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
Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims1-6 and 8-14 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6, 8 and 11-14 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the first heat treater and the second heat treater are arranged in the upper puller chamber” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "620" and "101" have both been used to designate a same portion of the puller 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 10/23/2025 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, (1) referral numbers 610/620 and a segment line between 610 and 620 in original fig. 2 are removed, which changes the scope of fig. 2. (2) an additional line is added between referral number 610/620, which changes the scope of fig. 4. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The status of claim 9 should be labeled as "Withdrawn, currently amended,” instead of “Currently amended”.
The status of claim 10 should be labeled as "Withdrawn” instead of “Original”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The word “means” may be substituted by a term that serves as a generic placeholder and still invoke 112(f) paragraph. The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “structure” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “structure” coupled with functional language “pulling… pull the monocrystalline silicon ingot …move the monocrystalline silicon ingot”. However, per the specification, the “structure” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it.
Claim 6 recites “structure” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “structure” coupled with functional language “pulling… allow the monocrystalline silicon ingot to stay”. However, per the specification, the “structure” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it.
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 1-6, 8 and 11-14 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. While reciting “A crystal puller,” claim 1 also recites a Czochralski method. Therefore, claim 1 embraces the apparatus and the method in the same claim, thus failing to clearly recite the boundaries sought for protection. Claims 2-6, 8 and 11-14 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “structure”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “structure”. Claim element “structure” is limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims 1 and 6 are not clearly defined. Claims 2-5, 8 and 11-14 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 20020195045 A1, “Lu”) in view of Mueller et al (US 2018/0371639 A1, “Mueller”).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a crystal puller for manufacturing a monocrystalline silicon ingot, comprising a pull shaft 41 (pulling structure) which is configured to pull the monocrystalline silicon ingot I from a silicon melt M by a Czochralski method (fig 1, 0027-0029); a lower portion comprising a heat shield 47 above the silicon melt M and a first/lower heater 53 (first heat treater) (figs 1-3, 0028, 0029, 0031, 0032, 0034, 0035, 0038); and an upper portion having a second/upper heater 153 heat treater arranged on the lower portion having a first/lower heater 53 (first heat treater) (figs 1-3, 0031-0038), wherein the pulling structure pulls/moves the monocrystalline ingot upwardly along a direction of crystal growth to an upper pull chamber 29 (0014-0018, 0028, 0031, 0035, 0037), and the monocrystalline ingot begins to grow (a start/head portion of the monocrystalline ingot) (0042), and a tail at a lower portion of the monocrystalline ingot separated from the melt by pulling the ingot (0044).
Lu teaches the silicon melt as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the silicon melt being a nitrogen-doped silicon melt. However, Mueller teaches a pulling apparatus, wherein a nitrogen added/doped melt is for producing a monocrystalline silicon (0006, 0015 and claim 15). 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 Lu per teachings of Mueller in order to produce single crystal silicon doped with controlled properties for further application (Mueller 0002, 0006 and 0015). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Lu/ Mueller teaches the crystal puller as addressed above, and further teaches an upper puller chamber with a small radial dimension and a lower puller chamber with a large radial dimension (Lu fig 1), and wherein the first/lower heater 53 (first heat treater) and the second/upper heater 153 (second heat treater) are arranged in the upper puller chamber (Lu figs 1 and 3), and both a crucible 31/33 and a heater 39 for heating the crucible are provided inside the lower puller chamber (Lu fig 1, 0027, 0028). It is also well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
As addressed above, Lu/ Mueller teaches the crystal puller comprising the pulling structure, the first heat treater and the second heat treater, similar to the instantly claimed structural elements. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/ Mueller is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “performing a first heat treatment on the monocrystalline silicon ingot with a first heat treatment temperature at which bulk micro defects (BMD) in the monocrystalline silicon ingot being ablated,” “performing a second heat treatment on the monocrystalline silicon ingot with a second heat treatment temperature at which formation of the BMD in the monocrystalline silicon ingot being induced” and “moving the monocrystalline ingot along the direction of crystal growth to a position where the first heat treatment is performed on the tail section of the monocrystalline ingot by the first heat treater and the second heat treatment is performed on the head section of the monocrystalline ingot by the second heat treater.” 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). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also 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 claims 2 and 3, as addressed above, Lu/ Mueller teaches the similar first heat treater and the second heat treater to the instantly claimed, and further teaches that the first heater and the second heater of the first heat treater and the second heat treater are separately controlled (Lu 0038). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “the first heat treatment temperature being in a range from 950 degrees Celsius to 1200 degrees Celsius” and “the second heat treatment temperature being in a range from 600 degrees Celsius to 850 degrees Celsius.” 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). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)).
Regarding claim 6, as addressed above, Lu/Mueller teaches the pulling structure, similar structural elements as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/Li is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “allowing the monocrystalline silicon ingot to stay for 2 hours at a position where the heat treatment is performed.” 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). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also 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.
Claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu /Mueller as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Zhixin Li (US 5824149 A, “Li”).
Regarding claim 4, Lu/ Mueller teaches the crystal puller comprising the first heat treater and the second heat treater as addressed above, and further teaches a control device separately controls the first heater and the second heater of the first heat treater and the second heat treater are separately controlled (Lu 0038), but does not explicitly teach a first temperature sensor and a second temperature sensor. However, Li teaches an apparatus for controlling temperature, wherein each of temperature control devices 112 comprises a sensor 114 and a heater 118, the temperature sensor and the heater of each control device function together so that the heater is powered depending on temperature measured by the sensor (figs 5-7, col 6 line 33 to col 7 line 6, claims 8, 10 and 11). 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 Lu/Mueller per teachings of Li in order to individually control the temperature and achieve a well-controlled thermal field for annealing a crystal (Li col 3 lines 10-60, col 6 line 33 to col 7 line 6 and col 7 lines 34-50). Lu/ Mueller/Li teaches the first temperature sensor, the first heat treater, the second temperature sensor, the second heat treater and the controller, similar structural elements to the instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/Li is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “sensing the first heat treatment temperature of the first heat treater,” “sensing the second heat treatment temperature of the second heat treater” and “controlling the first heat treater and the second heat treater to provide different heat treatment temperatures respectively as a function of the temperatures sensed by the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor.” 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). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also 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 5, Lu/ Mueller/Li teaches the second heat treater comprising the second heater as addressed above, and further teaches that the second heater comprises a plurality of segments (Lu figs 1-3, 0029, 0032, 0033) or/and a plurality of independently controlled smaller heaters (Li col 6 lines 52-57), similar to the instantly claimed second heater treater comprising a first segment and a second segment. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/Li is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “providing a first segment heat treatment temperature from 600 degrees Celsius to 700 degrees Celsius and providing a second segment heat treatment temperature from 700 degrees Celsius to 850 degrees Celsius arranged along the direction of crystal growth.” 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). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)).
Regarding claim 11, Lu/ Mueller teaches the crystal puller comprising the first heat treater and the second heat treater as addressed above, and further teaches a control device separately controls the first heater and the second heater of the first heat treater and the second heat treater are separately controlled (Lu 0038), but does not explicitly teach a first temperature sensor and a second temperature sensor. However, Li teaches an apparatus for controlling temperature, wherein each of temperature control devices 112 comprises a sensor 114 and a heater 118, the temperature sensor and the heater of each control device function together so that the heater is powered depending on temperature measured by the sensor (figs 5-7, col 6 line 33 to col 7 line 6, claims 8, 10 and 11). 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 Lu/Mueller per teachings of Li in order to individually control the temperature and achieve a well-controlled thermal field for annealing a crystal (Li col 3 lines 10-60, col 6 line 33 to col 7 line 6 and col 7 lines 34-50). Lu/ Mueller/Li teaches the first temperature sensor, the first heat treater, the second temperature sensor, the second heat treater and the controller, similar structural elements to the instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/Li is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “sensing the first heat treatment temperature of the first heat treater,” “sensing the second heat treatment temperature of the second heat treater” and “controlling the first heat treater and the second heat treater to provide different heat treatment temperatures respectively as a function of the temperatures sensed by the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor.” 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). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also 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 12, Lu/Mueller teaches the crystal puller comprising the first heat treater and the second heat treater as addressed above, and further teaches a control device separately controls the first heater and the second heater of the first heat treater and the second heat treater are separately controlled (Lu 0038), but does not explicitly teach a first temperature sensor and a second temperature sensor. However, Li teaches an apparatus for controlling temperature, wherein each of temperature control devices 112 comprises a sensor 114 and a heater 118, the temperature sensor and the heater of each control device function together so that the heater is powered depending on temperature measured by the sensor (figs 5-7, col 6 line 33 to col 7 line 6, claims 8, 10 and 11). 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 Lu/Mueller per teachings of Li in order to individually control the temperature and achieve a well-controlled thermal field for annealing a crystal (Li col 3 lines 10-60, col 6 line 33 to col 7 line 6 and col 7 lines 34-50). Lu/ Mueller/Li teaches the first temperature sensor, the first heat treater, the second temperature sensor, the second heat treater and the controller, similar structural elements to the instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/Li is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “sensing the first heat treatment temperature of the first heat treater,” “sensing the second heat treatment temperature of the second heat treater” and “controlling the first heat treater and the second heat treater to provide different heat treatment temperatures respectively as a function of the temperatures sensed by the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor.” 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). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). It is also 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.
Claims 8, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu/Mueller as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Masada et al (US 20190161888 A1, “Masada”).
Regarding claim 8, Lu/Mueller teaches the first heat treater and the second heat treater along the direction of crystal (having a total length) and the monocrystalline silicon ingot (having a length) (Lu figs 1-3), but does not explicitly teach that the total length of the first heat treater and the second heat treater along the direction of crystal growth is greater than or equal to the length of the monocrystalline silicon ingot, such that the entire monocrystalline silicon ingot is able to be heat-treated simultaneously by the first heat treater and the second heat treater. it is well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Furthermore, Masada teaches a crystal pulling up device, wherein an entire monocrystalline silicon ingot is pulled into a heat treatment chamber comprising heater along the direction of crystal growth (0010, 0102-0112, 0142, 0146), e.g., a total length of the heat treatment chamber along the direction of crystal growth is greater than a length of the monocrystalline silicon ingot. 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 Lu/Mueller per teachings of Masada in order to process the ingot efficiently while suppressing decrease in lifetime of the ingot (Masada 0010, 0024, 0025, 0067). Lu/Mueller/Masada teaches similar structural elements as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/ Masada is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “the entire monocrystalline silicon ingot being able to be heat-treated simultaneously by the first heat treater and the second heat treater.” 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.
Regarding claim 13, Lu/Mueller teaches the first heat treater and the second heat treater along the direction of crystal (having a total length) and the monocrystalline silicon ingot (having a length) (Lu figs 1-3), but does not explicitly teach that the total length of the first heat treater and the second heat treater along the direction of crystal growth is greater than or equal to the length of the monocrystalline silicon ingot, such that the entire monocrystalline silicon ingot is able to be heat-treated simultaneously by the first heat treater and the second heat treater. it is well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Furthermore, Masada teaches a crystal pulling up device, wherein an entire monocrystalline silicon ingot is pulled into a heat treatment chamber comprising heater along the direction of crystal growth (0010, 0102-0112, 0142, 0146), e.g., a total length of the heat treatment chamber along the direction of crystal growth is greater than a length of the monocrystalline silicon ingot. 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 Lu/Mueller per teachings of Masada in order to process the ingot efficiently while suppressing decrease in lifetime of the ingot (Masada 0010, 0024, 0025, 0067). Lu/Mueller/Masada teaches similar structural elements as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/ Masada is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “the entire monocrystalline silicon ingot being able to be heat-treated simultaneously by the first heat treater and the second heat treater.” 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.
Regarding claim 14, Lu/Mueller teaches the first heat treater and the second heat treater along the direction of crystal (having a total length) and the monocrystalline silicon ingot (having a length) (Lu figs 1-3), but does not explicitly teach that the total length of the first heat treater and the second heat treater along the direction of crystal growth is greater than or equal to the length of the monocrystalline silicon ingot, such that the entire monocrystalline silicon ingot is able to be heat-treated simultaneously by the first heat treater and the second heat treater. it is well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Furthermore, Masada teaches a crystal pulling up device, wherein an entire monocrystalline silicon ingot is pulled into a heat treatment chamber comprising heater along the direction of crystal growth (0010, 0102-0112, 0142, 0146), e.g., a total length of the heat treatment chamber along the direction of crystal growth is greater than a length of the monocrystalline silicon ingot. 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 Lu/Mueller per teachings of Masada in order to process the ingot efficiently while suppressing decrease in lifetime of the ingot (Masada 0010, 0024, 0025, 0067). Lu/Mueller/Masada teaches similar structural elements as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Lu/Mueller/ Masada is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “the entire monocrystalline silicon ingot being able to be heat-treated simultaneously by the first heat treater and the second heat treater.” 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to objection to drawings have been considered, but not found persuasive. As indicated above, the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). However, the drawing does not show “the first heat treater and the second heat treater are arranged in the upper puller chamber;” it is noted that the drawing labels “610” being first heat treater, “620” being the second heat treater and “101” being the upper puller; specifically, referral number “101” and referral number 620 are pointing to the same member/part/portion of the puller in the drawings. It is not clear how one member/part/portion can be arranged in the same member/part/portion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, structure (mechanism) limitation has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term structure (mechanism) coupled with functional language “pulling… pull the monocrystalline silicon ingot …move the monocrystalline silicon ingot”. However, per the specification, the structure (mechanism) has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it, and the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims 1 and 6 are not clearly defined. Therefore, the claim rejection/interpretation is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments that None of the cited references, Lu, Mueller, Li and Masada, disclose “the crystal puller comprises an upper puller chamber with a small radial dimension and a lower puller chamber with a large radial dimension, and wherein the first heat treater and the second heat treater are arranged in the upper puller chamber, and both a crucible and a heater for heating the crucible are provided inside the lower puller chamber” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As applicant already noted, Lu teaches the first heat treater and the second heat treater, and the first/lower heater 53 is disposed in both the pull chamber 29 and the growth chamber, e.g., upper/middle portions of the first/lower heater 53 is disposed in the pull chamber, which is clearly shown in fig 1 and 3, meeting the instantly claimed/argued “the first heat treater and the second heat treater are arranged in the upper puller chamber.” Specifically, the primary reference to Lu explicitly teaches the crystal puller an upper puller chamber with a small radial dimension and a lower puller chamber with a large radial dimension (fig 1), and wherein the first/lower heater 53 (first heat treater) and the second/upper heater 153 (second heat treater) are arranged in the upper puller chamber (figs 1 and 3), and both a crucible 31/33 and a heater 39 for heating the crucible are provided inside the lower puller chamber (fig 1, 0027, 0028). It is also well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
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.
The rejection on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application No. 18/256,377 (‘377) have been considered and withdrawn, because the application ‘377 has been abandoned.
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