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 of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Claims 1-10 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Magras et al (US 20020166503 A1, “Magras”).
Regarding claim 1, Magras teaches a method of producing a single crystal silicon ingot from a silicon melt, the method comprising providing a susceptor assembly 15 comprising a base 15b (susceptor base), an upper portion 15a (tubular sidewall) connected to the susceptor base 15a (fig 1, 0064-0068), and a removable member 15c (sacrifice ring) interposed between the susceptor base15b and the sidewall 15a (fig 1, 0067), each of the susceptor base and the sidewall being formed of a carbon- containing material (0067); positioning a crucible 14 in an interior of the susceptor assembly 15 defined by the susceptor base and the sidewall (fig 1, 0066-0068); adding polycrystalline silicon to the crucible 14 (0073); heating the polycrystalline silicon to cause a silicon melt 16 to form in the crucible (0063-0066); pulling a single crystal silicon ingot 17 from the melt 16 (fig 1, 0064-0066), wherein silicon carbide (SiC) deposits accumulate on the sacrifice ring during the pulling the single crystal silicon ingot from the melt (fig 1, 0067); and after the pulling the single crystal silicon ingot from the melt, removing the sacrifice ring having the accumulated SiC deposits from the susceptor base (0067).
Regarding claim 2, Magras teaches after removing the sacrifice ring having the accumulated SiC deposits from the susceptor base, replacing the ring 15c (installing a second sacrifice ring) onto the susceptor base (0034, 0067).
Regarding claim 9, Magras teaches rotating the crucible and the susceptor assembly while pulling the single crystal silicon ingot from the melt (0062-0064).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magras as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Magras teaches the sacrifice ring and removing the sacrifice ring having the accumulated SiC deposits from the susceptor base as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the sacrifice ring being segmented into two or more segments and independently removing one or more of the segments. However, it is well established that the court has held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 V. It is also noted that the susceptor is easily repaired by the replacement of parts/components of the susceptor which greatly decreased cost of the susceptor as compared to the replacement of the susceptor as a whole (0020, 0022, 0024, 0034, 0067, 0081). Furthermore, regarding the sacrifice ring being segmented into two or more segments limitation, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 4, Magras teaches replacing the independently replaced (removed) one or more of the component/parts/segments with a corresponding number of replacement segments of the sacrifice ring (0020, 0022, 0024, 0034, 0067). It is well established that the court has held that making the structure separable or integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 V. Furthermore, regarding one or more of the segments with a corresponding number of replacement segments of the sacrifice ring limitation, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 5, Magras teaches replacing the sacrifice ring having the accumulated SiC deposits and the susceptor being easily repaired by the replacement of parts/components of the susceptor which greatly decreased cost of the susceptor as compared to the replacement of the susceptor as a whole as addressed above. 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 Magras by independently removed one or more of the segments have a greater amount of the accumulated SiC deposits than remaining segments of the sacrifice ring for the benefit of greatly decreasing the cost of the susceptor while producing high quality single crystals (Magras 0007, 0008, 0022, 0024, 0081).
Regarding claim 6, Magras teaches replacing/removing the sacrifice ring having the accumulated SiC deposits from the susceptor base is performed after one or more uses (producing multiple single crystal silicon ingots) (0067). 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).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magras as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Agostini et al (US 20210032769 A1, “Agostini”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Magras teaches the single crystal silicon ingot is pulled from the melt according to a Czochralski process (0001), but does not explicitly teach a batch Czochralski process and/or a continuous Czochralski process. However, it is a conventionally known that either a batch Czochralski process or a continuous Czochralski process is used for pulling a single crystal silicon ingot as taught by Agostini (0002, 0003, 0006, 0017). 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 Magras per teachings of Agostini in order to provide suitable conditions for pulling silicon single crystal ingots widely used in electronic device fabrications (0002, 0003, 0006, 0017).
Allowable claims
Claim 10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record to Magras et al (US 20020166503 A1, “Magras”) teaches a method of producing a single crystal silicon ingot from a silicon melt, but does not teach, disclose, anticipate or reasonably suggest that installing the sacrifice ring onto the susceptor base such that the sacrifice ring surrounds an annular wall of the susceptor base extending from an upper edge to a shoulder; and connecting the tubular sidewall to the susceptor base by inserting the annular wall of the susceptor base into the sidewall such that the sidewall engages the sacrifice ring and the sacrifice ring is interposed between the sidewall and each of the annular wall and the shoulder, as recited in claim 10.
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
Prosecution Insights