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
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) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2016/0060787) in view of Kamio et al (JP 03-008791A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Ebi et al (JP 2001-240491), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
Park teaches an apparatus for crystal growth comprising an ingot puller for manufacturing a single crystal ingot, the ingot puller 1 comprising: a crucible 3 for holding a crystal melt; a crystal puller housing 2 that defines a growth chamber for pulling the ingot from the melt, the crucible 3 being disposed within the growth chamber 2 (Fig 2; [0059]-[0063]); and a polycrystalline feed system 20 for supplying chunk polycrystalline to the crucible, the polycrystalline feed system comprising: a feed tube 29 having an outer sidewall, an inlet end and an outlet end ([0001]-[0002], [0054]-[0064]; Fig 2-21 show the feed apparatus with supply tube 29 for supplying raw material, such as polysilicon for silicon single crystal growth);
Park does not teach a cooling system including a cooling jacket surrounding the outer sidewall of the feed tube at the outlet end of the feed tube and a fluid conduit configured to deliver coolant to the cooling jacket for cooling the outlet end during operation of the ingot puller, the fluid conduit extending between a normal atmospheric pressure environment outside of the crystal puller housing and a near-vacuum pressure environment within the crystal puller housing, wherein the fluid conduit is configured to extend and retract within the near-vacuum pressure environment in the crystal puller housing.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Kamio et al teaches silicon raw material is continuously supplied to the molten liquid surface of the raw material supply section from a raw material supply pipe, and the raw material supply pipe is cooled directly or indirectly by a cooling gas introduced into a high-melting-point metal pipe or quartz pipe located near the silicon raw material supply pipe (CT pg 2-3; Fig 1-2). Kamio et al teaches the area around the raw material supply tube is cooled, allowing the silicon raw material to pass smoothly through the raw material supply tube and be supplied to the surface of the silicon molten liquid in the raw material supply (CT pg 4). Kamio et al teaches a high-melting-point metal pipe spirally along the raw material supply pipe, covering the area up to the outlet 3 of the raw material supply pipe 1, wherein the high melting-point metal pipes 2 and 2 are tightly wound together so that they are in contact with each other, preventing radiant heat from the heater or the silicon molten liquid surface from directly hitting the raw material supply pipe 1 and irradiating the sides of the raw material (CT pg 2-5; Fig 1-2). Kamio et al teaches the high-melting-point metal pipe 2, is a double-walled pipe formed by an outer diameter pipe 5 and an inner diameter pipe 6, and the pipe is arranged in such a way that a gas (for example, argon gas) can be introduced from one end C' of the high-melting-point metal pipe 2, and is connected to an argon supply device (not shown) located outside the silicon single crystal pulling apparatus (Fig 1-2; CT pg 5-6), which clearly suggests a fluid conduit configured to deliver coolant to the cooling jacket for cooling the outlet end during operation of the ingot puller, the fluid conduit extending between a normal atmospheric pressure environment outside of the crystal puller housing and a near-vacuum pressure environment within the crystal puller housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Park by providing a cooling system including a cooling jacket surrounding the outer sidewall of the feed tube at the outlet end of the feed tube and a fluid conduit configured to deliver coolant to the cooling jacket for cooling the outlet end during operation of the ingot puller, the fluid conduit extending between a normal atmospheric pressure environment outside of the crystal puller housing and a near-vacuum pressure environment within the crystal puller housing, as taught Kamio et al, to allow raw material to pass smoothly through the raw material supply tube (Kamio CT pg 4).
Park teaches the supply pipe is capable of being moved using a lift mechanism 30 downward to an upper part of a crucible and then moving the pipe upward (Park Figs 1-2; [0054]). Kamio et al teaches a high-melting-point metal pipe spirally along the raw material supply pipe, covering the area up to the outlet 3 of the raw material supply pipe 1 (CT pg 2-5; Fig 1-2). The combination of Park and Kamio et al does not explicitly teach the fluid conduit is configured to extend and retract within the near-vacuum pressure environment in the crystal puller housing.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Ebi et al teaches a single crystal pulling apparatus equipped with a cooler 19 composed of pipes through which cooling water flows for cooling a pulled single crystal that can be raised and lowered in a CZ furnace, by temporarily raising and lowering the cooler using a lifting device 25 (CT2 [0010]-[0015], [0046] [0086]), which clearly suggests the fluid conduit configured to extend and retract within the near-vacuum pressure environment in the crystal puller housing. Ebi et al also teaches a vertically moving cooler 19, or diagonally moving cooler 119 or a rotationally moving cooler 219 (CT2 [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park and Kamio et al, by having the fluid conduit configured to extend and retract within the near-vacuum pressure environment in the crystal puller housing, as taught by Ebi et al, to move the cooler with chamber to maintain the cooler position with the outlet of the feed tube when the feed tube is moved.
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches operation of the cooling jacket reduces a temperature of the outlet end of the feed tube (Kamio CT pg 2-4 teaches a cooler close to the outlet of the supply pipe to cool the raw material supply tube to allow raw material to pass smoothly through the tube).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches the outlet end of the feed tube has a first temperature when the cooling jacket is operating and a second temperature when the cooling jacket is not operating, the first temperature being less than the second temperature. (Kamio CT pg 2-4 teaches a cooler close to the outlet of the supply pipe to cool the raw material supply tube to allow raw material to pass smoothly through the tube).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches a cooling jacket and a heater; therefore, would be capable of a first temperature of less than 900°C. It is noted that the temperature of the apparatus is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches a cooling jacket and a heater; therefore, would be capable the operating the outlet end of the feed tube at the second temperature causes damage to the outlet end. It is noted that the temperature of the apparatus is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches the supply pipe is capable of being moved using a lift mechanism 30 downward to an upper part of a crucible and then moving the pipe upward (Park Figs 1-2; [0054]); therefore would be capable of the claimed intended use wherein the outlet end of the feed tube is positioned at a first distance from a top surface of the melt when the cooling jacket is operating, and the outlet end of the feed tube is positioned a second distance from the top surface of the melt when the cooling jacket is not operating, the first distance is less than the second distance.
Referring to claim 7, It is noted that claim 7 merely recites an effect of the apparatus. The combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches the supply pipe is capable of being moved using a lift mechanism 30 downward to an upper part of a crucible and then moving the pipe upward (Park Figs 1-2; [0054]); therefore, the effects would be expected, i.e. the first distance reduces splash of the melt from falling chunk polycrystalline, reduces damage to a reflector of the ingot puller, and reduces polycrystalline dust generation.
Referring to claim 8, It is noted that claim 8 merely recites an intended use of the apparatus. The combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches the supply pipe is capable of being moved using a lift mechanism 30 downward to an upper part of a crucible and then moving the pipe upward (Park Figs 1-2; [0054]); therefore, would be capable of having the outlet end of the feed tube is positioned below a reflector of the ingot puller when the cooling jacket is operating. It is noted that claim 8 merely recites an intended use of the apparatus.
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches a quartz tube (Park [0079]). It is noted that other suitable materials, such as metal oxide, silicon oxide, and stainless steel coated with silicon, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing 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 10, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches a chute to supply chunk polycrystalline to the feed tube, the chute connected to the inlet end of the feed tube (Park Fig 10 shows a chute connected to the inlet of the feed tube).
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches a coolant supplied to the cooling jacket; therefore, necessarily requires a coolant reservoir in fluid communication with the cooling jacket (Kamio teaches Ar supply device for supplying coolant (CT pg 4-5); Ebi teaches supplying cooling water to the cooler Fig 1).
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al does not explicitly teach the coolant reservoir is connected to the cooling jacket by a stainless-steel conduit. The combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches a high melting point metal tube (Kamio CT pg 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al by using a stainless-steel conduit 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 13, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches a coolant inlet connected to the cooling jacket that surrounding the feed tube (Kamio Fig 1-2), which clearly suggests the conduit is parallel to the feed tube and is raised and lowered with the feed tube.
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al does not explicitly teach the cooling jacket is selected from the group consisting of a stainless-steel coil, a copper coil with a stainless-steel envelope, and a copper coil with a stainless-steel envelope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al by using a stainless-steel coil, a copper coil with a stainless-steel envelope, and a copper coil with a stainless-steel envelope because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2016/0060787) in view of Kamio et al (JP 03-008791A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Ebi et al (JP 2001-240491), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided), as applied to claims 1-13 and 15 above, and further in view of Morimoto et al (US 6,569,236) and Williams et al (US 5,762,491).
The combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, except the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al does not explicitly teach a feed housing including a hopper for holding the chunk polycrystalline; a valve connecting the feed housing to the crystal puller housing; and a bellows assembly secured to the feed housing and extending outward therefrom, the fluid inlet conduit and the fluid outlet conduit each extending within the bellows assembly, wherein the bellows assembly is raised and lowered with the feed tube and wherein an interior of the bellows assembly is in near-vacuum.
In a Czochralski apparatus, Morimoto et al teaches a cooler 19, which is configured by a pipeline through which cooling water flows, and cooling water flows inside the cooler 19 configured by the pipeline, and that cooling water is supplied via a supply tube 21a, wherein at the place where a supply and exhaust pipe 21 inclusive of the supply tube 21a (comprising the set of the supply tube 21a and an exhaust tube 21b) penetrates inside the chamber 11, a bellows member 23 is provided to preserve airtightness (Fig 1; col 6, ln 1-67).
In a solid material delivery system, Williams et al teaches a feed tube 44 extends upwardly out of the ball valve 96 and a tube member 104 into an longitudinally expansible and contractible bellows 106; the feed tube extends through another bellows 117 and another fitting 119 connected to a hopper 30; a carry plate 112 is capable of being moved up and down by an actuator (not shown) connected to the slider 114 to move the feed tube 44 between a docked position in the delivery tube 32 (FIG. 2) and an undocked position spaced just above the ball valve (FIG. 3), wherein the bellows 106 lengthens and shortens to isolate the feed tube 44 while permitting its axial motion (Fig 1-3; col 6, ln 1-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al by providing a feed housing including a hopper for holding the chunk polycrystalline; a valve connecting the feed housing to the crystal puller housing; and a bellows assembly secured to the feed housing and extending outward therefrom, as taught by Willaims et al, to supply raw material while being capable of being isolated from the surrounding environment to prevent contamination of the melt or the atmosphere in the furnace 10 and allow axial movement (Williams col 4, ln 1-67). Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al by providing the fluid inlet conduit and the fluid outlet conduit each extending within the bellows assembly, wherein the bellows assembly is raised and lowered with the feed tube and wherein an interior of the bellows assembly is in near-vacuum, as taught by Morimoto et al, to preserve the airtightness with the cooler fluid conduits.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2016/0060787) in view of Kamio et al (JP 03-008791A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Ebi et al (JP 2001-240491), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided), as applied to claims 1-13 and 15 above, and further in view of Ono et al (US 5,080,873).
The combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, except a kick plate is disposed adjacent to the outlet end of the feed tube, the kick plate extending partially across an inner diameter of the feed tube.
In a crystal growth apparatus, Ono et al teaches a feed pipe 10 is connected at its one end to a material supply mechanism and other end of the feed pipe 10 is positioned adjacent to the inner peripheral surface of the crucible 6 so as to be disposed slightly above the surface of a melt, and a plurality of upper and lower baffle plates 14, 15 so that the falling speed of the material is decreased below a prescribed value (Fig 1-17; col 3, ln 1-67), which clearly suggests applicant’s kick plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Park, Kamio et al and Ebi et al by providing a kick plate (baffle) is disposed adjacent to the outlet end of the feed tube, the kick plate extending partially across an inner diameter of the feed tube, as taught by Ono et al, to reduce the falling speed of material below a prescribed value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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.
Sun et al (US 2022/0081799) teaches a crystal growth apparatus comprising a growth chamber a seed crystal 3, a crystal 5, a crucible 10, a melt 12, a feeding pipe 18, and a feeding chamber 19; and introducing a cooling liquid into the pipe wall of a feeding pipe to prevent the feeding pipe from being overheated and damaged (Fig 1; [0018]-[0040]).
Basak et al (US 2017/0107639) teaches a cooling jacket 204, including the housing 208 and the cooling tube 240, are constructed of steel, although the cooling jacket 204 may be constructed from materials other than steel; and a cooling tube 240 may have a construction other than a helical coil construction, such as by being formed as an annular ring (not shown) or other plenum structure (not shown) that circumscribes all or part of the inner panel 234 of the cooling jacket housing 208 ([0053]).
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