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
Claim 12 is newly added. Claims 1, 2, 7-11 are amended. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 12 are currently examined on the merits.
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 1-9 and 12 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 1 recites "...a timing of a supply of the molten silicon… a timing of a supply of the solid silicon…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 12 recites "...directly detect…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 “…a solid silicon material …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claims already recite “a solid silicon material.” It is not clear whether the “solid silicon material” refers to the previously recited “solid silicon material” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 9 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, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zebin Zeng (CN 102418140 A, machine translation, “Zeng”).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches an ingot growth apparatus comprising a furnace body 16 (growth furnace) having a crucible 7 (main crucible) which is disposed within the growth furnace (furnace body) and holds molten silicon 18 therein in order to grow an ingot 17 (figs 1-5, 0041, 0043, 0052, 0055, 0058, claims 1-4); a preliminary melting part having a tube 30/35/43/44 (comprising side/lower part of insulator 37/28 and/or bracket 31) (preliminary crucible) which is supplied with a polycrystalline silicon 42 (solid silicon material), holds and melts the solid silicon material (polycrystalline silicon), and supplies the molten silicon to the main crucible (figs 2-5, 0041, 0043, 0045, 0052, 0055, 0058, claims 1-5); a feeding/weighing device 39 (quantitative supply part) disposed outside the furnace body 16 (growth furnace) and configured to supply the solid silicon material to the preliminary crucible (figs 2-5, abstract, 0015-0019, 0041-0044, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0061 and claims 1-5); thermocouple 27/32 (a temperature detection sensor) which detects the temperature of the solid silicon material or the molten silicon held in the preliminary melting part (figs 2-5, 0041, 0043, 0045, 0052, 0055, 0058, claims 1-4); the temperature detection sensor (thermocouple 32) is disposed at a side top portion (above) of the preliminary melting part (figs 2-4). Furthermore, it is well established that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Zeng teaches the molten silicon being supplied from the preliminary crucible to the main crucible and the temperature detection sensor (thermocouple) as addressed above, and further teaches that a computer control system 15 (control part including at least one processor) is connected to a liquid level position sensor 23 (sensing the molten silicon level in the main crucible), the temperature detection sensor (thermocouple) and the quantitative supply part (feeding/weighing device) (figs 2-5, 0009-0011, 0015-0019, 0041, 0043, 0052, 0055, 0058, claims 1-4). As just addressed, Zeng teaches a similar control part as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “controlling the preliminary melting part, a timing of a supply of the molten silicon held in the preliminary crucible to the main crucible based on the temperature detected by the temperature detection sensor” and “controlling the quantitative supply part, a timing of a supply of the solid silicon from the quantitative supply part to the preliminary crucible based on the temperature detected by the temperature detection sensor”. It is well established that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181. 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).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng teaches the control part as addressed above, and further teaches the control part connected to a feeding and weighing device 39 for supplying the solid silicon material (figs 2-5, 0015-0019, 0041, 0043, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0061, claims 1-5). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “supplying a solid silicon material to the preliminary crucible for a predetermined number of times”. 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).
Regarding claim 8, as addressed above, Zeng teaches the temperature detection sensor, the control part and the preliminary crucible melting the solid silicon material, similar to the instantly claimed structural elements. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “when the temperature detected by the temperature detection sensor is higher than a temperature of the molten silicon, the control part controls the melting time of the preliminary crucible such that the preliminary crucible melts the solid silicon material, and wherein when the temperature detected by the temperature detection sensor corresponds to the temperature range of molten silicon, the control part controls to supply the solid silicon material to the preliminary crucible”. 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).
Regarding claim 9, as addressed above, Zeng teaches the temperature detection sensor, the control part and the preliminary crucible melting the solid silicon material, similar to the instantly claimed structural elements. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “when the temperature detected by the temperature detection sensor corresponds to the temperature range of the molten silicon while a solid silicon material is supplied to the preliminary crucible for the predetermined number of times, the control part controls to supply the molten silicon of the preliminary crucible to the main crucible”. 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).
Regarding claim 12, as addressed above, Zeng teaches the temperature detection sensor (thermocouple) held in the preliminary melting part, similar temperature detection sensor as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “being configured to directly detect the temperature of the solid silicon material or molten silicon held in the preliminary melting part”. It is well established that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181. 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).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ammon et al (US 20040192015 A1, “Ammon”).
Regarding claim 2, Zeng teaches the preliminary melting part as addressed above, and further teaches the preliminary melting part comprising a tube 36 (body part) which accommodates the preliminary crucible and is formed with a detection hole through which the temperature detection sensor (thermocouple) inserts (moves) (figs 2-5, 0041, 0043, 0058, claims 1 and 4), similar to the instantly claimed structural elements of the body part and the detection hole. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus/detection hole of Zeng is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “light generated from the temperature detection sensor moving”. 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); Zeng further teaches a heater 34/29 which is disposed on an inner side surface of the body part (tube) and is disposed to be spaced apart from the preliminary crucible to heat the preliminary crucible (figs 2-5, 0041, 0043, 0052, 0055, 0056, 0058-0060, claims 1-4).
Zeng teaches the heater disposed inside the body part as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that a coil is spaced apart from the heater and formed to be wound multiple times to generate a magnetic field, and heats the heater by electromagnetic induction by the magnetic field. However, Ammon teaches a device for melting and growing a single crystal, wherein the device comprises a coil 13 spaced apart from heater 4/8 and formed to be wound multiple times to generate a magnetic field, and heats the heater by electromagnetic induction by the magnetic field (figs 7-14, 0022, 0023, 0026, 0042, 0043, 0049 and 0050). 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 Zeng per teachings of Ammon in order to provide suitable conditions for controlling defect distribution of the single crystal (Ammon 0016-0021 and 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng/Ammon teaches the coil and the heater as addressed above, and further teaches a first coil (upper coil) which is disposed above the heater (for example heater 8) (Ammon fig 14), and a second coil (lower coil) which is disposed to be spaced apart from the first coil (upper coil) (Ammon figs 13 and 14), and openings/ holes positioned between the first coil and the second coil (Ammon figs 13 and 14). 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).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng/Ammon as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Duanmu et al (US 20120240844 A1, “Duanmu”).
Regarding claim 4, Zeng/Ammon teaches the body part and the temperature detection sensor as addressed above, and further teaches a portion/part (without referral number) disposed above the body part and at an outside portion of the temperature detection sensor 32/27, supports the temperature detection sensor 32/27 (Zeng figs 2-5), and a second detection hole communicating with the detection hole is formed in the portion/part (without referral number) (Zeng figs 2-5), but does not explicitly teach portion/part (without referral number) is a heat insulating part. However, Duanmu teaches a furnace for melting feedstock, wherein a heat insulation supports a temperature detection sensor (figs 1-6, 0026-0030, 0034, claims 9 and 10). 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 Zeng/ Ammon per teachings of Duanmu in order to control a variation of the temperature measured (Duanmu abstract, 0029, 0030, 0035, 0038 and 0039). Zeng/Ammon/ Duanmu teaches similar structural elements of the heat insulating part, the body part and the temperature detection sensor as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the opening of Zeng/Ammon/Duanmu is capable of “blocking the movement of heat from the body part to the temperature detection sensor”. 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, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Zeng/Ammon teaches the melting part and the detection hole as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a contamination prevention part which is inserted into and fixed to the detection hole. However, Duanmu teaches a furnace for melting feedstock, wherein a protection sheath 24 (contamination prevention part) which is inserted into and fixed to the detection hole (figs 2-6, 0026, 0029). 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 Zeng/ Ammon per teachings of Duanmu in order to accurately control the temperature (Duanmu abstract, 0007, 0008, 0026, 0029, 0030, 0035, 0038 and 0039).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng/ Ammon as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of David L. Bender (US 20050092236 A1, “Bender”).
Regarding claim 5, Zeng/Ammon teaches the preliminary crucible as addressed above, and further teaches that the preliminary crucible (tube) comprises a left portion (first sidewall) which faces the main crucible (Zeng figs 2-5); and a second sidewall (right portion) which is formed on the opposite side of the first sidewall (Zeng figs 2-5); and wherein the temperature detection sensor is disposed closer to the second sidewall than to the first sidewall (Zeng figs 2-5), but does not explicitly teach an angle inclined with respect to a lower side of the body part. However, Bender teaches a system, wherein a melting chamber has an angle inclined with respect to a bottom portion (fig 4, 0061). 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 Zeng/Ammon per teachings of Bender in order to provide suitable conditions for facilitating melt flow (Bender 0061). It is also well established that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “Zeng does not disclose any relationship between the temperature measured by the thermocouples and the control of the metering device (39) or the melting temperature stabilization tube (30). Therefore, there is no teaching that temperature measurement is used to control the timing of the supply of the solid and/or the molten silicon” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, Zeng teaches a similar control part connecting to the temperature detection sensor and the quantitative supply part for a supply of molten silicon and/or solid silicon. Based on the factual teachings of Zeng, the examiner’s position is that Zeng explicitly teaches similar structural elements and similar arrangement of those structural elements as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “controlling the preliminary melting part, a timing of a supply of the molten silicon held in the preliminary crucible to the main crucible based on the temperature detected by the temperature detection sensor” and “controlling the quantitative supply part, a timing of a supply of the solid silicon from the quantitative supply part to the preliminary crucible based on the temperature detected by the temperature detection sensor”. It is well established that “configured to” is linking words, provided it is clear that the claim element is reciting a function. See MPEP 2181. 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). Applicant’s arguments with respect to other references have been considered, but not found persuasive, because they are not applied to the instant claim 1.
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