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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 2016/0024684) in view of Kimbel (US 2018/0347071).
Swaminathan teaches a crucible 510, 610 for holding a silicon melt, 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 506, the crucible body having an inner surface and an outer surface; and one or more anchors (weir 520, 530, 620, 630) that extend into the cavity from the inner surface of the floor (Fig 1-5; [0013]-[0061]). It is noted that Applicant teaches the anchor extend into the inner cavity from the inner surface of the floor and may be configured to hold a solid layer of silicon (paragraph [0026]). Anchor is given the broadest reasonable interpretation as a structure extending from the base that is capable of support; therefore, the weir 520, 530, 620, 630 taught by Swaminathan reads on an anchor. Swaminathan teaches a Czochralski method in relation to the continuous Czochralski method of producing single crystal ingots, though a batch process may be used ([0013]). Swaminathan also teaches polycrystalline silicon is first melted within a crucible to from a silicon melt 112 from which an ingot 114 is being pulled by a puller, a seed crystal 132 is lowered by the puller 134 into the melt 112 and then slowly raised or pulled from the melt to form a single crystal ingot 114 ([0002]-[0016]). Swaminathan teaches weirs 520, 530, 620, 630 disposed entirely within the melt (Fig 4-5), which clearly suggest each anchor being disposed entirely within the silicon melt.
Swaminathan does not teach cooling the silicon melt to cause a region of the silicon melt adjacent the floor of the crucible to solidify such that a solid layer is formed between the anchors.
Kimble teaches a method for forming a single crystal silicon ingot 110 comprising: adding an initial charge of polycrystalline silicon to a crucible, the crucible comprising: a crucible body 104 having a floor and a sidewall extending up from the floor, the floor and sidewall defining a cavity for holding a silicon melt 108, the crucible body having an inner surface and an outer surface; and one or more anchors (inner crucible 102) that extend into the cavity from the inner surface of the floor of crucible 104; heating the initial charge of polycrystalline silicon to cause the silicon melt 108 to form in the crucible; cooling the silicon melt to cause a region of the silicon melt adjacent the floor of the crucible to solidify such that a solid layer 140 is formed between the anchors 102; contacting a silicon seed crystal with the silicon melt; and withdrawing the silicon seed crystal to grow a single crystal silicon ingot (Fig 1-2; [0002]-[0028] disclose Cz single crystal growth by forming introducing silicon into a crucible; forming a liquid silicon melt; dipping a seed and pulling a crystal, and solidifying a layer of silicon 140 adjacent the bottom of the crucible 104 between the walls of inner crucible 102). It is noted that Applicant teaches the anchor extend into the inner cavity from the inner surface of the floor and may be configured to hold a solid layer of silicon (paragraph [0026]). Anchor is given the broadest reasonable interpretation as a structure extending from the base that is capable of support; therefore, the inner crucible 102 taught by Kimble reads on an anchor. Kimbel teaches the solid layer 140 of silicon in the inner crucible 102 decreases the production of oxygen at the dissolution boundary 142 between the quartz crucible 102 and the melt 108 to produce low oxygen level silicon crystals ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Swaminathan by cooling the silicon melt to cause a region of the silicon melt adjacent the floor of the crucible to solidify such that a solid layer is formed between the anchors, as taught by Kimbel, to produce low oxygen level silicon crystals (Kimbel [0028]).
Referring to claim 19-20, the combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel teaches continuous or batch growth (Swaminathan [0013]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 2016/0024684) in view of Kimbel (US 2018/0347071), as applied to claim 14 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Bender et al (US 2013/0233237).
The combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, except the combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel does not teach each anchor has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor 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.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Bender et al teaches a crucible with a annular lip 528 provided around the upper surface of weir 508 that provides a supporting base or surface for the engagement of the modular weir (Fig 5; [0060]-[0075]), which clearly suggests each anchor has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel by anchor (weir with annular lip) has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor 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, as taught by Bender et al, to provide support base (Bender [0072]). Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 2016/0024684) in view of Kimbel (US 2018/0347071), as applied to claim 14 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Swaminathan (US 2014/0174337).
The combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, except 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.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Swaminathan teaches weir 152, 252 has a body connected with at least a pair of legs 154, 254 disposed to inhibit movement of the silicon melt therebetween, wherein each leg has a longitudinal axis, the longitudinal axis of each leg (anchor) being angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the crucible; and each leg being disposed entirely within the melt 112, 212, (Fig 1, 2, 6, 8, 14-15; [0024]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel by using angled legs (anchors), as taught by Swaminathan (‘337) to inhibit movement of the silicon melt therebetween (Swaminathan ‘337 abstract; [0053]).
Referring to claim 17, 22, 23, 25, and 26, the combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel teaches one or more weirs, and two weirs (Swaminathan ’684 [0016], [0034], [0069]) and each weir with at least one part of legs (Swaminathan ‘337 [0005]-[0006]); therefore, the number of legs (anchors) can be least 5 because more weirs and more legs is suggested, and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 24, see the remarks above regarding claims 14-17 above.
Referring to claim 28, see remarks above regarding claim 16.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 2016/0024684) in view of Kimbel (US 2018/0347071), as applied to claim 14-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Kimbel et al (US 2014/0261155).
The combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel teaches all of the limitations of claim 18, as discussed above, except Swaminathan does not teach the one or more anchors are connected to a mat, the mat being attached to the inner surface of the crucible body.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Kimbel et al teaches a first crucible 210, a second crucible 250 and a weir 300 is placed in the second crucible, wherein the first crucible and the second crucible are bonded together to form a single crucible assembly, and the weir is bonded to the second base (mat) ([0018]), which clearly suggests an anchor (weir) are connected to a mat which is attached the crucible body (first crucible 210). (abstract; [0018]-[0045]; Fig 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Swaminathan and Kimbel by providing a weir on a mat (base), as taught by Kimbel et al, to reduce the risk of structural bond failure (Kimbel [0048]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 2016/0024684) in view of Kimbel (US 2018/0347071) and Swaminathan (US 2014/0174337), as applied to claim 14, 16, 17, 19-20, 22, and 23 above, and further in view of Bender et al (US 2013/0233237).
The combination of Swaminathan (‘684), Kimbel and Swaminathan (‘337) teaches all of the limitations of claim 27, as discussed above, except the combination of Swaminathan (‘684), Kimbel and Swaminathan (‘337) does not teach each anchor has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor 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.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Bender et al teaches a crucible with a annular lip 528 provided around the upper surface of weir 508 that provides a supporting base or surface for the engagement of the modular weir (Fig 5; [0060]-[0075]), which clearly suggests each anchor has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Swaminathan (‘684), Kimbel and Swaminathan (‘337) by anchor (weir with annular lip) has a lower end, upper end and a length that extends from the lower end to the upper end, each anchor 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, as taught by Bender et al, to provide support base (Bender [0072]). Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-28 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
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
Prosecution Insights