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 1-18, and Species A1 in the reply filed on June 16, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 and 19-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 16, 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Thin plate-shaped single-crystal production equipment comprising an infrared ray irradiation apparatus, an elevator apparatus, and a horizontal direction moving apparatus
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “infrared ray irradiation apparatus,” the “elevator apparatus,” and the “horizontal direction moving apparatus” in claim 1, the “position control apparatus” in claim 4, the “driving apparatus” in claims 5 and 9, and the “rotating apparatus” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claim limitations relating to the “infrared ray irradiation apparatus,” the “elevator apparatus,” and the “horizontal direction moving apparatus” in claim 1, the “position control apparatus” in claim 4, the “driving apparatus” in claims 5 and 9, and the “rotating apparatus” in claim 12 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” coupled with functional language “infrared ray irradiation,” “elevator,” “horizontal direction moving,” “position control,” “driving,” and “rotating,” respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following disclosure in corresponding U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0352614 appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation
Corresponding structure
infrared ray irradiation apparatus
The infrared ray irradiation apparatus (20) in at least Figs. 1-3, ¶¶[0022]-[0029], and ¶¶[0227]-[0243] which is in the form of a laser.
elevator apparatus
The elevator apparatus (30) in at least Fig. 1, ¶¶[0131]-[0138], and ¶[0245]-[0246] which is in the form of a winding apparatus (50).
horizontal direction moving apparatus
The horizontal direction moving apparatus (72) in at least Fig. 1, ¶¶[0127]-[0130], and ¶¶[0248]-[0249] which is in the form of a linear actuator comprised of a drive shaft (74) and a motor (88).
position control apparatus
The position control apparatus (84) in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0249]-[0251] which controls vertical movement of the placing table (82) via a drive shaft (86) a motor (88).
driving apparatus
The driving apparatus (76) or (88) in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0249]-[0250] which is in the form of a motor.
rotating apparatus
The rotating apparatus (38) that rotates the winding shaft (36) in at least Fig. 1, ¶[0246], and ¶[0369].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
The element in claim 12 which relates to “a rotating apparatus that rotates the winding shaft” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Fig. 1, ¶[0246], and ¶[0369] of the published application teach a rotating apparatus (38) that rotates the winding shaft (36). However, the rotation apparatus (38) is merely shown in Fig. 1 as a circle which surrounds the shaft (36) and there is no teaching or suggestion as to the actual structure of the rotating apparatus (38) that facilitates rotation of the winding shaft (36) itself.
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(f) or pre-AIA 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 § 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 and 9-18 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 recites “the seed single crystal” in l. 8, l. 13, ll. 15-16, and l. 18. It is unclear whether this is the same seed crystal or a different seed crystal from the “thin plate-shaped seed single crystal” in ll. 6-7 of claim 1. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the thin plate-shaped seed single crystal.” Dependent claims 2-6 and 9-18 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites “a single crystal” in l. 15 and “a thin plate-shaped single crystal” in l. 19. Since there is a previous recitation of “a thin plate-shaped single crystal” in l. 4 it is unclear whether applicants are referring to the same or a different single crystal. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the thin plate-shaped single crystal” in both instances.
Claim 1 recites “a molten region” in ll. 19-20. It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the “a melt” recited in l. 7 of the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite, for example, “the melt.”
Claim 12 recites that the winding apparatus comprises a “winding shaft” and a “rotating apparatus that rotates the winding shaft.” In Fig. 1, ¶[0246], and ¶[0369] of the published application the specification discloses a rotating apparatus (38) that rotates the winding shaft (36). However, the rotation apparatus (38) is shown in Fig. 1 as a circle which surrounds the shaft (36) and there is no teaching or suggestion as to the actual structure of the rotating apparatus (38) that facilitates rotation of the winding shaft (36) itself. Since the actual structure of the rotating apparatus is not clearly disclosed, the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained and claim 12 is therefore considered to be indefinite. Dependent claims 13-14 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 12.
Claims 12 and 14 recite “the seed single crystal” in l. 9 and l. 3, respectively. It is unclear whether this is the same seed crystal or a different seed crystal from the “thin plate-shaped seed single crystal” in ll. 6-7 of claim 1. It is assumed applicants intended to refer to “the thin plate-shaped seed single crystal.” Claim 13 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-2, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,309,239 to Fumeton, et al. (“Fumeton”).
Regarding claim 1, Fumeton teaches a thin plate-shaped single-crystal production equipment (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and entire reference which teach an embodiment of an apparatus for producing a plate-shaped single crystal) comprising:
an infrared ray irradiation apparatus that irradiates an upper surface of a raw material lump for producing a thin plate-shaped single crystal with an infrared ray to melt a surface of the upper surface of the raw material lump (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, l. 19 to col. 4, l. 1 which teach the use of a laser to irradiate and melt an upper surface of a bar (1) of polycrystalline Si to produce a plate-shaped single crystal);
an elevator apparatus that immerses a lower surface of a thin plate-shaped seed single crystal in a melt melted by the infrared ray irradiation apparatus and obtained on the surface of the upper surface of the raw material lump, and lifts the seed single crystal upward from an immersed state (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, l. 19-64 and col. 5, l. 17 to col. 6, l. 16 which teach that immersion of a seed plate (3) into the molten zone (Z) is controlled by rollers (R1)-(R4) which also lift the seed plate (3) upwards and out of the molten zone (Z)); and
a horizontal direction moving apparatus that moves the raw material lump in a horizontal direction (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, ll. 1-10 which teach that the apparatus includes a means (Sc) for translating the bar (1) in horizontal directions (F3) and (F4) by a motor),
wherein the thin plate-shaped single-crystal production equipment is configured such that, by immersing the lower surface of the seed single crystal in the melt obtained on the surface of the upper surface of the raw material lump by the infrared ray irradiation apparatus via the elevator apparatus, growth of a single crystal is started from the lower surface of the immersed seed single crystal (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3, l. 19 to col. 4, l. 1, and the Example in col. 6, l. 25 to col. 7, l. 11 which teach that pulling the seed plate (3) from the molten zone (Z) by means of rollers (R1)-(R4) produces a plate-shaped single crystal (5)), and
furthermore, by moving the raw material lump in the horizontal direction by the horizontal direction moving apparatus simultaneously with lifting the seed single crystal upward via the elevator apparatus, a thin plate-shaped single crystal is continuously produced while a molten region of the upper surface of the raw material lump is moved in the horizontal direction (It is noted that this limitation appears to merely recite an intended use of the claimed apparatus. 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. In this cased Figs. 1-2, col. 3, l. 19 to col. 4, l. 1, col. 5, l. 1 to col. 6, l. 16, and the Example in col. 6, l. 25 to col. 7, l. 11 teach that the system is capable of lifting the seed plate (3) upwards by means of rollers (R1)-(R4) while simultaneously translating the bar (1) in a horizontal directions (F3)-(F4) to maintain the desired alignment between the growing crystal (5) and the molten zone (Z).).
Regarding claim 2, Fumeton teaches that the infrared ray emitted from the infrared ray irradiation apparatus is a laser beam (see col. 4, l. 1 which teach the use of a laser).
Regarding claim 15, Fumeton teaches that a material of the raw material lump is silicon, a thickness of the thin plate-shaped single crystal is within a range of 30 mm to 500 mm (see the Example in col. 6, ll. 26-29 teaches producing a sheet crystal (5) having a thickness of 100 mm using a polycrystalline silicon cylinder (1)).
Regarding claim 18, Fumeton teaches that on the upper surface of the raw material lump, a required amount of a composition of a liquid phase that coexists in equilibrium with a composition of the thin plate-shaped single crystal to be produced is first disposed (See Figs. 1-2 and the Example in col. 6, l. 26 to col. 7, l. 6 which teach that heating of the Si bar (1) produces a molten zone which is brought in contact with the seed crystal (3) until a liquid-seed equilibrium is reached which necessarily produces a composition of a liquid phase as claimed. Alternatively, the limitation relating to forming a composition of a liquid phase in equilibrium with a composition of the plate-shaped single crystal does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. 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.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumeton in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0065264 to Moffatt, et al. (“Moffatt”).
Regarding claim 11, Fumeton does not teach that the horizontal direction moving apparatus is a linear actuator. However, in Fig. 1A and at least ¶[0022] Moffatt teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for irradiating predetermined regions (12) of a substrate (10) with an energy source (20) such as a laser. The location of the substrate (10) relative to the laser (20) is controlled by means of a plurality of linear actuators (17) which facilitate precise control of the movement and position of the substrate (10). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Moffatt and would be motivated to utilize a linear actuator in order to more precisely and accurately control the horizontal in-plane location of the poly-Si bar (1) of Fumeton relative to the impinging beam during crystal growth.
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumeton in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2018/0051389 to Maxwell, et al. (“Maxwell”).
Regarding claim 12, Fumeton teaches that the seed single crystal is suspended via a plurality of thin wires (See Fig. 2 and col. 5, l. 65 to col. 6, l. 11 which teach that the seed crystal (3) is secured by a holding means (4) which is connected to a tape (6) that is pulled by means of rollers (R1)-(R4). Although Fumeton does not teach that the tape (6) is in the form of a wire or that there are a plurality of said wires, absent a showing of unexpected results, the use of a wire instead of a tape may be considered as a change in shape which does not modify the operation of the device which supports a showing of prima facie obviousness. Absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See, e.g., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Moreover, the use of a plurality of wires instead of a single wire is considered to be a mere duplication of parts which also does not modify the operation of the device and, hence, supports a showing of prima facie obviousness. The mere duplication of parts is not sufficient to produce a patentable distinction unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See, e.g., In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); see also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).).
Fumeton does not teach the structure of the elevator apparatus as claimed. However, Maxwell teaches an embodiment in which the elevator apparatus is a winding apparatus that continuously winds the produced thin plate-shaped single crystal into a roll shape (see Figs. 2-3 & 5 and ¶¶[0026]-[0041] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference which teach an upper fiber guide (500) which includes a spooling drum (530) that winds the crystal (350) into a roll shape), the winding apparatus comprises:
a winding shaft that continuously spins the plate-shaped single crystal (see Figs. 2 & 5 and ¶¶[0038]-[0041] which teach a spooling drum (530) which necessarily spins about a shaft in order to pull the crystal (350) and wrap it about its body); and
a rotating apparatus that rotates the winding shaft (see Figs. 2 & 5 and ¶¶[0038]-[0041] which teach that since the spooling drum (530) rotates in order to wrap the crystal (350) about its body there must necessarily be a rotating apparatus which causes the spooling drum (530) to rotate).
Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a spooling drum which is rotated about a shaft or axle by a rotating apparatus in order to pull and wind up the tape (6) and the thus-formed plate-shaped crystal (5) produced using the apparatus of Fumeton in order to provide a space-saving means capable of spooling the grown crystal for future storage and transport.
Regarding claim 13, Fumeton teaches that a winding speed of the thin plate-shaped single crystal by the winding apparatus is within a range of 0.005 mm/min to 100 mm/min (see col. 1, ll. 45-51 which teaches that the drawing speed is selected so that the desired thickness of the crystal is obtained and col. 2, ll. 15-16 which further teaches that the drawing speed is preferably between 10 and 1,000 cm/h (i.e., from 1.67 to 166.7 mm/min) which substantially overlaps the claimed range; accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to rotate the spooling drum (530) of Maxwell at a winding speed of at least 1.67 mm/min in order to produce a sheet crystal having the desired thickness).
Regarding claim 14, Fumeton teaches that in the seed single crystal, a thickness of a portion to which the thin wires are attached is equal to or less than a thickness of the thin plate-shaped single crystal to be produced (see col. 3, ll. 39-46 which teach that the seed plate (3) to which the tape (6) is attached may have a thickness of 100 to 500 mm while the Example in col. 6, ll. 26-29 teaches producing a sheet crystal (5) having a thickness of 100 mm which is equal to the thickness of the seed plate (3))
Claims 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumeton in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,453,352 to Paul C. Goundry (‘Goundry”).
Regarding claim 16, Fumeton does not teach an auxiliary heating member that heats the raw material lump in advance is disposed around the raw material lump. However, in at least Fig. 3 and col. 3, l. 38 to col. 6, l. 9 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Goudry teaches an analogous system (10) for the growth of a crystal ribbon (20) from a crystalline bar stock (11) which is heated by an RF heating coil (13) to form a molten mass (14) at a top end of the bar (11). In col. 5, l. 75 to col. 6, l. 5 Goundry further teaches the use of pre-heaters (30) to preheat the semiconductor bar stock (11) in order to provide additional control over the melting end of the bar such that the material reaching the melting zone is maintained at a constant temperature. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to dispose an auxiliary heating member about the poly-Si bar in the apparatus of Fumeton in order to provide greater control over the temperature of the poly-Si bar in the vicinity of the molten zone.
Regarding claim 17, Fumeton does not teach that a heat insulating material is further disposed outside the auxiliary heating member. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 16, in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 75 to col. 6, l. 5 Goundry further teaches the use of pre-heaters (30) to preheat the semiconductor bar stock (11) in order to provide additional control over the melting end of the bar such that the material reaching the melting zone is maintained at a constant temperature. As shown specifically in Fig. 3, the pre-heater (30) is illustrated as a heating coil which is surrounded by or encapsulated within what may be considered as an insulating material. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide insulating material about the pre-heaters (30) in order to minimize heat losses outside of the growth chamber (10). Alternatively, the concentration coil (33) shown in Fig. 3 may be broadly considered as an insulating material that includes a component disposed outside of the pre-heater (30) and may be broadly considered as a heat insulating material as claimed which is incorporated for the same or for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or reasonably suggest that an irradiation region of the laser beam has a hollow quadrangular shape elongated in a horizontal direction orthogonal to a thickness direction of the raw material lump as recited in the context of claim 3. Dependent claims 4-6 and 9-10 are also deemed to be in condition for allowance due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights