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, 2, 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2016/0060787) in view of Nagai et al (US 6,402,834) and Hiroshi (JPH 038791).
The Park teaches an apparatus for crystal growth comprising an ingot puller for manufacturing a single crystal ingot note entire reference. The ingot puller 1 comprising: a crucible 3 for holding a crystal melt; a crystal puller housing 2 that defines a growth chamber for pulling the ingot from the melt, the crucible 3 being disposed within the growth chamber 2 (Fig 2; [0059]-[0063]); and a polycrystalline feed system 20 for supplying chunk polycrystalline to the crucible, the polycrystalline feed system comprising: a feed tube 29 having an outer sidewall, an inlet end and an outlet end ([0001]-[0002], [0054]- [0064]; Fig 2-21 show the feed apparatus with supply tube 29 for supplying raw material, such as polysilicon for silicon single crystal growth). There is a heat shield means between the feeder and the melt, note, fig 1 number 9. The difference between the instant claim and the prior art is a cooling jacket surrounding the outer sidewall of the feed tube at the outlet end of the feed tube, the cooling jacket for cooling the outlet end during operation of the ingot puller. However, the Nagai et al teaches a cooling jacket 11/81 comprising a coolant inlet and outlet surrounding the outer sidewall of feed tube 9/79 which supplies powdery raw material to a crucible, wherein the cooling jacket 11 is arranged to surround the circumference of the transferring tube 9, and causes the inside of the transferring tube 9 to be kept below the melting temperature of a raw material of a crystal against the heat from the electric furnace 10 by cooling the transferring tube 9 from the outside with a cooling medium passing inside it (Fig 1, 4-5; col 9, In 1-67; col 13, In 1 to col 14, In 67). The Hiroshi reference teaches the cooling jacket surrounding the tube but cooling done indirectly via coolant inside tubes, note fig1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Park by the teachings of the Nagai et al and Hiroshi reference by providing a cooling jacket surrounding the outer sidewall of the feed tube at the outlet end of the feed tube, the cooling jacket for cooling the outlet end during operation of the ingot puller, as taught by Nagai et al, to keep the inside of the transfer tube below the melting temperature of the raw material, and prevent the feeding pipe from being overheated and damaged.
With regards to claim 2, the Park reference shows the heat shield at the end of the feeder, note figure 1.
With regards to claims 10 and 13, the Park reference shows the heat shield sized to receive feed at end of tube, note figure 1.
Claim(s) 3 to 5, 8, 9 and 14 to 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2016/0060787) in view of Nagai et al (US 6,402,834) and Hiroshi (JPH 038791)..
The Park, Hiroshi and Nagai et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the means to attach the heat shield. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to modify the combined references to employ support rings and cables in order to properly and stably mount the heat shield in relation to the feeder not stopping the growth process.
With regards to claim 8 and 19, the Park reference teaches the heat shield to be separate, note fig 1.
With regards to claim 18, the Park reference teaches the heat shield having a radial gap between it and the feeder, note fig 1.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2016/0060787) in view of Nagai et al (US 6,402,834) and Hiroshi (JPH 038791).
The Park, Hiroshi and Nagai et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the heat shield heat exchanger arrangement. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to modify the combined references to have the feeder heat exchanger and heat shield connected in order to increase control over the temperature of the feed stock and not have melting.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach nor render obvious the instantly claimed invention. The art does not show the reflector arranged with the heat exchanger and feeding means.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 to 11 and 13 to 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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