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. 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 1 to 9 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.
The claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The amendment to the claims of the resistance change in the heater of 1% creates indefiniteness and not clearly sets forth the meets and bounds of the claim. It is unclear as to the change of resistance; it appears to be the change over the heater itself and not between the heaters. However, it is not clear to that as the claims do not further distinguish between the resistances that are later set forth in the claims. Noting, the instant specification indicates it is a change over just one heater.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (2020/0399783).
The Sakamoto et al reference teaches a method for growing monocrystalline silicon from a melt, note entire reference. A silicon melt is formed in a quartz crucible and heated by means of two separate heating means or regions, note para 0045. There is a magnetic field that divides the heat regions, note figure 1. The heaters are supplied by a power means which allows control over each one, note para 0092. The resistance to the heaters is set which melts the silicon. The silicon is then seed pulled as an ingot form the melt while applying a magnetic field, note para 0092 and 0093. The resistance values of the heaters are measured and one value is set higher than the other one, note para 0093. The overall heating is controlled and measured during the czochralski growth of the silicon. The resistance or temperature is monitor to be within a set range for proper growth conditions, note example and table 1. The heaters are similar to that as claimed, and the resistance change over the heater inherently less than 1%.The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the adjusting of the resistance step and executing again. 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 method of adjusting the resistance valves to the heaters and then growing silicon ingots in the Sakamoto et al reference in order to grow a less defect ingot of silicon by only growing under proper conditions. Noting, the reference does teach monitoring and growth under set conditions.
With respect to claim 9, the Sakamoto et al reference teaches slicing the ingot to create wafers note examples.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (2020/0399783).
The Sakamoto et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as states, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the number of times to adjust the resistance. 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 number of times to adjust the resistance values in the Sakamoto et al reference in order to ensure that the resistance values are within proper ranges to grow the silicon.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (2020/0399783).
The Sakamoto et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as states, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the determination value. 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 determination value number in the Sakamoto et al reference in order to ensure that the resistance values are within proper ranges to grow the silicon.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (2020/0399783).
The Sakamoto et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as states, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the measurement method. 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 method of measuring, the specific resistance at the heater and supplier in the Sakamoto et al reference in order to
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (2020/0399783).
The Sakamoto et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as states, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the connection means of the power supply. 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 means to connect the wiring to the heaters from the supply in the Sakamoto et al reference in order to have a uniform power supply.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (2020/0399783).
The Sakamoto et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as states, supra, and differs from the instant claim placement of the adjusters. 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 adjuster placements between the power supply and heaters in the Sakamoto et al reference in order to increase the control over the changes.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning the resistance change percentage is noted. However, the specification teaches that the change is over the heater itself and not between the two heaters as argued or the change in the resistance. The prior art, Sakamoto et al teaches heaters similar to that as shown and thus have similar properties.
Applicants’ arguments concerning the Sakamoto et al reference has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The reference does teach the use of two separate heaters with separate controllers. The power or resistance to the heaters can be changed and different as is needed. This teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that heaters can be varied during a pulling process. And renders the instant invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To have a control loop and changes in the heaters during a silicon czochralski process.
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