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 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 14 and 19 are amended. Claims 1, 12 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are currently examined on the merits.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 2 recites “… the synthetic liner has a first thickness and wherein the thickness of the crystalized layer is greater than the first thickness”, which is not disclosed in specification. Claim 18 recites “… the synthetic liner has a first thickness and wherein the thickness of the crystalized layer is greater than the first thickness”, which is not disclosed in specification. No new matter can be introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 10 and 11 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites "...identifying a predefined desired end thickness of the crystalized layer…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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 10 and 11 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 10 “…identifying a predefined desired end thickness of the crystalized layer … the predefined desired end thickness of the crystallized layer…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claim 1 already recites “the crystallized layer having a thickness less than 700 microns.” It is not clear whether the “predefined desired end thickness of the crystallized layer” would be the “thickness less than 700 microns” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 10 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claim 11 is rejected because they depend on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Richarch Lee Hansen (US 20190062943 A1, “Hansen”).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches a method for producing a single crystal silicon ingot from a silicon melt held within a crucible positioned within an ingot puller, the method comprising providing the crucible within an inner chamber of the ingot puller apparatus/furnace (0065, 0066), the crucible 10 including an inner surface 16/18 and a coating layer 26 of devitrification agent (synthetic liner) on the inner surface 16/18 (fig 1, 0009, 0010, 0014, 0016, 0017, 0036, 0037, 0050, claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 15); firstly charging/loading/adding polysilicon (an initial charge of polysilicon) to the crucible (0036, 0050, 0059, 0062, 0064-0066); melting the initial charge of polysilicon to cause the silicon melt to form in the crucible (0014, 0062, 0064, 0065 and claim 10); melting (dissolving) a devitrification agent (melt modifier) into the silicon melt to devitrify the synthetic liner and form a devitrified inner layer (crystallized layer) on the crucible (0006, 0014, 0026, 0051, 0056, 0057, 0061, 0062, 0066, 0067, 0072 and claim 10), the crystallized layer having a thickness less than 700 microns (0072), and pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (0002, 0014, claim 10).
Regarding claim 3, Hansen teaches that the crucible 10 includes a body having a bottom wall 12 and a sidewall 14 extending from the bottom wall 12 to define a cavity within the body of the crucible (fig 1, 0037), the inner surface extending along the bottom wall and the sidewall (fig 1, 0037), wherein the synthetic liner/coating 26 extends continuously across the sidewall and bottom wall to cover the inner surface 16 of the body (fig 1, 0037, 0061).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen teaches adding a melt modifier precursor into the crucible (0009, 0010, 0017, 0038, 0040, 0042, claims 10 and 15); forming the melt modifier by decomposing the melt modifier precursor in the melt (0053 and 0056); and releasing (venting) waste gas released from the decomposing out of the crucible (0053 and 0056).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches that the melt modifier precursor is barium carbonate and wherein the melt modifier is barium oxide (0038, 0040, 0053, 0078, claims 18 and 20).
Claims 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Hansen teaches the synthetic liner (apparently having a/first thickness) and the crystallized layer having the thickness being formed by dissolving the melt modifier (denitrifying/denitrification agent) into the silicon melt as addressed above, and further teaches the melt modifier (denitrifying/denitrification agent) comprises barium, same denitrifying agent as instantly recited in the specification (for example [0006] of instant PGPUB US 2024/0035198 A1). Therefore, “the synthetic liner having a first thickness and the thickness of the crystalized layer being greater than the first thickness” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is also well established that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 6, Hansen further teaches adding the melt modifier of barium oxide to the melt (abstract, 0020, 0022, 0058, 0063-0066, 0070), barium oxide being the same unreacted state of melt modifier as disclosed for example [0034] of instant PGPUB US 2024/0035198 A1); it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the melt modifier is maintained as barium oxide (an unreacted state) before adding the melt modifier to the melt since the melt modifier of barium oxide is added to the melt as barium oxide as taught by Hansen (abstract, 0020, 0022, 0058, 0063-0066, 0070).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen teaches dissolving/melting the melt modifier into the silicon melt as addressed above, and further teaches a concentration of the modifier/promotor in silicon (0026, 0051, 0055, 0060, 0070), and the concentration/ amount of the modifier/promotor affects the uniformity of inner surface of crucible, which is further affect the quality of the pulled crystal (0051, 0052, 0057, 0061-0063). e.g., the concentration of the melt modifier is result effective variable. 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 Hansen, and obtained various concentration of the melt modifier including the instantly claimed “concentration of about 0.013 milligrams of melt modifier per kilogram of silicon” in order to produce crystal with reduced defects, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further, 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).
Regarding claim 10, Hansen teaches controlling (selecting) a starting thickness of the synthetic liner based on a desired end thickness of the crystalized layer (0069 and 0072); and forming the synthetic liner on the crucible to have the starting thickness (0069 and 0072); Hansen teaches the desired end thickness of the crystallized layer as addressed above, and also teaches one skilled in the art recognized that a controlled devitrification layer thickness can be readily achieved by varying the amount of modifier, and a thicker or thinner devitrified layer is required/desired to achieve the benefits of the present technology (abstract, 0002, 0006, 0007, 0026, 0069 and 0072). 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 identified a predefined desired end thickness of the crystalized layer in order to obtain the controlled/desired devitrification layer thickness for achieving the benefits as described in Hansen (abstract, 0002, 0006, 0007, 0026, 0069, 0072).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen teaches the crystallized layer having the thickness less than 700 microns formed by the synthetic liner as addressed above, and further teaches the melt modifier (denitrifying/denitrification agent) comprises barium, same denitrifying agent as instantly recited in the specification (for example [0006] of instant PGPUB US 2024/0035198 A1). Therefore, “the starting thickness is less than 500 microns” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is also well established that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kemmochi et al (US 20030012899 A1, “Kemmochi”).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen teaches the synthetic liner/coating includes a silica material (0051), but does not explicitly teach that the synthetic liner includes a synthetic silica material. However, Kemmochi teaches a method, wherein an inner layer comprises synthetic silica (0051, 0059, 0069, 0103, 0107 and claim 20). 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 Hansen per teachings of Kemmochi in order to provide a crucible with reinforced rigidity and improved useful life (Kemmochi abstract, 0002, 0004, 0066, 0113). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Hansen further teaches the crucible being formed by a fusion process (0055, 0070, 0074), but does not explicitly teach that forming the crucible with the synthetic liner by an arc fusion process. However, Kemmochi teaches a method, wherein a synthetic liner of a crucible is formed by an arc fusion process (0050-0052). 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 Hansen per teachings of Kemmochi in order to provide suitable conditions forming a crucible with reinforced rigidity and improved useful life (Kemmochi abstract, 0002, 0004, 0051, 0052, 0066, 0113).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Richarch Lee Hansen (US 20190062943 A1, “Hansen”).
Regarding claim 17, Hansen teaches a method for producing a single crystal silicon ingot from a silicon melt held within a crucible. the method comprising providing the crucible within an inner chamber of an ingot puller (apparatus/furnace) (0065, 0066), the crucible 10 including an inner surface 16/18 and a coating layer 26 of devitrification agent (synthetic liner) on the inner surface 16/18 (fig 1, 0009, 0010, 0014, 0016, 0017, 0036, 0037, 0050, claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 15); firstly charging/loading/adding polysilicon (an initial charge of polysilicon) to the crucible (0036, 0050, 0059, 0062, 0064-0066); adding a melt modifier precursor to the crucible (0009, 0010, 0017, 0038, 0040, 0042, claims 10 and 15); melting the initial charge of polysilicon to cause the silicon melt to form in the crucible (0014, 0062, 0064, 0065 and claim 10); melting (dissolving) a devitrification agent (melt modifier) in the silicon melt to release a concentration of melt modifier into the silicon melt (0026, 0051, 0055, 0060, 0070), the concentration of melt modifier devitrifying the synthetic liner and form a crystallized layer on the crucible (0006, 0014, 0026, 0051, 0055, 0056, 0057, 0060, 0061, 0062, 0066, 0067,0070, 0072 and claim 10), the crystallized layer having a thickness less than 700 microns (0072).
Regarding claim 19, Hansen teaches that the crucible 10 includes a body having a bottom wall 12 and a sidewall 14 extending from the bottom wall 12 to define a cavity within the body of the crucible (fig 1, 0037), the inner surface extending along the bottom wall and the sidewall (fig 1, 0037), wherein the synthetic liner/coating 26 extends continuously across the sidewall and bottom wall to cover the inner surface 16 of the body (fig 1, 0037, 0061).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as applied to claims 17 and 10 above.
Regarding claim 18, Hansen teaches the synthetic liner (apparently having a/first thickness) and the crystallized layer having the thickness being formed by dissolving the melt modifier (denitrifying/denitrification agent) into the silicon melt as addressed above, and further teaches the melt modifier (denitrifying/denitrification agent) comprises barium, same denitrifying agent as instantly recited in the specification (for example [0006] of instant PGPUB US 2024/0035198 A1). Therefore, “the synthetic liner having a first thickness and the thickness of the crystalized layer being greater than the first thickness” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is also well established that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kemmochi et al (US 20030012899 A1, “Kemmochi”).
Regarding claim 20, Hansen teaches the synthetic liner/coating includes a silica material (0051), but does not explicitly teach that the synthetic liner includes a synthetic silica material. However, Kemmochi teaches a method, wherein an inner layer comprises synthetic silica (0051, 0059, 0069, 0103, 0107 and claim 20). 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 Hansen per teachings of Kemmochi in order to provide a crucible with reinforced rigidity and improved useful life (Kemmochi abstract, 0002, 0004, 0066, 0113). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments about objection to the specification have been considered, but not found persuasive. The applicant asserted that paragraph [0041] and figs 3 and 4 support the instantly recited limitations “the synthetic liner has a first thickness and wherein the thickness of the crystalized layer is greater than the first thickness.” However, it is note that T1 is described as “a staring thickness” or “starting thickness,” and T2 is described as “a desired resulting crystallized thickness” or “crystallized thickness” (0039, 0041, 0042), e.g., a first thickness and a second thickness is not in the specification. Therefore, the objection is maintained, and correction is suggested.
Applicant’s arguments that “Hansen does not describe a synthetic liner that is devitrified, as recited in claim 1, but rather describes a coating that devitrifies the crucible body” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As applicant already noted, Hansen teaches a coating that devitrifies the crucible body. Specifically, Hansen explicitly teaches a coating layer 26 of devitrification agent (synthetic liner) on the inner surface 16/18 (fig 1, 0009, 0010, 0014, 0016, 0017, 0036, 0037, 0050, claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 15). Claim 1 broadly recites “a synthetic liner on the inner surface,” and does not recite any other restriction/further limitation about the synthetic liner. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation. the examiner’s positions is that the coating layer 26 on the inner surface 16/18 in Hansen reads on the instantly claimed synthetic liner.
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 an anticipation case and/or a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings of the instantly cited references.
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