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 Group II, claims 5-8 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 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 § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites, “a maximum deflection of the growth strips is not less than 55 mm and not more than 45 mm.” The claim is indefinite because it is impossible to satisfy both requirements for the claimed range. For example, not less than 55 mm (i.e. 56 mm) cannot satisfy the limitation “and not more than 45 mm.” For the purposes of expediating examination, the claim limitation is ignored. The same argument applies to claims 6-8 which depend from claim 5.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dold et al (“In situ observation of growth interfaces by ultrasound” from IDS filed 03/04/2024) in view of Shindo (US 2019/0032242).
Dold et al teaches a float zone process for the growth of doped silicon single crystals comprising a length of 300 mm and at the transition from seed to grown crystal, a deflection of 1.8mm was determined and irregular dopant striations (growth strips governed by the dopant) caused by time-dependent surface-tension-driven convection are visible in the etched crystal surface, wherein their spacing amounts to some tens of micrometers. (pg 354-357)
Dold et al does not teach the diameter of not less than 290 mm and not more than 330 mm.
In a method of float zone single crystal growth, Shindo teaches production of a doped single crystal of 300 mm in diameter ([0032], [0050]-[0051], [0067]-[0071], [0136], [0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Dold et al by growing a 300 mm diameter single crystal by FZ growth, as taught by Shindo, because larger diameter crystals are desirable for device manufacturing (Shindo [0032]).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Dold et al and Shindo does not explicitly teach the angle of incidence between the horizontal and a tangent applied to the growth strips which at the 80 mm radial position is not smaller than 14° and not larger than 16°. The combination of Dold et al and Shindo teaches irregular dopant striations (growth strips governed by the dopant) caused by time-dependent surface-tension-driven convection; therefore, the claimed angle of growth strips (striations) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing by controlling the time-dependent surface-tension-driven convection to obtain the claimed angle.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dold et al (“In situ observation of growth interfaces by ultrasound” from IDS filed 03/04/2024) in view of Shindo (US 2019/0032242), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Seacrist et al (US 2020/0020571).
The combination of Dold et al and Shindo teaches all of the limitation of claim 7, as discussed above, except the claimed oxygen concentration.
In a method of FZ crystal growth, Seacrist et al teaches float zone grown silicon handle wafers have an oxygen level that is below the detection limits, such as less than about 1×1015 atoms/cm3 (0.02 PPMA, new ASTM standard), thereby avoids the thermal donor formation and excess thermal donor formation; and the nitrogen concentration in the float zone grown silicon handle wafers may be less than about 3×1015 atoms/cm3 and nitrogen-doped float zone grown silicon handle wafers in SOI manufacturing line showed acceptable slip performance ([0029]-[0040]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Dold et al and Shindo to have the claimed nitrogen concentration of not less than 1x1015 at/cm3 and not more than 7.5x1015 at/cm3, as taught by Seacrist et al, to avoid thermal donor formation and excess thermal donor formation.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Dold et al and Shindo teaches all of the limitation of claim 8, as discussed above, except the claimed nitrogen concentration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Dold et al and Shindo to have the claimed oxygen concentration of not more than 5x1015 at/cm3, as taught by Seacrist et al, to provide acceptable slip performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Altmannshofer et al (US 2003/0024469) teaches a silicon single crystal is produced by crucible-free float zone pulling, has a diameter of at least 200 mm over a length of at least 200 mm and is free of dislocations in the region of this length (abstract). Altmannshofer et al teaches a length which overlaps the claimed range of a length of not less than 15 cm and not more than 50 cm, and a diameter which overlaps the claimed range of not less than 290 mm and not more than 330 mm. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Jelinek et al (US 2018/0122895) teaches floating zone melting process, the growing silicon crystal typically incorporates dopant atoms at comparatively high homogeneity across the length and the diameter of the silicon and the maximum available wafer diameter is 12″ ([0001], [0037]). It is noted that 12” is approximately 304.8 mm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights