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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species I-A, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/ invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Claims 1-10 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 7 claimed “an outer for removing water from the support shaft”, which is not disclosed in specification as originally filed. No new matter can be introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “An ingot puller apparatus for producing a single crystal silicon ingot, ingot puller apparatus...pulling a silicon ingot… as the ingot … the support shafts extending …the flange…” which should read “An ingot puller apparatus for producing a single crystal silicon ingot, the ingot puller apparatus... pulling [[a]]the single crystal silicon ingot… as the single crystal silicon ingot … the two or more support shafts… the upper flange …”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 1 “…two or more support shafts… a support shaft toward a lower end of the support shaft…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear with respect to the relationship “two or more support shafts” and “a support shaft”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 3 “…support shafts …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “support shafts” refers to the previously recited two or more support shafts. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 7 “…an outer for removing water from the support shaft …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what a “an outer for removing water from the support shaft” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 7 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (CN 115305564 A, machine translation, “Su”), and further in view of Yang Wenwu (CN 114892268 A, machine translation, “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches an ingot puller apparatus (furnace) for producing a single crystal silicon ingot, ingot puller apparatus comprising a crucible assembly for holding a silicon melt (figs 1 and 3-5, n0018, n0029, n0050, n0054, n0056); a crystal puller housing that defines a growth chamber for pulling a silicon ingot from the silicon melt (figs 1 and 3-5, n0015, n0017, n0018, n0020, n0029, n0031, n0034, n0036, n0042, n0047, n0048, n0050, n0052, n0053, n0056), the crucible assembly being disposed within the growth chamber (figs 1 and 3-5), an assembly 3/31/32/51/52/53/6/62/63/7 (reflector assembly) having an opening for receiving the single crystal silicon ingot as the ingot is pulled through the reflector assembly (figs 1 and 3-5, n0025), the reflector assembly comprising an upper member 53 (figs 1 and 3-5, n0025, n0027, n0029-n0031, n0035, n0036, n0042, n0050, n0052, n0054, n0055, claims 1, 7 and 10), a screen 51 (shield) extending downward from the upper member (figs 1 and 3-5, n0025, n0027-n0031, n0034-n0036, n0042, n0043, n0048, n0050, n0052, n0054, n0055, claims 1, 7, 9 and 10), arms/booms 52 (two or more support shafts) for supporting the reflector assembly (figs 1 and 3-5, abstract, n0012, n0025, n0027-n0029, n0036-n0038, n0042, n0050, n0052, n0054, n0055, claims 1, 7, 9 and 10), the arms/booms 52 (two or more support shafts) extending upward from the reflector assembly (figs 1 and 3-5, abstract, n0025, n0027, n0029 and claim 1); and collars/rings 63 (two or more joists) (figs 1 and 3-5, abstract, n0012, n0025, n0027, n0029-n0031, n0035, n0044, n0045, n0050, n0054, n0055, claims 1-5 and 7-10), each joist being connected to a support shaft (arm/boom 52) toward a lower end of the support shaft (arm/boom 52) (figs 3-5), each joist being connected to the upper member 53 by rods/plates 62/61 (first and second joints) that are separated from each other along a longitudinal axis of the joist (figs 1-5).
Su teaches the reflector assembly, the shield extending downward from the upper member and each joist being connected to the upper member by first and second joints that are separated from each other along a longitudinal axis of the joist as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the upper member being a flange. However, Yang teaches a furnace for producing a single crystal ingot, wherein the furnace comprises flanges 11/22 (upper flange), and a cylinder 1 (shield) that extends downward from the upper flange 11/22, connecting parts 5 (joists) being connected to lifting parts 4 (shaft) toward a lower end of the support part 4, each connecting part 5 being connected to the flange 11/22 by members 52 (first and second joints) that are separated from each other along a longitudinal axis of the connecting part 5 (figs 1-6, n0017, n0027, n0054-n0057, n0062, n0063, n0104 and claim 9). 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 Su per teachings of Yang in order to reduce crystal defect and improve crystal quality (Yang abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Su/Yang teaches only two support shafts support the reflector assembly (Su abstract, n0006 and claim 1; Yang figs 1 and 4, abstract, n0007, n0009, n0032, n0033, claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, as addressed above, Su/Yang teaches reflector assembly, the ingot puller apparatus and support shafts, similar to the instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Su/Yang is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “during ingot growth, the reflector assembly being not supported in the ingot puller apparatus by any structure other than support shafts”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, Su/Yang teaches during ingot growth, the reflector assembly is not supported in the ingot puller apparatus by any structure other than support shafts, for example as shown in fig 4 of Su.
Regarding claim 4, Su/Yang teaches the first joint and second joint is each a liftable/movable (flexible) joint (Su abstract n0012, n0018, n0029; Yang n0016, n0054, n0055 and claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Su/Yang teaches each support shaft extends through the crystal puller housing at a support shaft port (Su figs 1 and 3-5, abstract, n0006, n0025, n0027, claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Su/Yang teaches a ring (support band) disposed below the flange for supporting the reflector assembly (Yang n0027, n0054, n0056, n0057).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su/Yang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Korb et al (US 20100242836 A1, “Korb”).
Regarding claim 5, Su/Yang teaches the flexible joint as addressed above, but does not explicitly tach the joint being a ball and socket joint. However, Korb teaches a pulling system, wherein the pulling system comprises a ball and socket joint (0153, 0179). 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 Su/Yang per teachings of Korb in order to provide suitable joint for pulling the crystal (Korb abstract, 0002, 0007-0009, 0153 and 0155).
Regarding claim 6, Su/Yang teaches the ball and socket joint, but does not explicitly teach each flexible joint comprising two ball and socket joints. However, it is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su/Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al (KR 101774040 B1, machine translation, “Park”).
Regarding claim 7, Su/Yang teaches the two or more support shafts are water cooled (Su abstract, n0027, n0029, n0036, n0042; Yang abstract, n0033), but does not explicitly each support shaft comprising an inlet for adding water to the support shaft and an outer for removing water from the support shaft. However, Park teaches a cooling structure for ingot growing apparatus, wherein the cooling structure comprises an inlet for adding water to the support shaft and an outer for removing water from a support member (figs 1-7, 0023-0027, 0037-0041, 0052-0056, 0060, claims 1 and 8). 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 Su/Yang per teachings of Park in order to grow the ingot at a reduced cost (Park 0018, 0057 and 0058).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su/Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gmeilbauer et al (US 20110195251 A1, “Gmeilbauer”).
Regarding claim 8, Su/Yang teaches the flange as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach an outer gas shield abutting an outer circumferential edge of the flange. However, Gmeilbauer teaches an apparatus for growing a crystal, wherein an outer shield abuts outer circumferential edge of a flange (fig 1, 0018, 0019, 0026, 0027, 0044). 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 Su/Yang per teachings of Gmeilbauer in order to grow the crystal with reduced voids (Gmeilbauer abstract, 0013, 0014).
Conclusion
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