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 .
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(s) 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 10 to 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yamatane et al (jp2006273630).
The Yamatani et al reference teaches a method of growing a silicon ingot, note, entire reference. Molten silicon is contacted with a seed crystal at the bottom of a crucible and cooled from the seed in an upward direction to create an ingot, note, translation. Prior to contact with the molten silicon, the silicon seed crystals are oxidized to create a oxide film on a surface of the seeds. The oxide layer thickness is less than 10 um, note translation.
With regards to claim 2 and 11, the Yamatani et al reference teaches directional solidification of silicon on an oxidized seed, note translation and figures.
With regards to claim 3, the Yamatani et al reference teaches oxidizing the silicon seeds prior to contact with the molten silicon, note translation.
With regards to claim 4, the Yamatani et al reference teaches using an oxidizing atmosphere and thermally to create the oxide layer, note , translation.
With regards to claim 6, the Yamatani et al reference teaches using an oxidizing atmosphere of oxygen, dry, create the oxide layer, note , translation.
With regards to claim 7, the Yamatani et al reference teaches the oxide layer thickness less than 10 um to almost zero.
With regards to claim 12, the Yamatani et al reference teaches the oxide layer to be silicon oxide, note translation.
With regards to claim 13, the Yamatani et al reference teaches oxidizing the entire seed surface, note translation.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamatani et al (jp2006273630).
The Yamatani et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific oxidization steps. 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 application to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable oxidizing steps in the Yamatani et al reference in order to grow a uniform thin oxide layer.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamatani et al (jp2006273630) in view of Pihan et al (2016/01085648).
The Yamatani et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific seed step up in the bottom of the crucible. However, the Pihan et al reference teaches directional solidification of silicon from a melt with seeds at the bottom of a crucible, and setup with an upper face to the melt, note, para 0017 and 0018. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Yamatani et al reference by the teachings of the Pihan et al reference to set the seeds in a upward facing in order to have a uniform seed front creating a uniform ingot.
With regards to claim 9, the Yamatani reference teaches oxidizing the seeds in the crucible, note translation.
With regards to claims 18 and 20, the Pihan et al reference teaches the tiling of the seeds in a square or rectangle, note figures.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamatani et al (jp2006273630).
The Yamatani et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific oxidization parameters. 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 application to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable oxidizing parameters in the Yamatani et al reference in order to grow a uniform thin oxide layer.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamatani et al (jp2006273630).
The Yamatani et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific oxidization atmosphere. 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 application to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable oxidizing atmosphere in the Yamatani et al reference in order to grow a uniform thin oxide layer without impurities from the process.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamatani et al (jp2006273630).
The Yamatani et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific oxidization of the crucible. 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 application to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable oxidizing of the crucible in the Yamatani et al reference in order to lower impurities and create a non-stick coating.
Examiner’ Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art.
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