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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bommier (US 6,334,898) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bommier (US 6,334,898) and Kalmykov (SU 1010431A).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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(s) 1, 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bommier (US 6,334,898) in view of Kalmykov (SU 1010431A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
Bommier teaches an external crucible accommodating a silicon melt (col 3, ln 35-67), the external crucible comprising: a body configured to accommodate the silicon melt and divided into first to n-th sections, wherein at least one of the first to n-th sections is formed to have a shape different from shapes of remaining ones of the first to n-th sections (col 3, ln 35-67; col 5, ln 1-67; Fig 2c, Fig 3a, 3b, and 3c explicitly teaches a crucible holder made distinct and complementary parts and embodiments of three different parts 50a, 50b, 50c wherein the parts are different from each other and have different shapes).
Bommier does not teach at least one of the first to n-th sections is formed to have a different thermal conductivities from remaining ones of the first to n-th sections by having different thicknesses, outer surface areas, and/or materials, wherein the thicknesses, the outer surface areas, and/or the materials of the first to n-th sections are determined such that, during a crystal growth process, temperature differences are generated among the first to n-th sections due to the different thermal conductivities and convection of the silicon melt is formed in a direction according to the temperature differences.
In an crucible used in an induction furnace, Kalmykov teaches a cylindrical crucible made of an electrically conductive material and an inductor, the crucible wall is made in a horizontal section of variable thickness with a ratio of maximum to minimum thickness of 4:1, and the vertical axes of the outer and inner surfaces of the crucible are located parallel; and the current passing through the crucible will be higher in the place where the wall is thinner, since the degree of heating of crucible 1 is proportional to the current density, at the place of thinning to a higher temperature than at the place where the thickness is maximum. Therefore, the melt in contact with the thinned part of the wall will overheat to a higher temperature than that located near the thickened part of the wall to create a convection flow (CT [0001]), which clearly suggests a crucible with different thicknesses to create convection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bommier by having at least one of the first to n-th sections is formed to have a different thermal conductivities from remaining ones of the first to n-th sections by having different thicknesses, outer surface areas, and/or materials, wherein the thicknesses, the outer surface areas, and/or the materials of the first to n-th sections are determined such that, during a crystal growth process, temperature differences are generated among the first to n-th sections due to the different thermal conductivities and convection of the silicon melt is formed in a direction according to the temperature differences, as taught by Kalmykov, to create convection within the melt to increase the intensity of melt mixing (CT [0001]).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Bommier and Kalmykov teaches the first to n-th sections are symmetrical with respect to a center of the body (Bommier Fig 3b shows 3 pieces symmetrical with the center of the body).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Bommier and Kalmykov teaches gaps are formed among the first to n-th sections, respectively (Bommier col 5, ln 1-67; Fig 4a and 4b teaches spaces 20, 21 between contact surfaces).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Bommier and Kalmykov teaches at least one of the first to n-th sections is formed to have, at an outer surface thereof not contacting the silicon melt, a surface area different from surface areas of remaining ones of the first to n-th sections (Bommier Fig 6a and col 6, ln 1-67 teaches flaps (50d, 50e, 50f) may be placed inserted in the shape parts (5a, 50b, 50c) and the flaps inserted in the shaped parts would have an outer surface that is not in contact with silicon).
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bommier (US 6,334,898) in view of Kalmykov (SU 1010431A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuda (JP 07-89789), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
The combination of Bommier and Kalmykov teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except at least one of the sections comprises a coating surface mounted to an outer surface thereof not contacting the silicon melt.
In a composite crucible for silicon crystal growth, Fukuda teaches a quartz crucible 1 for storing a Si source material, a graphite crucible 3 for holding the quartz crucible 1; and the entire surface of the graphite crucible is covered with a coating formed of SiC (Abstract; CT [0021]-[0027]), which clearly suggests a graphite crucible comprising a coating surface mounted to an outer surface thereof not contacting the silicon melt. Fukuda teaches the surface of the graphite crucible is coated with a carbide coating to prevent carbon from evaporating (CT [0023]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Bommier and Kalmykov graphite crucible sections by providing a coating surface mounted to an outer surface, as taught by Fukuda, to prevent carbon from evaporating.
Referring to claims 3 and 8, the combination of Bommier, Kalmykov and Fukuda teaches a SiC coating on a graphite crucible (Fukuda Abstract).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bommier (US 6,334,898) in view of Kalmykov (SU 1010431A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotooka et al (US 6,117,402).
The combination of Bommier and Kalmykov teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, except a coolant tube provided at an upper portion of the interior of the chamber in a fixed state and disposed around an ingot rising while being grown from the silicon melt; and a heat shield provided at an upper portion of the quartz crucible. Bommier teaches the crucible of claim 1, as discussed above, and a Czochralski growth apparatus comprising a heating means 4, a graphite crucible holder 5, a crucible 6 and accommodating a silicon melt 9 for pulling a silicon monocrystalline ingot 10 (Fig 1; col 1, ln 10 to col 2, ln 40; col 3, ln 35-67; col 4, ln 1-67).
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Kotooka et al teaches a coolant tube (after-cooler 4 comprising cooling pipes) provided at an upper portion of the interior of the chamber 6 in a fixed state and disposed around an ingot 5 rising while being grown from the silicon melt 9; and a heat shield 1 provided at an upper portion of the quartz crucible (crucible 7 comprising an inner quartz crucible 7b and outer graphite crucible 7a) (Figs 1, 2, 3, and 6; col 1, ln 1-67; col 3, ln 40 to col 4, ln 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Bommier and Kalmykov by providing a coolant tube provided at an upper portion of the interior of the chamber in a fixed state and disposed around an ingot rising while being grown from the silicon melt; and a heat shield provided at an upper portion of the quartz crucible, as taught by Kotooka et al, to allow a substantial increase in the lifting speed of the single crystal (col 2, ln 35-67).
Referring to claim 14-16, see the remarks above regarding claims 4, 5, 7 and 11.
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bommier (US 6,334,898) in view of Kalmykov (SU 1010431A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and further in view of Fukuda (JP 07-89789), an English computer translation (CT) is provided), as applied to claims 2, 3, 8 above, and further in view of Kotooka et al (US 6,117,402).
The combination of Bommier, Kalmykov and Fukuda teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, 13, and 17 as discussed above, except a coolant tube provided at an upper portion of the interior of the chamber in a fixed state and disposed around an ingot rising while being grown from the silicon melt; and a heat shield provided at an upper portion of the quartz crucible. Bommier teaches the crucible of claim 1, as discussed above, and a Czochralski growth apparatus comprising a heating means 4, a graphite crucible holder 5, a crucible 6 and accommodating a silicon melt 9 for pulling a silicon monocrystalline ingot 10 (Fig 1; col 1, ln 10 to col 2, ln 40; col 3, ln 35-67; col 4, ln 1-67).
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Kotooka et al teaches a coolant tube (after-cooler 4 comprising cooling pipes) provided at an upper portion of the interior of the chamber 6 in a fixed state and disposed around an ingot 5 rising while being grown from the silicon melt 9; and a heat shield 1 provided at an upper portion of the quartz crucible (crucible 7 comprising an inner quartz crucible 7b and outer graphite crucible 7a) (Figs 1, 2, 3, and 6; col 1, ln 1-67; col 3, ln 40 to col 4, ln 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Bommier and Kalmykov by providing a coolant tube provided at an upper portion of the interior of the chamber in a fixed state and disposed around an ingot rising while being grown from the silicon melt; and a heat shield provided at an upper portion of the quartz crucible, as taught by Kotooka et al, to allow a substantial increase in the lifting speed of the single crystal (col 2, ln 35-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN202157141U teaches a crucible for Czochralski growth of silicon single crystals comprising a crucible comprising a bottom section 14 and an upper ring section 13, wherein the bottom section 14 is depicted to have a greater thickness and surface area than the upper ring section 13. (Fig 1 and Fig 4; abstract)
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714