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 without traverse of Group II, claims 7-20 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 7-20 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “single crystal furnace,” “valve,” “pressure gauge,” “liquid,” “liquid level,” “first heater,” “second heater,” “seed crystals,” “crystal interface” and “slag” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 7-20 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 7 “A preparation method for single crystal… a charging method for silicon material…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. While reciting “A preparation method for single crystal”, claim 7 also recites “a charging method for silicon material” positively with the steps of the charging method. Therefore, claim 7 embraces two methods limitations in the same claim, thus failing to clearly recite the boundaries sought for protection. Claims 8-20 are rejected because they depend on claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first material layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 9 “…the method…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claim recites “…preparation method for single crystal… charging method for silicon material.” It is not clear whether the “method” refers to the previously recited “preparation method” or “charging method”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 9 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 10-15 and 20 are rejected because they depend on claim 9.
The recited in claim 11 “…the method…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claims recite “…preparation method for single crystal… charging method for silicon material.” It is not clear whether the “method” refers to the previously recited “preparation method” or “charging method”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 12-15 and 20 are rejected because they depend on claim 11.
The recited in claim 11 “…providing the crucible with 0.5 to 1.5 turns until the silicon material completed melted into a liquid…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “providing the crucible with 0.5 to 1.5 turns until the silicon material completed melted into a liquid” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 12-15 and 20 are rejected because they depend on claim 11.
The recited in claim 13 “…the method…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claims recite “…preparation method for single crystal… charging method for silicon material.” It is not clear whether the “method” refers to the previously recited “preparation method” or “charging method”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 13 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 14, 15 and 20 are rejected because they depend on claim 13.
The term “fine” in claims 13-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” 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 15 “…the method…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claims recite “…preparation method for single crystal… charging method for silicon material.” It is not clear whether the “method” refers to the previously recited “preparation method” or “charging method”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 15 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claim 20 is rejected because it depends on claim 15.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the third material layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the third thickness d3". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 20 “…remaining crystal pulling steps…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “remaining crystal pulling steps” refers to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 20 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 7, 8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (CN 103233264 A, machine translation, “Gao”), and further in view of Pan et al (CN 202595328 U, machine translation, “Pan”) and Jin Sub Park (US 20160060787 A, “Park”).
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches a preparation method for monocrystal (single crystal) using a charging method for silicon material, wherein the charging method for silicon material is used for charging a crucible with a silicon charge (abstract, 0036), and the charging method for silicon material comprises disposing a bottom/middle material layer (first material layer) in the crucible (figs 1 and 2, 0035-0042, 0048, 0049, 0051, 0055); and disposing a middle/upper material layer (second material layer) on a side of the first material layer away from a bottom of the crucible to cover the first material layer (figs 1 and 2, 0035-0042, 0048, 0049, 0051, 0055).
Gao teaches charging the silicon material as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the charging during vacuuming, wherein the preparation method for single crystal comprises covering a pot lid on the crucible to define a closed crucible body, and vacuuming the closed crucible body; and lifting the closed crucible body into a single crystal furnace, and relieving pressure from the closed crucible body. However, Pan teaches a method of using a vacuum charging/feeding device, wherein the vacuum charging/feeding device is used for the charging process for a single crystal furnace comprising covering a cover/cap 4 (pot lid) on a crucible 6 to define a tightly sealed/ closed crucible body, vacuuming the closed crucible body, lifting/hoisting the closed crucible body with the vacuum state into the single crystal furnace, and opening a valve of the closed crucible body (with the vacuum state) to allow the sealed space communicating with an atmosphere of the single crystal furnace (abstract, 0002, 0007-0014, 0019, 0020, 0024, 0027-0033, 0037, 0038). 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 Gao per teachings of Pan in order to effectively save the feeding time for growing single crystal (Pang abstract).
Gao/Pan teaches opening the closed crucible body with the vacuum state for communication with the atmosphere of the single crystal furnace as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach relieving pressure from the closed crucible body. However, Park teaches a method for charging material and/or growing crystal, wherein a closed/sealed raw material supply apparatus/body is under a vacuum state/pressure, and the vacuum state/pressure of the body/apparatus is released (relieved) to communicate with a crystal growth apparatus (0019, 0054, 0094). 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 Gao/Pan per teachings of Park in order to provide suitable conditions for supplying raw material for greatly improving productivity and quality of grown crystal ingot with desired size (Park 0019-0022).
Regarding claim 8, Gao/Pan/Park teaches that a time for vacuuming ranges from 4 to 6 minutes (Pan 0037), overlapping the instantly claimed 2min to 5min. 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 16, Gao/Pan/Park teaches that in a first direction of the crucible, the crucible has a height h1+h2+h3 (e.g., instant h1), the first material layer has a first thickness h3/h2/h7/h6 (e.g., instant d1), and the height h1 (height h1+h2+h3) and the first thickness d1 (h3/h2/h7/h6) satisfy: d1≤4/5 h1 (Gao figs 1 and 2, 0035, 0048); and the second material layer has a second thickness (e.g., instant d2) is greater than 100mm/110mm/175mm (Gao figs 1 and 2, 0035, 0048), e.g., satisfying d2≥40mm.
Regarding claim 17, Gao/Pan/Park teaches that silicon material of the first material layer has a first particle size D1 and silicon material of the second material layer has a second particle size D2, the first particle size D1 and second particle size D2 satisfy: D1<D2 (Gao figs 1 and 2); but does not explicitly teach that the first particle size D1 ranges from 0.1μm to 1000μm; and the second particle size D2 ranges from 1mm to 3mm. However, it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it is 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.
Regarding claim 18, Gao/Pan/Park teaches that a layer (third material layer) above the crucible height (h3+h2+h1 or h7+h6+h5)) has a maximum thickness (d4) beyond the height h1 (h3+h2+h1 or h7+h6+h5) of the crucible (Gao figs 1 and 2; 0035, 0048), wherein the maximum thickness d4 satisfies d4<150mm (for example less than h1=100mm in fig 1 of Gao) (Gao figs 1 and 2; 0035, 0048). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Gao/Pan/Park teaches that the first thickness d1, the second thickness d2, the third thickness d3, and the height h1 (h3+h2+h1 or h7+h6+h5) satisfy: d1+d2+d3≥h1 (h3+h2+h1 or h7+h6+h5) (Gao figs 1 and 2; 0035, 0048). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao/Pan/ Park as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yukichi Horioka (US 20110174214 A1, “Horioka”),
Regarding claim 9, Gao/Pan/Park teaches that the single crystal furnace comprises a valve and a pressure gauge, and after relieving pressure from the closed crucible body (Pan 0011, 0024, 0034, 0036, 0037; Park 0009, 0019, 0060-0063, 0088, 0090, 0094, 0096, 0109, 0113, 0118), the method further comprises lifting (removing) the pot lid (Pan 0037); setting the valve to be manually closed (Pan 0037), reading on setting an initial value of opening degree of the valve 0%.
Gao/Pan/Park teaches providing a change magnitude in values of the pressure/ vacuum gauge by closing and opening the valve (Pan 0034, 0036 and 0037), but does not explicitly teach providing the change magnitude in values of the pressure gauge less than 1 torr and the opening degree of the valve with 5% to 15%. However, Horioka teaches a method, wherein a pressure is adjusted by changing an opening/ closing degree of a valve (0001, 0019 and 0043-0052), e.g., the opening degree of the valve directly affecting the pressure, e.g., opening degree of the valve being result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have modified Gao/Pan/Park as motivated by Horioka, optimized the opening degree of the valve and the change magnitude and obtained “the change magnitude in values of the pressure gauge less than 1 torr and the opening degree of the valve with 5% to 15%” in order to provide accurate pressure for supplying raw material and growing crystal, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B)). It is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka further teaches maintaining/stabilizing vacuum/pressure of the single crystal furnace (Park 0020, 0028, 0061, 0083, 0094; Horioka 0019, 0046), checking a leakage of the single crystal furnace (apparently a detection leakage rate being obtained) (Gao abstract, 0040, 0041, 0053, 0054), and setting the pressure of the single crystal furnace to be less than or equal to a maintained (preset) pressure/vacuum value to complete the vacuuming (Pan 0037; Park 0020, 0028, 0061, 0083, 0094, 0113, 0118; Horioka 0019, 0046).
Regarding claim 11, Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka teaches the vacuuming as addressed above, and further teaches that the single crystal furnace comprises heating system/heaters (a first heater and a second heater) (Gao 0017-0019; Pan 0004; Park 0002, 0060; Horioka 0045, 0048), providing power with 70-108 kw (001, 0022, 0025, 0026, 0045, 0046, 0058, 0059); providing power with 25-80kw (0018, 0022, 0025, 0026, 0045, 0046, 0058, 0059). Regarding the limitation of first heater and the second heater, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim; the claimed invention calls for process claims, wherein the steps of the process are met by the applied prior art, and the structural limitations of the apparatus do not present a manipulative difference between the claimed process steps and the prior art process. Therefore, the recitation of specific structural limitations of the apparatus for performing such steps does not serve to further limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); the pressure of the single crystal furnace with 10torr to 30torr (Horioka 0050), overlapping the instantly claimed10torr to 15torr; Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. (MPEP 2144.05 I); supplying argon (with a flow rate) to the single crystal furnace (Gao 0009, 0010; Park 0019; 0020, 0054; Horioka 0043, 0044, 0048, 0049, 0052); and providing the crucible with 0.5 to 1.5 turns until the silicon material completely melted into a liquid (Gao 0011, 0023, 0026, 0045, 0058, 0060); and performing a heating process (volatilization), in a case that the power of the first heater is provided with 70 kw (60kw to 80kw) (Gao 0018, 0019, 0022, 0025, 0046, 0058, 0059), but does not explicitly teach the flow rate ranging from 40slpm to 50slpm, the crucible with 0.5 to 1.5 turns, and the power of the second heater is provided with 10kw to 20kw, and the pressure in the single crystal furnace is provided with 4torr to 7torr. However, the court has held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Also see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 12, Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka teaches the volatilization as addressed above, and further teaches that a raw silicon material (apparently having a particle size, e.g., a third particle size D3) is repeatedly refilled (Horioka 0005).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao/Pan/ Park/Horioka as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Javidi et al (US 20100107966 A1, “Javidi”),
Regarding claim 10, Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka teaches the pressure, but does not explicitly teach that the preset pressure value ranges from 40mtorr to 60mtorr. However, Javidi teaches a method, wherein a pressure of 50mtorr is used for preparation of a crystal (0037, 0068). 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 Gao/Pan/ Park/Horioka per teachings of Javidi in order to provide controlled ambient for supplying material and pulling crystal (Javidi 0007-0012, 0002, 0067, 0068).
Claims 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jinhua Zhou (CN 102242397 A, machine translation, “Zhou”),
Regarding claim 13, Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka teaches the volatilization and re-feeding, but does not explicitly teach cooling the liquid, and contacting fine-grained seed crystals with a liquid level of the liquid to form a crystal interface, perform a first slag sticking. However, Zhou teaches a method comprises cooling the melt, and forming/ contacting fine-grained seed crystals with a liquid level of the liquid to form a crystal interface, perform a first slag removing/sticking (abstract, 0006, 0008, 0013-0017, 0020-0031, 0040-0043, 0056-0058, 0064-0067, 0091-0094 and claim 1). 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 Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka per teachings of Zhou in order to effectively ensure the quality of produced crystal (Zhou abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka/Zhou teaches providing the power of the first heater with 60kw to 80kw (overlapping instantly claimed 50kw to 70kw) to cool the liquid (Zhou 0033, 0068, 0070); and providing the crystal with a rotate speed (Park 0060, 0061), the crucible with a rotate speed (Zhou 0072, 0079); raising fine crystal end to the liquid level (Park 0060; Zhou 0072, 0079); and then removing/taking out for the first slag sticking (abstract, 0006, 0008, 0013-0017, 0020-0031, 0040-0043, 0056-0058, 0064-0067, 0091-0094 and claim 1), but does not explicitly teach providing the crystal with a rotate speed from 1rpm to 2rpm, the crucible with a rotate speed from 2rpm to 5rpm; raising fine crystal end to the liquid level by 100mm to 150mm. However, it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka/Zhou teaches repeating slag removal treatment (Zhou 0022-0026, 0029, 0036, 0091, 0095, claims 3 and 4), e.g., processing the silicon material (seed crystal) having the third particle size D3 after re-feeding; in a case that the silicon material remains, the fine-grained seed crystals are stuck to the remaining silicon material, and floating impurities at the liquid level are dipped, to perform a second slag sticking, but does not explicitly teach that the silicon material remains 1kg to 2kg. However, it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Gao/Pan/Park/Horioka/Zhou teaches performing an automatic crystal pulling process and remaining crystal pulling steps (Zhou 0005 and 0074).
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