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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/26/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group in the reply filed on 12/26/20205 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a shell of enclosing and vacuum-sealing an overall structure of the molten silicon feeder” is a shared special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because “a shell of enclosing and vacuum-sealing an overall structure of the molten silicon feeder” is not a special technical feature because this feature is conventionally known in the art, as evidenced by US 2005/0279275 which teaches an open crucible for melting silicon with a enclosing and sealed chamber (shell) (See Fig 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites, “high-purity material.” “high” is a relative term and indefinite. It is unclear what is high purity, i.e. 99%, 99.9%, 99.99% etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holder (US 2005/0279275).
Holder teaches aoldeHol molten silicon feeder for continuous Czochralski single crystals, comprising: an open crucible (melting crucible 65 having a main body 89) having a top opening located at a top portion (Fig 1) and an injection port (bottom nozzle 85) located at a bottom portion, the open crucible receiving and accommodating a raw material of a solid silicon (granular polysilicon GP); a heater (melter assembly 1 with induction coil 95) for heating the open crucible, so that the solid silicon therein is melted, and injected below through the injection port at the bottom portion of the open crucible; a shell (top wall 23 and tubular wall 15) for enclosing and vacuum-sealing an overall structure of the molten silicon feeder (access port 59 has vacuum seals so that the pressure and composition of the atmosphere in the vessel is maintained and vacuum pumping the melter assembly to approximately 10-30 torr) (Fig 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 11A, 12, 13, 13A, 14-17, ; [0046]-[0080]).
Referring to claim 3, Holder teaches a hopper, being a container for holding solid polysilicon raw material, a bottom portion of the hopper having a bottom opening, and the bottom opening of the hopper being docked with the top opening of the crucible (Fig 10 and 17 shows the GF with sleeve 39 extending into the crucible, which reads on the bottom opening of the hopper being docked with the top opening of the crucible).
Referring to claim 8, Holder teaches the crucible with a plurality of individually controlled heaters using induction coils 95, 99 ([0052]).
Referring to claim 9, Holder teaches individually controlled heaters for melting; therefore, would be capable of controlling the melting speed of solid silicon to control the position and pressure of the molten silicon liquid level and the outlet pressure of the injection port. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, Holder teaches individually controller heaters; therefore, would capable of the claimed intended use. Also, the claimed injection speed formula is not a structural limitation.
Referring to claim 10, Holder teaches the shell (tubular wall 15 and top wall 23) define a cavity through which cooling water may be circulated and the shell surround the heater 95/99 (Fig 3; [0051]).
Referring to claim 11, Holder teaches a isolation device (vacuum seal 47) disposed at a connection position of the hopper and the open crucible so the hopper (GF) is isolated from other devices (Fig 3; [0051]).
Referring to claim 12, Holder teaches individually controller heaters 95/99 wherein 95 is located at an upper part of the crucible, and 99 is located at a lower part of the crucible; therefore, would be capable of the claimed overheating; and a injection port (nozzle 85) has a diameter of 2.3 mm (Fig 4; [0062]-[0073]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder (US 2005/0279275), as applied to claim 1, 3, and 8-12 above, and further in view of Dassel et al (WO 2017/172748 A1).
Holder teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except Holder does not explicitly teach a feeding port for feeding and transportation by vibrating and flapping a hopper. Holder teaches a solid, granular polysilicon is feed to the melting crucible by a gravity feeder (GF) (Fig 3; [0045]-[0050]).
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Dassel et al teaches granules flow due to gravity from a feed hopper into a crucible within a melting chamber, and one or more active systems or components may be employed, such as a vibrating table or belt, auger, flaps etc, to charge and recharge a crucible or continuously charge a crucible (pg 84, ln 1 to pg 85, ln 31; Fig 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Holder by providing conventionally components to hopper, such a means for vibrating and flaps, as taught by Dassel et al, to control the flow the granules from the hopper.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder (US 2005/0279275), as applied to claim 1, 3, and 8-12 above, and further in view of Williams et al (US 5,762,491).
Holder teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, except the material of the hopper is quartz or a high purity material resistant to molten silicon erosion, or an inner surface of the hopper has a high purity material coating resistant to molten silicon erosion.
In a hopper apparatus, Williams et al teaches a hopper 30 is of known construction, having the capability to meter the flow of polysilicon from the hopper and providing protection (e.g., as by quartz lining) for purity of the polysilicon in the hopper (col 4, ln 1-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Holder by providing a hopper made of quartz, as taught by Williams et al, to protect the purity of the polysilicon in the hopper, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder (US 2005/0279275), as applied to claim 1, 3, and 8-12 above, and further in view of Yamagata et al (US 2011/0240663).
Holder teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, except a pusher above the hopper to push the solid silicon inside the hopper to the open crucible or indicate a height of the solid silicon.
In a hopper apparatus, Yamagata et al teaches a hopper for the powdered raw material and the hopper equipped with an agitation screw and with a measuring feeder may be used. In this case, the powdered substrate's raw material 11 filled in the hopper is fed with agitating by the agitation screw while controlling the feeding amount by the measuring feeder (Fig 9; [0110]-[0130], [0150]-[0160]) wherein the agitation screw clearly suggests a pusher above the hopper to push the solid silicon inside the hopper to the open crucible or indicate a height of the solid silicon because the screw blade push the material out and can be used to indicate the height of the material in the hopper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Holder by providing a agitation screw (pusher), as taught by Yamagata et al, to fed material from the hopper by agitation to control the feeding amount (Yamagata [0121]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder (US 2005/0279275), as applied to claim 1, 3, and 8-12 above, and further in view of Li (CN 108385159), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Stoddard et al (US 2010/0050932).
Holder teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, except a a silicon material plug disposed on the bottom opening of the hopper, such that solid silicon will not fall from the bottom opening of the hopper when carrying the hopper, and wherein the silicon material plug comprises a silicon wafer, silicon block, a key with a convex, a pin, a tooth or a tenon structure that fits the hopper opening.
In a Czochralski apparatus, Li teaches a hopper 16 with a feed plug 17 to block the hopper at the bottom of the opening (CT [0018]-[0042]; Fig 2).
In a Czochralski apparatus, Stoddard et al teaches loading silicon into V-shaped plates and introducing a shaped cast silicon plug to seal or block the bottom gap between the plates (Fig 1; [0025]-[0040], [0066]), which clearly suggests a silicon block.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Holder by providing a plug to block the feed, as taught by Li, and the make the plug from silicon, as taught by Stoddard et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Holder, Li and Stoddard et al teaches a silicon plug, which clearly suggests crystalline silicon.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder (US 2005/0279275) in view of Li (CN 108385159), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Stoddard et al (US 2010/0050932, as applied to claim 1, 3, and 6-12 above, and further in view of Eidelman et al (US 2013/0220215).
The combination of Holder, Li and Stoddard et al teaches all of the limitation of claim 13, as discussed above, except when the hopper needs to be replaced, closing an isolation device (valve) to isolate the hopper, introducing gas to balance the air pressure in a space where the hopper is located with the outside atmosphere pressure; removing the hopper and inserting another hopper full of solid polysilicon; vacuum a space where another hopper full of solid polysilicon is located to balance the pressure and opening the isolation device, and docking another full hopper, turning on the heater to melt and entering the solid silicon above the silicon material plug into the open crucible. The combination of Holder, Li and Stoddard et al teaches an upper heater and lower heater adjacent the nozzle and silicon plug.
In a Czochralski apparatus, Eidelman et al teaches when the raw material in hopper 31 has been run out completely, it has to be replaced by identical hopper 31A (see FIG. 4), which was preliminarily charged with raw material and filled with inert gas. The replacement is performed in the following manner. After the upper end of a raw material column in transport pipe 30 has dropped to the level, which is slightly lower than valve 34, this valve is being closed. Since this moment all subsequent operations must be completed in a time that is known to be less than the time of an expenditure of the remaining raw material in transport pipe 30. The fulfillment of this condition will provide an uninterrupted supply of raw material to feeder 29 and hence the continuous growing of single crystal 28. That is why length H of the lower part of transport pipe 30, between feeder 29 and valve 34, should be high enough to accommodate within it sufficiently large amount of raw material. Just after valve 34 is closed valve 37 is being opened to equalize the pressure of inert gas in hopper 31 (and in the upper part of transport pipe 30) with atmospheric pressure. Then valves 35 and 37 are being closed and hopper 31 is being detached from transport pipe 30 by means of disconnecting flange 33 from flange 32. After empty hopper 31 is moved to the side, hopper 31A is being shifted to transport pipe 30 and connected to it by means of flanges 32 and 33A. After evacuation of air from the upper part of the transport pipe (between valves 34, 35A and 37) this space is filled with inert gas through branch pipe 36 with valve 37 open, to a pressure which is approximately equal to the pressure of inert gas in the hopper 31A, and then valve 37 is being closed. The valve 35A is opened and the pressure of inert gas in hopper 31A is measured. Valve 37 is opened for evacuation or filling inert gas to equalize the pressure in hopper 31A with the current pressure of inert gas in all other units of the apparatus, thereafter valve 37 is being closed. Finally valve 34 is being opened, and the raw material flows down filling transport pipe 30 at its full length. After raw material in hopper 31A has been run out completely all above operations are reiterated with any number of preliminarily charged hoppers, providing the continuous growth of the single crystal to any pre-set length ([0042]), which clearly suggests when the hopper needs to be replaced, closing an isolation device (valve) to isolate the hopper, introducing gas to balance the air pressure in a space where the hopper is located with the outside atmosphere pressure; removing the hopper and inserting another hopper full of solid polysilicon; vacuum a space where another hopper full of solid polysilicon is located to balance the pressure and opening the isolation device, and docking another full hopper, turning on the heater to melt and entering the solid silicon above the silicon material plug into the open crucible.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Holder, Li and Stoddard et al by closing an isolation device (valve) to isolate the hopper, introducing gas to balance the air pressure in a space where the hopper is located with the outside atmosphere pressure; removing the hopper and inserting another hopper full of solid polysilicon; vacuum a space where another hopper full of solid polysilicon is located to balance the pressure and opening the isolation device, and docking another full hopper, turning on the heater to melt and entering the solid silicon above the silicon material plug into the open crucible, when the hopper needs to be replaced, as taught by Eidelman et al, to allow continuous growth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714