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 .
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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp2008214118.
The Jp2008214118 reference teaches growing silicon single crystal rod by magnetic czochralski, note entire reference. The reference teaches a method for producing silicon monocrystals by the CZ method using a cusp magnetic field that is formed by an upper coil and a lower coil provided to a pulling furnace. There is a seeding step for bringing a seed crystal into contact with a silicon melt so as to perform seeding and withdrawing a crystal and a straight body step performed after diametrical expansion of a silicon single crystal. the straight body step is performed by configuring the magnetic field minimum surface position on the center axis of the pulling furnace to be the second position. The magnetic cusp field can be moved during growth based on a profile, note partial translation. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the specific placement and movement of the magnetic field during the crystal growth and strength. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable magnetic field placement and strength in the Jp2008214118 in order to lower dislocations in the crystal, noting that the art does teach magnetic fields as result effective variables and can be moved during growth. Thus, the first position of 30-80 mm below the surface of the silicon melt, and the second position is set 10 mm below to 100 mm above the surface of the silicon melt as well as the power of 1500G or more and less for the lower would have been well within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp2008214118.
The Jp2008214118 reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the dislocation free seeding. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable seeding process in the Jp2008214118 process in order to lower dislocations in the crystal from the seeding.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp2008214118.
The Jp2008214118 reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in magnetic field placement during necking. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable magnetic field placement during necking in the Jp2008214118 process in order to maintain a constant melt temperature.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument concerning unexpected results is noted. However, the cited paragraphs on the specification merely mention an improvement and do not show any unexpected improvement, no values given. This taken with the teachings of the Jp2008214118 which also state improved results with the oxygen levels and less defect indicated the invention is within the skill of the art.
Applicants’ argument concerning the movement of the magnets during the growth has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The reference clearly states that the magnets can be moved as desired or needed during growth. Plus, that the movement of such does materially effect the growth and the properties of the grown silicon ingot, such as defect levels and oxygen. The modification to the prior art of moving as set forth in the claims is obvious and well within the skill of the art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights