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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-8 are currently examined on the merits.
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 3-6 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.
The recited in claim 3 “…an average carbon concentration in the coating film is 3.0 x 1018 atoms/cc or less…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “an average carbon concentration” refers to the previously recited “average carbon concentration”. The instant limitation “an average carbon concentration in the coating film is 3.0 x 1018 atoms/cc or less” potentially comprises the concentration being as low as 0. Parent claim already recites “an average carbon concentration in the coating film is 1.0 x 1012 atoms/cc or more and 3.0 x 1019 atoms/cc or less,” e.g., the lowest/minimum concentration is 1.0 x 1012 atoms/cc. It is not clear with respect to the concentration limit at a lower side. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 4 “…both of an average carbon concentration in the coating film and an average carbon concentration in the crucible base body within the range of 0 um or more and 300 um or less in depth from the inner surface thereof are 1.3 x 1016 atoms/cc or less” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “an average carbon concentration” refers to the previously recited “average carbon concentration”. The instant limitation “an average carbon concentration … and an average carbon concentration …are 1.3 x 1016 atoms/cc or less” comprises the concentration being as low as 0. Parent claim already recites “an average carbon concentration in the coating film is 1.0 x 1012 atoms/cc or more and 3.0 x 1019 atoms/cc or less,” e.g., the concentration at lower side is 1.0 x 1012 atoms/cc. It is not clear with respect to the concentration limit at a lower side. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 4 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 5 “…a variation coefficient (σ/AVERAGE) of a carbon concentration in the coating film at five points on a bottom of the crucible base body is 1.1 or less” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “a carbon concentration” refers to the previously recited “average carbon concentration”. It is not clear what σ and AVERAGE respectively represents; it is not clear what “a variation coefficient (σ/AVERAGE) of a carbon concentration in the coating film at five points on a bottom of the crucible base body is 1.1 or less” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 5 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claim 6 is rejected because it depends on claim 5.
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (US 20200115820 A1, “Kishi”), and further in view of Masaru Sato (US 20100319609 A1, “Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Kishi teaches a quartz glass crucible comprising a crucible base body 10 made of quartz glass (consisting of silica glass) (figs 1, 2, 10 and 12, abstract, 0019, 0024. 0031, 0035, 0039, 0047, 0051, 0053, 0055, 0057, 0111); and a coating film 13A containing a crystallization accelerator and formed on an inner surface 10a of the crucible base body 10 (figs 1, 2, 10 and 12, 0110-0124).
Kishi teaches the coating film as addressed above, and further teaches that the coating film has a thickness of 0.3 µm to 100 µm (0111), e.g., within a range of 0 um or more and 300 um or less in depth from the inner surface, and the coating film comprises carbonate/carboxyviny polymers (carbon) (0110, 0113-0116, 0221), but does not explicitly teach an average carbon concentration in the coating film and the crucible base body is 1.0 x 1012 atoms/cc or more and 3.0 x 1019 atoms/cc or less. However, Sato teaches a quartz crucible, wherein the power used for forming inner surface of the crucible contains carbon in a range of from 5 ppm to 50 ppm (about 4x1017 atoms/cc to 4x1018 atoms/cc) (0014, 0021, 0050, 0073 and claim 5). 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 Kishi per teachings of Sato in order to provide a crucible for achieving a high yield of single crystal silicon (Sato abstract, 0001, 0108). 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 2, Kishi/Sato teaches that the coating solution for forming the coating film contains 0.0012 g/mL of barium carbonate (about 0.12 wt%) (Kishi 0116, 0221), with the intently claimed weight ratio of a carbonate in the coating film is 20.0 w% or less. 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.
Regarding claim 3, as addressed above, Kishi/Sato teaches that average carbon concentration in the coating film is 4x1017 atoms/cc to 4x1018 atoms/cc, overlapping the instantly claimed 3.0 x 1018 atoms/cc or less. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Kishi/Sato teaches that an amount of all impurities comprising carbon is 0.1ppm or less (Sato 0054). 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).
Regarding claim 5, Kishi/Sato teaches that the silica for forming the crucible has low impurities including carbon for example an amount of all impurities being as low as 0.1ppm or less (Sato 0054 and 0073), and the crucible having the impurities being as along as possible can provide uniform heat transfer (Kishi 0186; Sato 0007, 0045). Thus 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 Kishi/Sato, and obtained carbon concentration/variation coefficient of the carbon concentration including the instantly claimed “a variation coefficient (σ/AVERAGE) of a carbon concentration in the coating film at five points on a bottom of the crucible base body is 1.1 or less” in order to provide a crucible with uniform heat transfer, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further 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).
Regarding claim 8, Kishi/Sato teaches that an amount of all impurities is 0.1ppm or less (Sato 0054), e.g. any impurity (including nitrogen) is 3x1015 atoms/cc or less, within the instantly claimed nitrogen concentration. 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi/Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miao Yunliang (CN 103482995 A, machine translation, “Miao”).
Regarding claim 7, Kishi/Sato teaches the coating film as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the coating film has a peel strength of 0.3 kN/m or more. However, Miao teaches a crucible, wherein a crucible side has a peel strength of 424.1 N/m (0049, 0058, 0066). 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 Kishi/Sato per teachings of Miao in order to provide a reinforced crucible with long service life (Miao abstract).
Allowable claims
Claims 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record to Kishi et al (US 20200115820 A1, “Kishi”) teaches a quartz glass crucible, but does not teach, disclose, anticipate or reasonably suggest that the five points are determined as a first measurement point that is a center of the bottom, a second measurement point that is a position shifted by 0.08 to 0.7 times a radius in a radial direction of the crucible base body from the first measurement point, a third measurement point that is a position rotated 90° clockwise in a circumferential direction from the second measurement point, a fourth measurement point is a position rotated 90° clockwise in the circumferential direction from the third measurement point, and a fifth measurement point that is a position rotated 90° clockwise in the circumferential direction from the fourth measurement point, as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
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