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
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujioka et al (JP 05-170589), an English computer translation (CT).
Referring to claim 1, Fujioka et al teaches a single crystal ingot puller 1 comprising: a crucible 2 for containing a melt 4; a single crystal ingot 5 at least partially grown from the melt, the ingot having a main body defining an outside surface, the outside surface of the ingot contacting a top surface of the melt defining an ingot edge; a heater 3 at least partially surrounding the crucible and the ingot; a laser system 7/8 to selectively transmit a laser beam to the ingot edge; and, a controller connected to and selectively controlling power of the laser and the heater (computer 13 adjusts intensity of laser beam generator 7 and input power of heater 3) (CT [0003]-[0010]; Fig 1).
Referring to claim 2 and 11, Fujioka et al teaches the controller is programmed to: control the laser to direct the laser beam to the ingot edge; and, control the laser to increase a power of the beam to heat the ingot edge such that a local temperature gradient of the ingot edge is increased; wherein increasing the local temperature gradient of the ingot edge reduces edge band defect in the ingot (CT [0008] teaches the laser beam is introduced into the furnace and irradiated onto the melt near the crystal by a mirror, which reads on a control the laser to direct the laser beam to the ingot edge and the amount of irradiation of the laser beam 8 is also controlled by instructions from the computer 13 and the computer adjusts the intensity of the beam, which reads on controller is programmed to increase laser power).
Referring to claim 3 and 12, Fujioka et al teaches the laser beam is introduced into the furnace and irradiated onto the melt near the crystal by a mirror (CT [0008]), which reads which reads on the laser is configured to selectively direct the beam to a region 10mm to 20mm from the ingot edge because the mirror is capable of directing the laser near the crystal which would include 10-20 mm from the ingot edge.
Referring to claim 6, this limitation merely recites an intended use of the claimed invention. 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. Fujioka et al teaches an apparatus capable of pulling at different rate and emitting a laser beam; therefore, would be capable of the claimed intended use.
Referring to claim 8-9, this limitation merely recites an intended use of the claimed invention. 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. Fujioka et al teaches an apparatus capable of controlling the heater and the laser; therefore, would be capable of the claimed intended use.
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) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka et al (JP 05-170589), an English computer translation (CT), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 105951175), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
Fujioka et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, except a laser beam generator the beam has a first width and a second width, the second width greater than the first width, the second width heats a greater surface area of the ingot edge, and wherein the second width is 10mm greater than the first width.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Zhang et al teaches a laser beam is used to melt polycrystalline silicon wherein the laser spot shape is 10mm x 4 mm or 9 mmx 0.2mm (CT2 [0010]-[0019], [0031]-[0040]; Fig 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fujioka et al by providing a laser which can generate different widths, as taught by Zhang et al, to produce a laser spot having a desired size suitable for melting silicon.
In regards to the first width and second width wherein the second width is 10 mm greater than the first width, the combination of Fujioka et al and Zhang et al teaches a laser generator capable for changing the shape of the beam to at least 10 mm, thus the apparatus taught by the combination of Fujioka et al and Zhang et al would be capable of the claimed intended use. Furthermore, changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04); therefore, different sized and shaped laser beams would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Referring to claim 13, see the remarks above. The combination of Fujioka et al and Zhang et al teaches a laser generator capable for changing the shape of the beam to at least 10 mm.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka et al (JP 05-170589), an English computer translation (CT), as applied to claim 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 above, and further in view of Kitagawa et al (JP10-81595), an English computer translation (CT3) is provided.
Fujioka et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, except the laser power is in the range of 1-3 KW. Fujioka et al teaches a laser however is silent to the laser power.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Kitagawa et al teaches a crucible; a laser device 8 to melt polycrystalline silicon, wherein the laser output ranging from 0-30 kW (CT3 Fig 1-3; [0015]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fujioka et al by providing a laser capable of 0-30kW, as taught by Kitagawa et al, to provide a laser capable of heating silicon with a desired amount of power.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka et al (JP 05-170589), an English computer translation (CT), as applied to claim 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 above, and further in view of Miyazawa et al (GB 2127712).
Fujioka et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except the laser is affixed to a rail for continuously cycling the laser upward and downward along the rail by a cycle distance, wherein the laser produces a sinusoidal beam pattern on the ingot, the pattern having an amplitude half of the cycle distance, and wherein the cycle distance is in the range of 10mm to 20mm.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Miyazawa et al teaches a heater 8 directing radiant heat mounted on a rail for movement (Fig 2; page 1, lines 70-126; page 2, lines 1-100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fujioka et al to mount the laser on a rail, as taught by Miyazawa et al, to position the laser beam at a desired location within the apparatus.
In regards to the laser is affixed to a rail for continuously cycling the laser upward and downward along the rail by a cycle distance, wherein the laser produces a sinusoidal beam pattern on the ingot, the pattern having an amplitude half of the cycle distance, and wherein the cycle distance is in the range of 10mm to 20mm, this merely recites an intended use of the apparatus. The combination of Fujioka et al and Miyazawa et al teaches a laser mounted on a rail for directing and reposition the laser beam; therefore, would be capable of the claimed intended use.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka et al (JP 05-170589), an English computer translation (CT), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jain et al (US 2020/0325594).
Fujioka et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above, except a bottom edge of a reflector positioned within the ingot puller is positioned at a first distance from the melt at the first temperature of the heater and is positioned at a second distance from the melt at the second temperature of the heater, the second distance greater than the first distance, and wherein the power of the beam controls a triple phase point of a region where the beam is directed.
In a Czochralski apparatus, Jain et al teaches a reflector 80 helps control the axial and radial temperature gradients, which drive the solidification and crystallization of the molten silicon 90 into the growing ingot 100 (Fig 3; [0035]-[0045]). Jain et al also teaches the relative height “HR” is the distance between the bottom of the reflector and the melt; and the crystal edge gradient is altered by the HR values; and moving the crucible to maintain a desired HR ([0050]; Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fujioka et al by providing a reflector, as taught by Jain et al, to helps control the axial and radial temperature gradients.
In regards to the a bottom edge of a reflector positioned within the ingot puller is positioned at a first distance from the melt at the first temperature of the heater and is positioned at a second distance from the melt at the second temperature of the heater, the second distance greater than the first distance, and wherein the power of the beam controls a triple phase point of a region where the beam is directed; this limitation merely recites an intended use of the apparatus, the combination of Fujioka et al and Jain et al teaches an apparatus comprising a moving crucible and reflector and laser; therefore would be capable of the claimed intended use.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka et al (JP 05-170589), an English computer translation (CT), and Zhang et al (CN 105951175), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kitagawa et al (JP10-81595), an English computer translation (CT3) is provided.
The combination of Fujioka et al and Zhang et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, except the laser power is in the range of 1-3 KW. Fujioka et al teaches a laser however is silent to the laser power.
In a Czochralski crystal growth apparatus, Kitagawa et al teaches a crucible; a laser device 8 to melt polycrystalline silicon, wherein the laser output ranging from 0-30 kW (CT3 Fig 1-3; [0015]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Fujioka et al and Zhang et al by providing a laser capable of 0-30kW, as taught by Kitagawa et al, to provide a laser capable of heating silicon with a desired amount of power to heat the melt to a desired temperature.
Referring to claim 15, see the remarks above. Furthermore, the claim merely recites the intended use of the controller. As discussed above, the combination of Fujioka et al, Zhang et al and Kitagawa et al teaches a controller to adjust the laser power to control temperature gradients during crystal growth; therefore, would be capable of the claimed intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 3627215 teaches directing a laser beam at the melt in a Czochralski apparatus (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