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 Claims
Claims 10-17 are cancelled. Claims 21-24 are newly added. Claims 1-9 and 18-24 are pending. Claim 18 is amended. Claims 1 and 18 are independent claims. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 21-24 are currently examined on the merits.
Specification
The amended specification is objected to because of the following informalities: the amended paragraph [0037] recites “ingot puller 10,” which should be “ingot puller 100”. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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, 8, 9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu Chongjiang (CN 115961336 A, machine translation, “Yu”), and further in view of Marcello Canella (US 6019838 A, “Canella”).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches an ingot puller for producing a single crystal silicon rod (semiconductor ingot), the ingot puller comprising a furnace body 10 (housing) defining a furnace chamber comprising a lower chamber (growth chamber) (figs 1 and 2, n0026, n0028, n0031-n0033, n0036, n0060, claims 1-10); a crucible positioned within the growth chamber (lower portion of the furnace chamber) (n0028, n0036, n0060 and claim 10); an upper portion (an ingot receiving vessel) of the furnace chamber defining an upper chamber (ingot receiving chamber) connected with the growth chamber (lower chamber) (figs 1 and 2, n0030, n0036-n0040); and a feed/ charging system (assembly) for charging silicon raw material (semiconductor material) to the crucible (figs 1-3. abstract, n0001-n0003, n0006, n0027-n0030, n0038, n0060 and claim 10), the feed assembly comprising a feeding tube (dumper) for containing the semiconductor material (silicon raw material) (figs 1-3, n0001-n0003, n0006, n0030, n0038), the dumper (feeding tube) being moveable in the ingot receiving chamber between a raised position and a lowered position (abstract, n0006, n0028, n0030, n0038, n0057, n0060 and claim 10), the dumper (feeding tube) comprising a base (dumper bottom) and a tube body (dumper sidewall) extending from the base (dumper bottom) (fig 2, n0003, n0032), the dumper sidewall (tube body) being releasable from the dumper bottom (base) to allow the semiconductor (silicon) material to exit the dumper (base) (fig 2, n0003); and stop mechanism 20 including stops 21 (opening pins) and lifting unit 22, wherein the stops 21 (opening pins) engage the dumper (feeding tube) when extended into the ingot receiving chamber to release the dumper sidewall from the dumper bottom as the dumper is moved towards the lowered position (figs 2 and 3, n0037-n0060).
Yu teaches the opening pins as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the opening pins selectively extendable into the ingot receiving chamber and retractable from the ingot receiving chamber. However, Canella teaches an apparatus, wherein a rockshaft extends/retracts through a pulling/ingot receiving chamber (fig 5, col 5 line 16 to col 6 line 16). 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 Yu per teachings of Canella in order to provide suitable structure for controlling discharge of material and further pulling crystal (Canella col 5 line 16 to col 6 line 16).
Regarding claim 8, Yu/Canella teaches that each opening pin is operable to selectively extend into and retract from the ingot receiving chamber as addressed above, and further teaches that operation is manual (Yu n0052; Canella col 6 lines 29-38).
Regarding claim 9, Yu/Canella teaches the dumper includes stop mechanism distributed circumferentially (an annular stop) that extends outward from the dumper sidewall, wherein the opening pins engage the annular stop when extended into the ingot receiving chamber to release the dumper sidewall from the dumper bottom as the dumper is moved towards the lowered position (Yu figs 2 and 3, abstract, n0011, n0039, claim 2; Canella col 3 lines 21-40).
Regarding claim 21, Yu/Canella teaches that the dumper (feeding tube/pipe) is movable in the ingot receiving chamber along an axial direction (longitudinal axis) (Yu abstract, n0028, n0060, claims 1, 3-5 and 10), wherein the opening pins (rockshaft) are selectively extendable into the ingot receiving chamber and retractable from the ingot receiving chamber in a horizontal direction (direction perpendicular) to the longitudinal axis (Canella fig 5, col 16-35).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Yu/Canella teaches the opening pins are selectively positionable between a first position in which the opening pins extend into the ingot receiving chamber and a second position in which the opening pins are retracted from the ingot receiving chamber (Canella fig 5, col 16-35), similar to the instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Yu/Canella is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “a portion of the opening pins remaining within the ingot receiving chamber when the opening pins are in the second position” and “a portion of the opening pins remaining outside the ingot receiving chamber when the opening pins are in the first position”. 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. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu/Canella as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jain et al (US 4299338 A, “Jain”).
Regarding claim 2, Yu/Canella teaches the opening pins selectively causing the opening pin to extend into and retract from the ingot receiving chamber as addressed above, and further teaches suitable indexing mechanism may be provided for the indexing of the rockshaft to index a valve to its different positions, but does not explicitly teach a respective actuator. However, Jain teaches a system, wherein an actuator is provided to move stop/tube/handle (figs 1 and 4, col 1 line 67 to col 2 line 4; col 2 lines 49-51; col 3 lines 28 to col 4 line 45; claims 2, 4, 7 and 10). 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 Yu/Canella per teachings of Jain in order to provide suitable structure for transferring material without contamination (Jain col 3 line 5 to col 4 line 29). It is also well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu/ Canella/ Jain as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Amico et al (US 20160298259 A1, “Amico”).
Regarding claim 3, Yu/Canella/Jain teaches the actuator causing the respective opening pin to selectively extend into and retract from the ingot receiving chamber as addressed, but does not explicitly teach a controller for controlling each actuator. However, it is a known that a controller is used for controlling actuator as taught by Amico (0039-0043). 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 Yu/Canella/ Jain per teachings of Amico in order to provide suitably controlled actuator for eliminating unwanted variation for material charges (Amico 0042).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu/ Canella/Jain as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Charles A. Statton (US 20220185603 A1, “Statton”).
Regarding claim 4, Yu/Canella/Statton teaches the actuator as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a pneumatic cylinder. However, Statton teaches a system, wherein a pneumatic cylinder is used for actuating (0082, 0083, 0087 and claim 17). 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 Yu/Canella/Jain per teachings of Statton in order to provide suitable ways for controllably transferring materials (Statton 0007 and 0082). It is also well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 5, Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton teaches opening pins and the pneumatic cylinder as addressed above, and further teaches a piston connected to a piston rod by a spring (connector arm) (Jain figs 1 and 4-6; col 5 lines 33-53), each piston head being reciprocable/movable within a respective guide barrel (Jain figs 1 and 4-6; col 5 lines 33-53), similar to the instantly claimed structural features. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “being attached to the ingot receiving vessel between a first position in which the opening pin extends into the ingot receiving chamber, and a second position in which the opening pin is retracted from the ingot receiving chamber”. 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. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu/ Canella/ Jain/Statton as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kimura et al (US 5843229 A, “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 6, Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton teaches the guide barrel and the piston head, but does not explicitly teach a metal bellows. However, Kimura teaches an apparatus, wherein a bellows chamber is made of metal (col 3 line 66 to col 4 line 6, col 5 lines 42-53, claims 7 and 10). 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 Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton per teachings of Kimura in order to provide an improved apparatus for growing crystal (Kimura col 3 line 66 to col 4 line 6, col 5 lines 42-53). Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton/Kimura teaches similar structural features to the instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton/Kimura is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “being operably connected to the respective piston head to enable the piston head to reciprocate between the first position and the second position”. 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. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu/ Canella/Jain/Statton as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ou et al (US 20220389608 A1, “Ou”).
Regarding claim 7, Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton teaches the piston head and the respective opening pin as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach cooling fluid inlet and outlet ports. However, Ou teaches a device, wherein a piston rod comprises a cooling fluid inlet and outlet (0033, 0035). 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 Yu/Canella/Jain/Statton per teachings of Ou in order to provide suitable cooling structure for improving production efficiency (Ou 0035).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Canella does not disclose “opening pins selectively extendable into an ingot receiving chamber and retractable from the ingot receiving chamber” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, Canella teaches that rockshaft 95 (opening pins) extends/retracts through a pulling/ingot receiving chamber 3/33, and the rockshaft 95 (opening pins) is horizontally extending and retracting by rotation as shown in fig 5 (col 16-35), meeting the claim. Applicant’s arguments based on other teachings of Canella have been considered, but not found persuasive. It is noted that the transitional term “comprising” is used in the instant claim. Therefore any additional features/elements/ structures can be included in Canellar. The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03). Also, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, consult In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, consult Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.1989).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Allowable claims
Claim 24 is 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 closest prior art of record to Yu Chongjiang (CN 115961336 A, machine translation, “Yu”) teaches an ingot puller, but does not teach, disclose, anticipate or reasonably suggest that the opening pins are selectively positionable between a first position in which the opening pins extend a first distance into the ingot receiving chamber and a second position in which the opening pins are retracted to a second distance in the ingot receiving chamber that is less than the first distance, as recited in claim 24.
Election/Restrictions
The presence of claims 18-20 are directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on 10/06/2025. The noted claims should be canceled.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights