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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 explicitly requires “anchors being directly attached to the crucible body.” Claim 9 explicitly requires “anchors are connected to a mat, the mat being attached to the inner surface of the crucible body.” Therefore, it is impossible to meet the limitations of claim 1 and claim 9.
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) 1-8, 10, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP 2005-298288), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
Kondo teaches a crucible 13 for holding a silicon melt 12, the crucible comprising: a crucible body having a floor and a sidewall extending up from the floor, the floor and sidewall defining a cavity for holding the silicon melt, the crucible body having an inner surface and an outer surface; and one or more anchors that extend into the cavity from the inner surface of the floor, the one or more anchors being directly attached to the crucible body (Fig 5-8; CT [0009]-[0010] teaches a quartz crucible with a pair of ring shaped protrusions 13b,13c formed on the inner bottom of the crucible wherein oxygen can also be dissolved into the silicon melt 12 through the pair of protrusions 13b and 13c, making it possible to obtain a silicon single crystal 24 having a uniform oxygen distribution in the axial direction).
Kondo does not explicitly teach five or more anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hoshino et al by providing 5 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). It is noted that additional protrusions would increase the surface area to provide more oxygen.
Referring to claim 2, Kondo teaches each anchor has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor 13b/13c changing in width along its length and having a largest width along its length, the largest width being spaced from the lower end of the anchor. Fig 7 is reproduced below to show the portion connected to the base of the crucible having a smaller diameter than the upper portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 3, Kondo teaches each anchor 13b/13c comprises an upper portion and a lower portion, at least part of the upper portion extends radially outward from the lower portion (See Fig 7-8).
Referring to claim 4, Kondo does not explicitly teach teaches the crucible has a longitudinal axis and each anchor has a longitudinal axis, the longitudinal axis of each anchor being angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the crucible. However, Kondo teaches curved bottom crucible and projections 13b/13c extending from the surface; therefore, the projections from the curved surface would be expected to be angles relative to the longitudinal axis. It is also noted that no angle range is recited; therefore, any angle would meet the claim, such as 0° or 0.0001°.
Referring to claim 5, Kondo does not explicitly teach the protrusion is made of quartz. Kondo implicitly teaches the protrusion is made of quartz because the protrusion is formed from the bottom of the quartz crucible. Furthermore, Kondo teaches a ring member made of quartz is inserted into a quartz crucible and dissolving oxygen from the ring member (CT [0005]). Kondo also teaches oxygen can be dissolved into a silicon melt through the pair of protrusions (CT [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kondo by making the protrusions from quartz because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claim 6, Kondo does not teach at least 10 anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hoshino et al by providing 10 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Referring to claim 7, Kondo teaches the floor comprises a rounded portion. (Figs 7-8 depicts a rounded corner portion of the floor). Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 8, Kondo does not explicitly teach the floor further comprises a flat portion. Changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and flat bottom crucibles are conventionally known in the art.
Referring to claim 10, Kondo teaches an ingot puller apparatus for producing a silicon ingot comprising: a growth chamber 11 for pulling a silicon ingot 24 along a pull axis; the crucible as set forth in claim 1, the crucible being disposed within growth chamber; and a side heater 18 disposed radially outward to the sidewall of the crucible body (Fig 1 and Fig 4).
Referring to claim 35, Kondo does not teach at least 15 anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hoshino et al by providing 15 or more anchors because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Referring to claim 36, Kondo teaches protrusions 13b,13c formed on the inner bottom of the crucible, which clearly suggests anchors are bonded to the crucible body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 35-36 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.
Johnson et al (US H520) teaches a crucible 30 used to contain a melt 31, and projecting upward a substantial distance into the melt from and integral with the bottom of the crucible 30 is a plurality of hollow, concentric cylinders 32, wherein cylinders 32 are made of the same material as the crucible 30 (i.e., silicon dioxide) to provide additional surface area which provides a source of oxygen for the melt 31 and the ingot 17 drawn therefrom by increasing the inside surface area-to-melt volume ratio (Fig 2-3; col 3, ln 1 to col 4, ln 40). Johnson et al also teaches although the exemplary embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 makes use of three concentric cylinders 32 the instant invention is not so limited (col 3, ln 1-67), which clearly suggests more cylinders, i.e. duplication of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
US 20160024684 teaches a flat bottom crucible 210 (Fig 1).
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
Prosecution Insights