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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 18 is cancelled. Claims 22-27 are newly added. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1 and 24 are independent claims. Claims 1-17 and 19-27 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 25 recite “…the slab is annealed at a temperature of at least 500°C. ...” which should read “…the slab is annealed at [[a]] the temperature of at least 500° C. ...” Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-27 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 24 “…withdrawing the silicon seed crystal from the silicon melt to form a sample rod comprising single crystal silicon … growing the single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the grown single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt is related to the withdrawn single crystal silicon sample rod or not, for example, it is not clear with respect to the relationship between the grown single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt and the withdrawn single crystal silicon sample rod. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 25-27 are rejected because they depend on claim 24.
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 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 102181919 A, machine translation, “Li”), and further in view of Furukawa et al (US 20050183660 A1, “Furukawa”), Tanahashi et al (US 20070190809 A1, “Tanahashi”).
Regarding claim 24, Li teaches a method comprising contacting a silicon seed crystal with a silicon liquid (melt) (0027 and 0038), wherein the silicon melt is contained within a crucible and comprises a molten silicon (0026 and 0037); pulling (withdrawing) the silicon seed crystal from the silicon melt to form a test crystal (sample rod) comprising single crystal silicon (abstract, 0009, 0010, 0027, 0038), the sample rod (test crystal) having a main body and comprising a central axis, a circumferential edge, and a diameter (fig 1, 0010, 0019, 0027 and claim 1), wherein the diameter length of the test silicon single crystal is 2-3 cm (20-30 mm) (claim 2), within the instantly claimed range; and the length of the test silicon single crystal is greater than 6 cm (60 mm) (claim 2), overlapping the instantly claimed length. 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); processing/grinding (lapping) a plane (apparently having a thickness) (slab) produced from the test silicon single crystal (sample rod) (0010, 0028, 0039 and claim 1), and measuring a resistivity of the slab/plane (0010, 0011, 0028, 0029 and claim 1).
Li teaches that the sample crystal/rod processed into the plane/slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly slicing the slab/plane comprising a longitudinal plane encompassing at least a portion of the central axis of the sample rod, and annealing the slab at a temperature of at least 500 ºC to annihilate thermal donors. However, Furukawa teaches a method of forming a silicon single crystal ingot, wherein after the ingot is pulled from a silicon melt stored in a crucible, the ingot is sliced into a reference sample (having a thickness) along the axial direction (longitudinal plane) of the ingot, and the sample/slab containing a portion of the central axis of the ingot, and the reference sample (slab) is heat-treated (annealed) at a temperature of 800 ºC (figs 3a, 3b and 19, 0015-0025, 0030, 0064, 0073, 0090, 0096 and 0103). 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 Li and sliced the sample crystal of Li to produce and anneal the plane/slab comprising the central axis of the sample crystal as suggested by Furukawa in order to provide a method of identifying defect distribution along an axial direction of the silicon ingot, and providing an ingot with desired/suitable properties for various applications (Furukawa 0001, 0015, 0016). Li/Furukawa teaches the heat treatment (annealing) of the sample/slab as just addressed. Therefore, “annihilate thermal donors” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects.
Li/Furukawa teaches the heat treatment (annealing) of the sample/slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach irradiating the slab with light to enhance a resistivity relaxation rate of the slab, wherein the light has a wavelength between 0.75 micrometers to 1000 micrometers. However, Tanahashi teaches a method, wherein a silicon crystal CZ wafer is irradiated with an infrared light, and the light having a wavelength of 7-25 micrometers (abstract, 0012, 0037-0038, 0059 and 0071). 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 Li/Furukawa per teachings of Tanahashi in order to remove voids within the wafer (Tanahashi 0064). Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches irradiating the slab with light as just addressed. Therefore, “enhance a resistivity relaxation rate of the slab” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects.
Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches measuring the resistivity of the slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the measuring being performed after irradiating the slab. However, since Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi explicitly teaches a process of measuring the resistivity of the slab, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found obvious to measure the resistivity of the slab utilizing the measuring process of Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi in order to provide specific/accurate resistivities of the slab for further applications. Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi further teaches growing a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (Li abstract; Furukawa 0015).
Regarding claim 26, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the wafer/slab is irradiated for one hour (Tanahashi 0059), within the instantly claimed range. 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).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Shoji Tsuruta et al (US 5449883 A, “Shoji”).
Regarding claim 25, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches annealing the slab to annihilate thermal donors at a temperature of at least 500°C as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach annealing the slab for no more than 60 minutes. However, Shoji (entire document) teaches a method of processing a wafer, wherein a test wafer is processed at a temperature of 600 degrees to 650 degrees for 30 to 60min to annihilate thermal donors (abstract, col 3 lines 1-6; col 6 lines 49-64). 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 Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi per teachings of Shoji in order to provide suitable conditions for annihilating thermal donors (Shoji abstract). Furthermore, 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).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of SEMI (SEMI MF84-0307, ASTM INTERNATIONAL: “Test Method for Measuring Resistivity of Silicon Wafers with an In-Line Four-Point Probe", SEMI MF84-0307, 2005, 19pgs, “SEMI”).
Regarding claim 27, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches irradiating the slab and measuring a resistivity of the slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the slab is cooled to below 30°C before measuring the resistivity of the slab. However, it is a known practice that resistivity measurement of silicon wafer is performed with room temperature (23°C) as taught by SEMI (pages 1 and 18). 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 Li/Furukawa/ Tanahashi per teachings of SEMI in order to provide conditions for measuring the resistivity with better precision (SEMI pages 1 and 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly added claims 24-27 filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Allowable Claims
Claims 1-17 and 19-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record to Li et al (CN 102181919 A, machine translation, “Li”) teaches a method, but does not teach, disclose or reasonably suggest that “an intensity sufficient to increase the temperature of the slab to a temperature of at least 40°C” as recited in claim 1. Claims 2-17 and 19-23 are allowed because they depend on claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights