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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 10 are cancelled. Claims 8, 9 and 11-16 are pending. Claims 8, 9, 13 and 16 are amended. Claim 8 is an independent claim. Claims 8, 9 and 11-16 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “… in the vertical direction so as to keep a distance between a bottom of the reflector and the liquid surface of silicon melt constant...” which should read “… in the vertical direction so as to keep [[a]] the distance between [[a]] the bottom of the reflector and the liquid surface of silicon melt constant...”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The word “means” may be substituted by a term that serves as a generic placeholder and still invoke 112(f) paragraph. The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 8 recites “a first control unit and a second control unit, wherein the first control unit is configured to keep a position of a crucible in a height direction unchanged during growth of the silicon single crystal, and the second control unit is configured to move the insulator” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural terms “unit” coupled with functional language “keep a position of a crucible in a height direction unchanged during growth of the silicon single crystal … move the insulator.” However, per the specification, the “unit” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it. It is noted that “configured to” is recited in the instant claim; and it is well settled that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181.
Claim 9 recites “keeping the distance between the bottom of the reflector and the liquid surface of the silicon melt constant by the second control unit” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural terms “unit” coupled with functional language “keeping the distance between the bottom of the reflector and the liquid surface of the silicon melt constant.” However, per the specification, the “unit” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it.
Claim 12 recites “the second control unit is configured to move the insulator downward in the vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural terms “unit” coupled with functional language “move the insulator downward in the vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal.” However, per the specification, the “unit” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it.
Claim 13 recites “a third control unit …moving the heater in the vertical direction by the third control unit” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural terms “unit” coupled with functional language “moving the heater in the vertical direction.” However, per the specification, the “unit” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it.
Claim 14 recites “the second control unit and the third control unit drive the insulator and the heater, respectively” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural terms “unit” coupled with functional language “drive the insulator and the heater, respectively.” However, per the specification, the “unit” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it.
Claim 15 recites “the first control unit is configured to rotate the crucible about a center axis of the crucible” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural terms “unit” coupled with functional language “rotate the crucible about a center axis of the crucible.” However, per the specification, the “unit” has no corresponding description of the structural elements associated with it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites "...separately moving…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected because they depend on claim 8.
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 8, 9 and 11-16 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 8 “…A method for regulating at least one hot zone… the apparatus for regulating at least one hot zone …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. While reciting “A method for regulating at least one hot zone”, claim 8 also recites “an apparatus which comprises an insulator having a top on which a reflector is fixedly arranged; and a first control unit and a second control unit, wherein the first control unit is configured to keep a position of a crucible in a height direction unchanged during growth of the silicon single crystal, and the second control unit is configured to move the insulator along a vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal”. Therefore, claim 8 embraces the apparatus and process limitations in the same claim, thus failing to clearly recite the boundaries sought for protection. Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected because they depend on claim 8.
The recited in claim 8 “…moving a heater downward in the vertical direction when the insulator is moved downward … separately moving the insulator and the heater downward in the vertical direction…” It is not clear whether “moving a heater downward in the vertical direction when the insulator is moved downward” or “separately moving the insulator and the heater downward in the vertical direction”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 8 “…a silicon single crystal… a monocrystalline silicon ingot….” It is not clear whether “a silicon single crystal” and “a monocrystalline silicon ingot” refers to a same silicon crystal/ingot or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The term “high” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The recited in claim 13 “The method … the apparatus …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. While reciting “The method”, claim 13 positively recites “the apparatus further comprises a third control unit”. Therefore, claim 13 embraces the apparatus and process limitations in the same claim, thus failing to clearly recite the boundaries sought for protection.
Claims 8 recites “a first control unit and a second control unit”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “unit”. Claim elements “unit” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are not clearly defined. Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected because they depend on claim 8.
Claims 9 and 12-15 recite “control unit(s)”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “unit”. Claim elements “unit” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims 9 and 12-15 are not clearly defined.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 8, 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hun et al (KR 20180057999 A, machine translation, “Hun”), and further in view of Masahiro Sakurada (US 20060130740 A1, “Sakurada”), Yokoyama et al (US 20060016387 A, “Yokoyama”), Takeyasu et al (US 20160194783 A1, “Takeyasu”) and Taguchi et al (US 5840115 A, “Taguchi”).
Regarding claim 8, Hun teaches a method for regulating at least one hot zone for growing a silicon single crystal, which is carried out using an apparatus (figs 3 and 6), the method comprising before growth of the silicon single crystal, raising (moving) a member 211 with a heat shield 203 (reflector) to a highest position (fig 6a, 0032), and after solid poly (polycrystalline) silicon feedstock is completely melted into silicon melt, lowering (adjusting) the reflector (heat shield 203) to a position at a distance from the liquid surface of the silicon melt (figs 3 and 6, 0018-0020, 0032-0034).
Hun further teaches during growth of the silicon single crystal, and lowering (moving) the member 211 with the reflector (heat shield 203) downward in the vertical direction so as to keep a distance between a lower surface (bottom) of the reflector (heat shield 203) and the liquid surface of the silicon melt constant (0033-0044), but does not explicitly teach rotating the crucible with the position of the crucible in the height direction being kept unchanged. However, Sakurada teaches a method for producing a single crystal, wherein during growth of the silicon single crystal, the crucible is rotated and a distance between a melt surface and a heat insulating member is controlled by changing a position of the heat insulate member in a height direction (position of the crucible in the height direction being kept unchanged) (0023, 0024, 0056, 0059, 0064, 0073 and claim 14-16). 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 Hun per teachings of Sakurada in order to provide an alternate way for precisely control a distance between the reflector/insulating member and the liquid surface of the silicon melt, which can produce the single crystal with desired quality at high yield (Sakurada 0015, 0016 and 0024).
Hun/Sakurada teaches moving the member with the reflector as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the member being insulator. However, Yokoyama teaches a method for pulling a single crystal, wherein suspension component made of carbon-carbon fiber composite material (insulator) is connected to a heat shield/reflector with for moving heat shield/reflector (0292, 0293, 0294, 0305). 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 Hun/Sakurada per teachings of Yokoyama in order to provide suitable conditions for producing defect-free silicon single crystal (Yokoyama abstract and 0001). It is also well established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations of the insulator and the reflector in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama teaches the second control unit is configured to move the insulator downward in the vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal (Sakurada fig 5, 0056, 0073), as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach moving the heater downward in the vertical direction when the insulator is moved downward, so that a temperature of the liquid surface of the silicon melt is kept constant and heat from the heater is no longer transferred to the monocrystalline silicon ingot; and regulating the hot zone for growth of the silicon single crystal by separately moving the insulator and the heater downward in the vertical direction, so as to allow the silicon single crystal to be being cooled at a high rate. However, Takeyasu teaches a method of pulling a crystal, wherein moving the heater in a vertical direction is controlled by a unit (third control unit) (0012-0014, 0025, 0026, 0031, 0037, 0039), and regulating a hot zone for growth of the silicon single crystal by moving the heater downward in the vertical direction, so as to allow the silicon single crystal to be being easily cooled at a better cooling efficiency (at a high rate) (0014, 0031, 0039), e.g., heat from the heater is no longer transferred to the monocrystalline silicon ingot. 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 Hun/Sakurada/ Yokoyama per teachings of Takeyasu in order to provide suitable conditions for efficiently producing the crystal (Takeyasu 0012-0014, 0031, 0039). As addressed above, Hun/Sakurada/ Yokoyama/Takeyasu teaches that the second control unit is configured to move the insulator downward in the vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal (Sakurada fig 5, 0056, 0073), and third control unit configured for moving the heater in the vertical direction (Takeyasu 0012-0014, 0031, 0039), e.g., separately moving the insulator and the heater. It is also well established that the court has held that making the structure integral or separable would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V. Hun/ Sakurada/ Yokoyama/Takeyasu also teaches moving the heater downward in the vertical direction when the insulator is moved downward (Takeyasu 0014, 0025, 0026, 0031, 0037, 0039), but does not explicitly teach that a temperature of the liquid surface of the silicon melt is kept constant. However, Taguchi teaches a method of growing a crystal, wherein a position of a heater is controlled, so that temperature of the melt surface is constantly maintained (col 5 lines 10-31; col 6 lines 3-9 and col 8 lines 15-20). 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 Hun/Sakurada/ Yokoyama/Takeyasu per teachings of Taguchi in order to provide the crystal with stabilized quality (Taguchi col 3 lines 40-45 and col 8 lines 10-20).
Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches the insulator, the crucible, keeping the position of the crucible in the height direction unchanged during growth of the silicon single crystal, moving the insulator along a vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal, and keeping the distance between the bottom of the reflector and the liquid surface of silicon melt constant as addressed above, and further teaches that the apparatus comprises a driving mechanism (first control unit) and a control means (second control unit) (Sakurada 0053, 0056; 0073, Yokoyama 0174).
Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations of the insulator, the reflector, the first control unit and the second control unit in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 9, Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches moving the insulator with the reflector downward in the vertical direction so as to keep the distance between the bottom of the reflector and the liquid surface of the silicon melt constant and keeping the distance between the reflector and the liquid surface of the silicon melt constant as addressed above, and further teaches monitoring the level of the liquid surface of the silicon melt during growth of the silicon single crystal (Sakurada 0056, 0073); and the distance between the reflector and the liquid surface of the silicon melt being controlled by a control meaning (second control unit) according to the level of the liquid surface of the silicon melt (Sakurada 0056, 0073). Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations of the second control unit in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 11, Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches the insulator as addressed above, and further teaches insulation tube (a side heat insulation cover) and insulation ring (a top heat insulation cover), and wherein the side heat insulation cover (insulation tube) is arranged in parallel to a heater (Hun fig 3; Yokoyama figs 15, 28-35), the top heat insulation cover (insulation ring) is arranged to extend in a horizontal direction from a top of the side heat insulation cover (insulation tube) towards the growing silicon single crystal without extending over the crucible (Hun figs 3 and 6; Yokoyama figs 15, 28-35), and the reflector is fixedly connected to the top heat insulation cover (Hun 0012, 0013, 0029, claims 7 and 8). Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations of the side heat insulation cover, the top heat insulation cover and the reflector being fixedly connected to the top heat insulation cover in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 12, Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches that the second control unit is configured to move the insulator downward in the vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal (Sakurada fig 5, 0056, 0073). Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 13, Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches the heater as addressed above, and further teaches that a supporting member (third control unit) is configured for moving the heater in the vertical direction (Takeyasu 0014, 0025, 0026, 0031, 0037, 0039). Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 14, Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches that the second control unit is configured to move the insulator downward in the vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal (Sakurada fig 5, 0056, 0073), and third control unit configured for moving the heater in the vertical direction (Takeyasu 0012-0014, 0031, 0039), e.g., the second control unit and the third control unit drive the insulator and the heater, respectively. It is also well established that the court has held that making the structure integral or separable would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V. Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 15, Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches that the driving mechanism (first control unit) is configured to rotate the crucible about a center axis of the crucible (Sakurada 0053, 0056; Yokoyama 0174). Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Miura et al (US 20010054376 A1, “Miura”).
Regarding claim 16, Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/Taguchi teaches a camera (level sensor), wherein the level sensor is configured to monitor the level of the liquid surface of the silicon melt, a position of the liquid level surface is fed back to a control unit means (Sakurada 0056, 0073), but does not explicitly teach a processor, and the processor is configured to transmit control signals to the first control unit and the second control unit based on the level the liquid surface of the silicon melt. However, Miura teaches a method for producing a crystal, wherein a processor is configured to transmit control signals to the control units based on the level the liquid surface of the silicon melt (abstract, 0039, 0045, 0071, 0073 and 0076). 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 Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama/Takeyasu/ Taguchi per teachings of Miura in order to enable automatic melt level control for accurately detecting a melt level and obtaining a crystal with high quality (Miura 0015). Furthermore, regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that None of the cited references, specifically Takeyasu, disclose “regulating the at least hot zone for growth of the silicon single crystal by separately moving the insulator and the heater downward in the vertical direction, so as to allow the silicon single crystal to be cooled at a high rate” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, it is noted that Hun/Sakurada/Yokoyama does not explicitly teach regulating the hot zone for growth of the silicon single crystal by separately moving the insulator and the heater downward in the vertical direction, so as to allow the silicon single crystal to be being cooled at a high rate. However, Takeyasu teaches a method of pulling a crystal, wherein a third control unit configured for moving the heater in the vertical direction (0012-0014, 0025, 0026, 0031, 0037, 0039), and regulating a hot zone for growth of the silicon single crystal by moving the heater downward in the vertical direction, so as to allow the silicon single crystal to be being easily cooled at a better cooling efficiency (at a high rate) (0014, 0031, 0039). 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 Hun/Sakurada/ Yokoyama per teachings of Takeyasu in order to provide suitable conditions for efficiently producing the crystal (Takeyasu 0012-0014, 0031, 0039). As addressed above, Hun/Sakurada/ Yokoyama/Takeyasu teaches that the second control unit is configured to move the insulator downward in the vertical direction during growth of the silicon single crystal (Sakurada fig 5, 0056, 0073), and third control unit configured for moving the heater in the vertical direction (Takeyasu 0012-0014, 0031, 0039), e.g., separately moving the insulator and the heater. It is also well established that the court has held that making the structure integral or separable would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
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 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