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 I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on June 29, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 29, 2026.
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 2-10 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the apparatus” in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to refer to “the ingot puller apparatus.” Dependent claims 3-10 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 2.
Claim 2 further recites that “the apparatus detects the surface of the melt.” It is unclear how the ingot puller apparatus itself “detects” the surface of the melt and what, exactly, is being detected. The ingot puller apparatus is merely an inanimate object that does not have the capability of communicating with the user regarding the status of the surface of the melt. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2)(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,264,189 to Yamashita, et al. (hereinafter “Yamashita”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita teaches an ingot puller apparatus for producing a single crystal ingot (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-22, and entire reference which teach an embodiment of an ingot puller), the ingot puller apparatus comprising:
a housing defining a growth chamber and a growth chamber outlet (see Fig. 10, col. 2, l. 58 to col. 3, l. 6, and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach a furnace (12) which defines a growth chamber with a circular opening (52) on a top thereof);
a crucible positioned in the growth chamber for containing a melt of semiconductor material (see Fig. 10, col. 2, l. 58 to col. 3, l. 6, and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach a crucible (16) for holding a melt of semiconductor material);
a cooling jacket positioned in the growth chamber between the crucible and the growth chamber outlet, the cooling jacket defining a cooling passage having an inlet proximate the crucible and an outlet proximate the growth chamber outlet (see Figs. 10-12, col. 2, l. 58 to col. 3, l. 6, and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach a cooling shell (20B) having an inlet and outlet which is located in the growth chamber between the crucible (16) and opening (52));
a puller positioned to contact a seed crystal with a surface of the melt and pull the single crystal ingot from the melt and through the cooling passage (see Fig. 1, col. 2, l. 58 to col. 3, l. 6, and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach crystal pulling mechanism (22)); and
an actuator connected to the cooling jacket and operable to move the cooling jacket in the growth chamber to control a cooling profile of the single crystal ingot (see Figs. 10-12, col. 2, l. 58 to col. 3, l. 6, and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach a lifting mechanism (51) for moving the cooling shell (52)).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita teaches that the apparatus detects the surface of the melt, and the actuator is operable to move the cooling jacket to adjust a distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt (See Figs. 10-12 and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach that the lifting mechanism (51) operates to move the cooling shell (52) to adjust the distance between its inlet and the surface of the melt. Moreover, the Czochralski crystal growth system is capable of detecting the surface of the melt by, for example, measuring the temperature, the required heat output to the heaters, and/or by measuring when the seed crystal (32) contacts the melt. Alternatively, the limitation relating to detecting the surface of the melt may be considered as an intended use of the claimed apparatus and, consequently, does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim. 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.).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita teaches that the actuator comprises a bellows positioned outside the growth chamber (see Fig. 10 and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach the use of a bellows (56) positioned outside the furnace (12)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita.
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita teaches that the actuator is operable to move the cooling jacket such that the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt varies in a range between 125 millimeters (mm) to 275 mm (See col. 8, ll. 3-12 which teach that, in one embodiment, the distance Q between the lower end of the cooling shell (20A-D) is 5 to 80% of the diameter D of the single crystal which, for a 155-mm-diameter ingot (see Example 1), equals a gap Q of 124 mm which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of 125 mm that it would be reasonably expected to yield the same properties. Alternatively, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the Czochralski crystal growth system of Yamashita to grow even larger Si single crystal ingots with a diameter of, for example, 200 mm or more which would then entail the use of a gap Q of up to 160 mm in order to produce larger Si wafers with more usable surface area for the production of electronic devices thereupon. In yet another alternate interpretation, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize routine experimentation to determine an optimal movement range of the cooling shell (20A-D) which includes a range of motion within the claimed range of 125 to 275 mm in order to ensure that the desired temperature profile and cooling rate can be maintained within the Si single crystal ingot during crystal growth).
Regarding claim 12, Yamashita teaches that the bellows is connected to a housing flange defining the growth chamber outlet (see Fig. 10 and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach that the bellows (56) is connected to a flange at a top of the furnace (12)), and wherein the cooling jacket comprises a cooling jacket flange slidable along the bellows to allow the cooling jacket to move in the growth chamber (see Fig. 10 and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach that the cooling shell (20B) includes a flange (54) which is situated atop the bellows (56)), but does not explicitly teach that the cooling jacket flange is slidable along guide rails of the bellows. However, in Fig. 11 and col. 6, ll. 39-62 Yamashita further teaches an embodiment in which the cooling shell (20C) is moved up and down by means of rods (58) that pass through a pair of seals (60) on a top surface of the furnace (12). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate lifting rods (58) within or around the bellows (56) in Fig. 10 in order to provide a more controlled and well-defined vertical travel path for the cooling shell (20B) than a bellows alone so that it’s position can be more precisely controlled and any accidental contact with the Si ingot (T) can be avoided.
Claims 4-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2017/0029975 to Narushima, et al. (“Narushima”).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita teaches that the actuator moves the cooling jacket in the growth chamber and adjusts the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt (see Fig. 10 and col. 6, ll. 4-61 which teach that the lifting mechanism (51) moves the cooling shell (20A-D) in order to adjust the distance between the inlet of the cooling shell (20A-D) and a surface of the melt), but does not explicitly teach that the actuator is controlled by a controller. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0039]-[0053] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Narushima teaches an analogous embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system which includes, inter alia, a chamber (11) with a crucible (12), a heater (14), a heat shield (20), and a cooler (21) with the entire system being controlled by a controller (not shown). In ¶[0046] Narushima specifically teaches that the cooler (21) is connected with a cooler driver and is configured to be moved upward or downward at a predetermined speed by the cooler driver which is controlled by the controller. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a controller to automate control of the actuator and, consequently, the up and down movement of the cooling shell (20A-D) of Yamashita in order to automate the process such that it may be more precisely and accurately controlled.
Regarding claim 5, as an initial matter it is noted that the process of controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt to a predetermined distance at one or more stage of growth of the single crystal does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. 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. In this case the apparatus taught by the combination of Yamashita and Narushima is capable of controlling the crystal growth system in the claimed manner.
Alternatively, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0039]-[0053] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Narushima teaches an analogous embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system which includes, inter alia, a chamber (11) with a crucible (12), a heater (14), a heat shield (20), and a cooler (21) with the entire system being controlled by a controller (not shown). In ¶[0046] Narushima specifically teaches that the cooler (21) is connected with a cooler driver and is configured to be moved upward or downward at a predetermined speed by the cooler driver which is controlled by the controller while ¶¶[0054]-[0068] further teaches that the cooler (21) is moved to different positions with respect to the surface of the melt at different stages of crystal growth. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a controller to automatically control the distance between the cooling shell (20A-D) of Yamashita and the surface of the melt during crystal growth in order to automate the process such that it may be more precisely and accurately controlled.
Regarding claim 6, as an initial matter it is noted that the process of controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt according to a predetermined movement profile does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. 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. In this case the apparatus taught by the combination of Yamashita and Narushima is capable of controlling the crystal growth system in the claimed manner.
Alternatively, Yamashita teaches controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt according to a predetermined movement profile (see Figs. 10-12 and col. 6, ll. 4-38 which teach that the cooling shell (20B) is moved vertically by actuating the lift mechanism (51) such that it is at a higher when melting the silicon material and is moved to a lower position when the crystal pulling operation is commenced), but does not teach that the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt is controlled by the controller. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0039]-[0053] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Narushima teaches an analogous embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system which includes, inter alia, a chamber (11) with a crucible (12), a heater (14), a heat shield (20), and a cooler (21) with the entire system being controlled by a controller (not shown). In ¶[0046] Narushima specifically teaches that the cooler (21) is connected with a cooler driver and is configured to be moved upward or downward at a predetermined speed by the cooler driver which is controlled by the controller. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a controller to automate control of the actuator and, consequently, the up and down movement of the cooling shell (20A-D) of Yamashita in the claimed manner in order to automate the process such that it may be more precisely and accurately controlled.
Regarding claim 7, as an initial matter it is noted that the process of controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt based on a measured parameter in the growth chamber, wherein the measured parameter includes a measured temperature of the single crystal ingot does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. 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. In this case the apparatus taught by the combination of Yamashita and Narushima is capable of controlling the crystal growth system in the claimed manner.
Alternatively, Yamashita teaches controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt based on a measured parameter in the growth chamber, wherein the measured parameter includes a measured temperature of the single crystal ingot (see Figs. 10-12 and col. 6, ll. 4-38 which teach that the cooling shell (20B) is moved vertically by actuating the lift mechanism (51) such that the cooling rate of the portion of the single crystal in the 850 to 1,050 °C range is made optimal and the dwelling time is not longer than 140 min which necessarily involves measuring the growth duration and/or the temperature of the ingot; moreover, even if Yamashita does not explicitly teach measuring the temperature during this process, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to measure the temperature of the grown single crystal ingot using a known temperature measuring device such as a pyrometer in order to more precisely control the cooling rate and dwell time), but does not teach that the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt is controlled by the controller. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0039]-[0053] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Narushima teaches an analogous embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system which includes, inter alia, a chamber (11) with a crucible (12), a heater (14), a heat shield (20), and a cooler (21) with the entire system being controlled by a controller (not shown). In ¶[0046] Narushima specifically teaches that the cooler (21) is connected with a cooler driver and is configured to be moved upward or downward at a predetermined speed by the cooler driver which is controlled by the controller. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a controller to automate control of the actuator and, consequently, the up and down movement of the cooling shell (20A-D) of Yamashita in the claimed manner in order to automate the process such that it may be more precisely and accurately controlled.
Regarding claim 9, as an initial matter it is noted that the process of controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient between the cooling jacket and the single crystal ingot proximate a solid-melt interface during growth of the single crystal ingot does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. 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. In this case the apparatus taught by the combination of Yamashita and Narushima is capable of controlling the crystal growth system in the claimed manner.
Alternatively, Yamashita teaches controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient between the cooling jacket and the single crystal ingot proximate a solid-melt interface during growth of the single crystal ingot (see Figs. 10-12 and col. 6, ll. 4-38 which teach that the cooling shell (20B) is moved vertically by actuating the lift mechanism (51) such that the cooling rate of the portion of the single crystal in the 850 to 1,050 °C range is made optimal and the dwelling time is not longer than 140 min; moreover, even if Yamashita does not explicitly teach measuring the temperature during this process in order to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to measure the temperature of the grown single crystal ingot using a known temperature measuring device such as a pyrometer in order to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient during and crystal growth such that a single crystal ingot having the desired materials properties is consistently produced), but does not teach that the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt is controlled by the controller. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0039]-[0053] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Narushima teaches an analogous embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system which includes, inter alia, a chamber (11) with a crucible (12), a heater (14), a heat shield (20), and a cooler (21) with the entire system being controlled by a controller (not shown). In ¶[0046] Narushima specifically teaches that the cooler (21) is connected with a cooler driver and is configured to be moved upward or downward at a predetermined speed by the cooler driver which is controlled by the controller. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a controller to automate control of the actuator and, consequently, the up and down movement of the cooling shell (20A-D) of Yamashita in the claimed manner in order to automate the process such that it may be more precisely and accurately controlled.
Regarding claim 10, as an initial matter it is noted that the process of controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient between the cooling jacket and the single crystal ingot in the cooling passage during growth of the single crystal ingot does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. 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. In this case the apparatus taught by the combination of Yamashita and Narushima is capable of controlling the crystal growth system in the claimed manner.
Alternatively, Yamashita teaches controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient between the cooling jacket and the single crystal ingot in the cooling passage during growth of the single crystal ingot (see Figs. 10-12 and col. 6, ll. 4-38 which teach that the cooling shell (20B) is moved vertically by actuating the lift mechanism (51) such that the cooling rate of the portion of the single crystal in the 850 to 1,050 °C range is made optimal and the dwelling time is not longer than 140 min which necessarily involves measuring the growth duration and/or temperature of the ingot; moreover, even if Yamashita does not explicitly teach measuring the temperature during this process in order to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to measure the temperature of the grown single crystal ingot using a known temperature measuring device such as a pyrometer in order to maintain a substantially constant temperature gradient during and crystal growth such that a single crystal ingot having the desired materials properties is consistently produced), but does not teach that the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt is controlled by the controller. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0039]-[0053] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Narushima teaches an analogous embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system which includes, inter alia, a chamber (11) with a crucible (12), a heater (14), a heat shield (20), and a cooler (21) with the entire system being controlled by a controller (not shown). In ¶[0046] Narushima specifically teaches that the cooler (21) is connected with a cooler driver and is configured to be moved upward or downward at a predetermined speed by the cooler driver which is controlled by the controller. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a controller to automate control of the actuator and, consequently, the up and down movement of the cooling shell (20A-D) of Yamashita in the claimed manner in order to automate the process such that it may be more precisely and accurately controlled.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Narushima and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2022/0098755 to Andreas Muehe (“Muehe”).
Regarding claim 8, as an initial matter it is noted that the process of controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt based on the measured parameter in the growth chamber does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim as it relates to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus rather than its structure. 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. In this case the apparatus taught by the combination of Yamashita and Narushima is capable of controlling the crystal growth system in the claimed manner.
Alternatively, Yamashita teaches controlling the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt based on a measured parameter in the growth chamber (see Figs. 10-12 and col. 6, ll. 4-38 which teach that the cooling shell (20B) is moved vertically by actuating the lift mechanism (51) such that the cooling rate of the portion of the single crystal in the 850 to 1,050 °C range is made optimal and the dwelling time is not longer than 140 min which necessarily involves measuring the growth duration and/or temperature of the ingot; moreover, even if Yamashita does not explicitly teach measuring the temperature during this process, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to measure the temperature of the grown single crystal ingot using a known temperature measuring device such as a pyrometer in order to more precisely control the cooling rate and dwell time), but does not teach that the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt is controlled by the controller. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0039]-[0053] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Narushima teaches an analogous embodiment of a Czochralski crystal growth system which includes, inter alia, a chamber (11) with a crucible (12), a heater (14), a heat shield (20), and a cooler (21) with the entire system being controlled by a controller (not shown). In ¶[0046] Narushima specifically teaches that the cooler (21) is connected with a cooler driver and is configured to be moved upward or downward at a predetermined speed by the cooler driver which is controlled by the controller. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a controller to automate control of the actuator and, consequently, the up and down movement of the cooling shell (20A-D) of Yamashita in the claimed manner in order to automate the process such that it may be more precisely and accurately controlled.
Yamashita and Narushima do not teach that the controller adjusts the distance between the inlet of the cooling passage and the surface of the melt using closed-loop feedback control. However, in at least Figs. 1-4 and ¶¶[0034]-[0050] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Muehe teaches an analogous system for the growth of single crystals by the Czochralski method. As shown in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0036]-[0040] Muehe specifically teaches that the crystal diameter is captured by means of a camera (8) and the crystal pulling procedure is regulated by means of a control device (9) which controls, inter alia, parameters such as the crystal pulling rate (13), the lifting rate of the crucible (14), and an annular gap (12) between a heat shield (10) and the melt. In ¶¶[0049]-[0050] Muehe specifically teaches that control of parameters such as the crystal diameter and temperature is achieved using a closed-loop control circuit. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to equip the controller of Narushima with a closed-loop control circuit that controls the distance between the cooling shell (20B) of Yamashita and the melt surface in order to provide a more stable control system which, among other things, is less sensitive to parameter variations and is capable of quickly rectifying random fluctuations in process values. Alternatively, the use of a closed-loop control circuit as taught by Muehe would involve nothing more than the use of a known system configuration according to its intended use and, hence, supports a showing of prima facie obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights