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 Application
Claims 1-3 are pending and presented for examination. Claim 1 was amended and claim 3 newly added via the instant amendment dated 6 January 2026 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 6 January 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cho in view of Schon is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring that the growth be in a manner which does not involve wall contact and a concave downward growth direction (while this are process steps they do impart structure to the product of no interface with the wall and a convex downward shape, neither of which are present in Cho or Schon).
The traversal is that Cho discloses the CZ method, which has already been agreed to, and that replacing the CZ method of Cho with the NOC method of Schon will “change the principle of operation of the primary reference” (Remarks at 4). To support this Applicants note that the configuration of the CZ method and the NOC method are totally different and that thusly to modify Cho with Schon would be a massive change. This is persuasive as the entire structure of Cho would need to be wholly modified such that the main concept of Cho would no longer be present in the combination of references.
The traversal continues in that Schon “teach[es] away from the claimed subject matter of present application, negating any motivation to combine. The Office Action alleges that Schon suggests CZ and NOC have similar defect concentrations, providing a motivation in switching to NOC for cost reasons. This is a mis interpretation of Schon . . . explicitly discourages the use of the NOC samples tested. Specifically, Schon states that for the NOC samples, the lifetime ‘drops by more than one order of magnitude’ . . . Additionally, Scon concludes that the top levels in NOC samples ‘differ significantly’ from those in CZ silicon, identifying specific deep-level defects in NOC silicon’” (Remarks at 5) and that combining this more inferior crystal with the desire for high quality in Cho that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success, which is agreed with.
With specific respect to claim 3 the traversal notes that the formation of COPs “is critically dependent on oxygen concentration and thermal history. Cho utilizes a quarts crucible, which inevitably introduces oxygen into the silicon melt due ot the erosion of the crucible wall by the melt . . . High concentration of interstitial oxygen act as nucleation sites that facility the aggregation of vacancies into COPs . . .This physical isolation eliminates the crucible as a source of oxygen contamination, resulting in a silicon single crystal with a fundamentally different chemical composition (extremely low oxyen) compared to Cho.” (Remarks at 6). This is further supported by Applicants noting that the argument for inherency fails due to the fundamental structural difference in Cho due to the growth method and that with Schon producing a lower quality product that the amount of COPs produced would not be the same as those instantly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 3 both state “growth interfaces downward”, however the instant specification only has support for this growth interface to be convex downward (see for example Instant Specification at [0048]). This is a new matter rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowable absent the above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections.
As to claim 1, none of the cited prior art either alone or discloses a Si ingot single crystal which has a concave downward growth interface toward the bottom of the ingot without contacting a wall and has a point defect concentration of 1014/cc or less. Cho is the closest piece of prior art and it requires wall contact and a convex downward growth.
As to claim 3, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses a Si ingot which has no interface patterns from wall contact with a point defect of 1014/cc or less and a COP concentration of 107/cc or less. Cho is the closest piece of prior art and it is silent to the COP and has a wall growth interface due to CZ method being utilized. JP2002047094 discloses a Si ingot which has a point defect greater than 1018/cc and COPs
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 are finally rejected.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759