidi/Basak teaches that the pressure within the chamber decreases to 7-100hPa (0.7-10kPa, below 80kPa), the pressure decrease rate (decompression rate ES) is 1.5-20 hPa/sec (=9kPa-120hPa/min) (Azuma 0030), within the instantly claimed range of higher than 4.2 kPa/min. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); also see MPEP 2144.05 I. 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 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “Javidi's disclosure of 4 torr/sec is actually 32 kPa/min, not 3.2 kPa/min” have been considered, but not found persuasive. It is acknowledged that 3.2 kPa/min is a typo of 32 kPa/min. However, this typo does not affect the rejection to the instant claims. Specifically, Javidi teaches that the rate is less than about 4 torr per second (i.e., less than 32 kPa/min), less than about 3 torr per second (i.e., less than 32 kPa/min) and even less than about 2 torr per second (i.e., less than 16kPa/min) (0048, 0049, claims 30-32); it is apparent that both less than 3.2 kPa/min and less than 32 kPa/min overlap the instantly claimed range of the decompression rate ES. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). It is also noted that the primary reference to Azuma (0029) explicitly teaches the decompression rate ES is within a range of 0.012-0.3 hPa/sec (= 0.072kPa-1.8kPa/min, i.e. 0.072 kPa/min ≤ ES ≤ 1.8 kPa/min), within the instantly claimed range. Also, 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). Also, “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights