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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of all the claims may be made without serious burden. These are not found persuasive. As indicated in the requirement for restriction/election dated 04/03/2026, there are mutually exclusive features between Groups I, II and III, and the different groups of claims require a different field of search (e.g., searching electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), which does introduce an additional search burden. While the field of search for one group of claims may overlap with the field of search for the other group of claims, there is no reason to expect that said fields of search would be co-extensive. Specifically, the search is not directed only to 102-type anticipatory art, but also to 103-type art pointing to the obviousness of the claimed invention. The search for 103-type art for each group of claims would cause the fields of search to diverge, creating a serious burden on the Examiner to examine all of the claims together. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/28/2026. Claims 1-7 are currently examined on the merits.
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- 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a doping concentration ratio”, and the claim also recites “a particular ratio” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al (US 20130277809 A1, “Nakai”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakai teaches a method of manufacturing a silicon single crystal 2, the method comprising preparing a silicon melt 32 (abstract, 0009, 0025-0027); and growing the silicon single crystal based on co-doping boron and phosphorus into the silicon melt (0009, 0021, 0026, 0036, 0051, 0076), wherein, in the growing of the silicon single crystal, the silicon single crystal is grown based on controlling a doping concentration ratio of the silicon melt (abstract, 0009, 0027, 0036, 0051-0055, 0107), which is a ratio of an initial concentration of phosphorus in the silicon melt to an initial concentration of boron in the silicon melt to be a particular ratio (abstract, 0009, 0027, 0036, 0051-0055), and controlling the initial concentration of boron in the silicon melt to be not higher than 4E14 atoms/cm³ (abstract, 0009, 0027, 0036, 0106, 0107 and claim 11), overlapping the instantly claimed range of about 8.0E12 atom/cm³ to about 1.5E13 atom/cm³. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 2, Nakai teaches the doping concentration ratio of the silicon melt is controlled to be not lower than 0.42 and not higher than 0.50 (abstract, 0009, 0027, 0036, 0055, 0056, 0061, 0106, 0107 and claim 1), overlapping the instantly claimed range of about 0.23 to about 0.45. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 3, Nakai teaches the doping concentration ratio of the silicon melt is controlled to be not lower than 0.42 and not higher than 0.50 (abstract, 0009, 0027, 0036, 0055, 0056, 0061, 0106, 0107 and claim 1), overlapping the instantly claimed range of about 0.35 to about 0.45. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 4, Nakai teaches that the growing of the silicon single crystal is carried out by a Czochralski method process (abstract, 0003, 0009, 0021, claim 1).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ammon et al (US 20060292890 A1, “Ammon”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakai teaches the growing of the silicon single crystal, but does not explicitly teach controlling a concentration of oxygen injected into the silicon melt. However, Ammon teaches a method, wherein a concentration/amount/content of oxygen injected into the silicon melt is controlled for controlling the defects of growing silicon single crystal (0002, 0004, 0008, 0049, 0057). 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 Nakai per teachings of Ammon in order to produce the silicon crystal with determined defects distributions (Ammon 0004 and 0075-0077).
Regarding claim 6, Nakai/Ammon teaches that the concentration of oxygen injected into the silicon melt is controlled to be lower than 6*1017 cm-3 (Ammon 0049), overlapping the instantly claimed range of about 1.5E17 atom/cm³ to about 4E17 atom/cm³. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Basak et al (US 20200216975 A1, “Basak”).
Regarding claim 7, Nakai teaches the silicon single crystal is a p-type silicon single crystal (abstract), but does not explicitly teach the crystal having a resistivity of at least 1000 Ω.cm. However, Basak teaches a method, wherein a produced silicon single crystal has a a resistivity of at least 1000 Ω.cm (abstract, 0079). 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 Nakai per teachings of Basak in order to produce the silicon crystal with high resistivity and improved mechanical strength for building various devices (Basak 0007, 0030, 0079). Furthermore, “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2133.
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
Prosecution Insights