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 .
Specification
The objection to the title is withdrawn in view of applicants’ submission of a replacement title.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendments to the specification.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 4 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-9 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent No. KR 100746375 B1 (hereinafter “the KR ‘375 patent”).
Regarding claim 1, The KR ‘375 patent teaches an ingot puller apparatus for producing a single crystal silicon ingot (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and entire reference which teach an embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system (100) for producing a Si single crystal) comprising:
a crucible assembly for holding a silicon melt (see Fig. 1 and pp. 2-3 of the Tech-Solution section which teach a crucible (7) for holding a Si melt (10));
an ingot puller housing that defines a growth chamber for pulling the single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt, the crucible assembly being disposed within the growth chamber (see Fig. 1 and pp. 2-3 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the crucible (7) is located in the lower chamber (2) of the growth apparatus (100)),
the ingot puller housing comprising:
a lower segment that defines a lower segment chamber, the crucible assembly being disposed in the lower segment chamber (see Fig. 1 and pp. 2-3 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the crucible (7) is located in a lower chamber (2) of the growth apparatus (100)); and
an upper segment disposed above the lower segment that defines an upper segment chamber (see Fig. 1 and pp. 2-3 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that an upper chamber (3) is disposed above the lower chamber (2)); and
an isolation valve that is moveable between an open position in which the lower segment chamber is in fluid communication with the upper segment chamber and a closed position in which the lower segment chamber is sealed from the upper segment chamber (see Fig. 1 and pp. 3-4 of the Tech-Solution section which teach a blocking member (20) which may be in the form of a gate valve that moves between an open and closed position in order to unseal and seal the opening between the lower (2) and upper (3) chambers);
a process gas feed assembly comprising:
an inlet that extends through the ingot puller housing for introducing a process gas into the growth chamber (see Figs. 1-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the bottom of the blocking member (20) may be provided with a gas inlet (11) which extends through the sidewall of the growth apparatus (100) in order to introduce a process gas into the growth chamber); and
a nozzle in fluid communication with the inlet for directing process gas into the lower segment chamber (see Figs. 2-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the gas inlet (11) includes a plurality of discharge ports (20A) which direct process gas into the lower chamber (2)), each nozzle having a nozzle inlet and a nozzle outlet, the nozzle inlet having a cross-sectional area greater than a cross-sectional area of the nozzle outlet (see Fig. 2 and pp.4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the gas inflow line (11) includes an inlet at a side of the housing and a plurality of discharge ports (20A) which form outlets with the outlets to the discharge ports (20A) having the smallest diameter at the lowermost end thereof in order to produce a constant flow density); and
an annular process gas manifold, the manifold being disposed below the isolation valve relative to a pull axis of the ingot puller apparatus, the manifold comprising a process gas plenum therein, the process gas plenum being in fluid communication with each nozzle (see Figs. 2-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the gas inflow line (11) is in the form of an annular gas manifold which may be disposed below the blocking member (20) and includes a plenum that is in communication with the discharge ports (20A)).
Regarding claim 2, the KR ‘375 patent teaches that the nozzle has a discharge axis, the discharge axis forming an angle with a pull axis of the ingot puller apparatus, the angle being 45° or less (see Figs. 2-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the plurality of discharge ports (20A) direct process gas directly downward (i.e., their axis is perpendicular to ground) and, as such, the angle with the pull axis is 0°).
Regarding claim 3, the KR ‘375 patent teaches that the nozzle has a discharge axis, the discharge axis being parallel to pull axis of the ingot puller apparatus (see Figs. 2-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the plurality of discharge ports (20A) direct process gas directly downward (i.e., their axis is perpendicular to ground) and, as such, are parallel to the pull axis of the growth apparatus (100)).
Regarding claim 5, the KR ‘375 patent teaches that the annular process gas manifold comprises one or more outlets that extend through an inner surface of the manifold and that are in fluid communication with the process gas plenum, the nozzle being aligned with an outlet of the process gas manifold (see Figs. 2-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the discharge ports (20A) necessarily extend through an inner surface of the annular gas manifold such that they are aligned with and in fluid communication with an outlet from the annular gas manifold).
Regarding claim 6, the KR ‘375 patent teaches at least four nozzles in fluid communication with the inlet for directing process gas into the lower segment chamber (see Figs. 2-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that there are more than 10 discharge ports (20A) which are in fluid communication with the gas inflow line (11) for discharging process gas into the lower chamber (2)).
Regarding claim 8, the KR ‘375 patent teaches that the inlet is a first inlet (see Figs. 2-3 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that the gas inflow line (11) and discharge ports (20A) constitute a first inlet), the ingot puller apparatus comprising a second inlet that extends through the ingot puller housing for introducing a process gas into the upper segment chamber (see Fig. 1 and pp. 4-5 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that there is a second inlet (11) at a top of the growth apparatus (100) which extends through the housing of the upper chamber (3) in order to introduce a process gas into the upper chamber (3)).
Regarding claim 9, the KR ‘375 patent teaches that the lower segment includes a dome-shaped section and the upper segment is cylindrical, the upper segment having a diameter less than a diameter of the lower segment (see Fig. 1 and pp. 2-3 of the Tech-Solution section which teach that that the lower chamber (2) has a dome-shaped top section while the upper chamber (3) has a smaller diameter than the lower chamber (2) and is cylindrical in order to accommodate the extracted Si ingot (8)).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 4, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicants discuss the structure of the manifold with a process gas plenum that is in fluid communication with nozzles and argue that the KR ‘375 patent does not teach nozzles having an inlet with a cross-sectional area greater than the cross-sectional area of the outlet. See applicants’ 6/4/2026 reply, pp. 13 and 16-17. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. In Figs. 2 & 3a and the fifth full paragraph at p. 4 of the English translation, the KR ‘375 patent specifically teaches that there are a plurality of inlets (20A) and that “the plurality of inlets may have the smallest diameter at the lowermost end thereof, so that the flow density of the gas may be constant.” Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the KR ‘375 patent specifically teaches nozzles with an inlet and outlet where the cross-sectional area of the inlet is larger than that of the outlet as recited in the context of amended claim 1.
Applicants then argue that the KR ‘375 patent teaches that the gas manifold in which process gas is received is part of the blocking member (20) itself in Figs. 1-2 and therefore does not disclose a manifold that is disposed below the blocking member (20). Id. at pp. 14-16. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. In at least Fig. 1 the KR ‘375 patent shows the outline of a valve along a side wall of the upper chamber and just above the gas inflow line (11) which is illustrated using dotted lines. The movement of the valve towards a closed position is illustrated by the arrow that is pointing in a counter-clockwise direction. In this regard the portion of the blocking member (20) that constitutes the manifold is clearly separate from and is positioned below this valve. Alternatively, at the very top of Fig. 1 there is a second blocking member (20) which clearly is located above the manifold formed as part of the lower blocking member (20). Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that the KR ‘375 patent clearly discloses an annular process gas manifold which is disposed below the isolation valve as recited in the context of amended claim 1.
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights