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 .
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) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuishi et al (JP 2006-131440), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, in view of Yuan et al (CN 112647124), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
Mizuishi et al teaches a method for pulling a single crystal, the method comprising: installing a seed holder 2 on a drawing shaft 10 in a Czochralski crystal pulling apparatus, wherein a dish 6 in a form of a hollow truncated cone is secured between the seed holder and the drawing shaft such that an opening of the dish faces the drawing shaft (CT [0018]-[0021] and Fig 1 teaches an inverted truncated cone shaped insulating cylinder 6 having a wider space 9 between the seed holder 2 and the drawing shaft 10), and wherein the dish 6 comprises a top radius 9, a height, a material thickness, a base plate having a base plate radius (bottom of dish 6), and a bore having a diameter (dish 6 is detachable from seed holder 2, thus a bore is provided for the seed holder 2 in the dish 6); mounting a crystal seed 4 into the seed holder 2; melting polycrystalline silicon in a crucible to create a melt (CT [0023]-[0025]); lowering the drawing shaft until the crystal seed is in contact with the melt (CT [0025]); and pulling the single crystal (CT [0025]).
Mizuishi et al does not teach the drawing shaft and the dish is wetted with oil.
In a Czochralski crystal growth method and apparatus, Yuan et al teaches a fixed support; a seed crystal shaft, which is movably disposed on the fixed support and rotatable about its central axis, the seed crystal shaft being a rigid component; and a sealing assembly, which is disposed on the fixed support and sleeved on the lower end of the seed crystal shaft, the seed crystal shaft being movably disposed and rotatable relative to the sealing assembly, a lubrication gap suitable for accommodating lubricating oil being defined between the sealing assembly and the outer peripheral surface of the seed crystal shaft, the sealing assembly having a first inlet and a first outlet communicating with the lubrication gap, the lubricating oil being adapted to enter the lubrication gap from the first inlet and to flow out of the lubrication gap from the first outlet (CT2 [n0007]). Yuan et al also teaches by fitting a sealing component at the lower end of the seed crystal shaft and defining a lubrication gap between the sealing component and the outer peripheral surface of the seed crystal shaft, the flow of lubricating oil into and out of the lubrication gap not only plays a lubricating role, but also carries away foreign objects on the seed crystal shaft through the flow of lubricating oil, ensuring that the vacuum at the sealing component does not leak, which can further make the seed crystal shaft operate more stably and effectively improve the crystal growth quality (CT2 [n0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mizuishi et al by wetting the drawing shaft and the dish with oil, as taught by Yuan et al, to lubricate and carry away foreign objects on the seed crystal shaft through the flow of lubricating oil, ensuring that the vacuum at the sealing component does not leak, which can further make the seed crystal shaft operate more stably and effectively improve the crystal growth quality.
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Mizuishi et al and Yuan et al does not explicitly teach the height is less than the difference of the base plate radius and the top radius. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Mizuishi et al and Yuan et al by having the height less than the difference of the base plate radius and the top radius because changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuishi et al (JP 2006-131440), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, in view of Yuan et al (CN 112647124), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Nishimoto et al (US 6,338,757).
The combination of Mizuishi et al and Yuan et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except the combination of Mizuishi et al and Yuan et al does not explicitly teach the material thickness is not less than 1 mm and not greater than 5 mm.
In a Czochralski apparatus, Nishimoto et al teaches a heat shielding plate 12 with a thickness of 2-150 mm from the viewpoint of heat shield effect and strength (col 9, ln 10 to col 10, ln 65; Fig 10(a)). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Mizuishi et al and Yuan et al by making the thickness to be 1-5 mm, as taught by Nishimoto et al, to provide suitable strength and heat shielding effect. Furthermore, changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuishi et al (JP 2006-131440), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, in view of Yuan et al (CN 112647124), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Noda et al (US 2008/0110394).
The combination of Mizuishi et al and Yuan et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, except the dish is made of carbon fiber reinforced carbon. Mizuishi et al teaches a heat insulating cylinder made of carbon (CT [0015]).
In a Czochralski apparatus, Noda et al teaches a heat shield is made of carbon fiber-reinforced carbon ([0043]-[0052]; Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Mizuishi et al and Yuan et al by making the dish of carbon fiber reinforced carbon, as taught by Noda et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
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