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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶[0047] of the published application the specification refers to Fig. 4 and states that “where the Li concentration is less than 100 ppb by mass, the number density of bubbles near the center of the brown ring was found to be higher.” However, the legend in Fig. 4 refers to a “Li concentration of 100 mass ppb or more” which is the opposite of what is disclosed in the specification. Consequently, it is unclear whether the Li concentration in Fig. 4 is higher than or less than 100 ppb.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Quartz glass crucible comprising predetermined concentrations of Na, K, and Li in an inner and outer layer for pulling a Si single crystal ingot
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the crucible” in ll. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the quartz glass crucible.” A similar correction should be made at l. 3 of the claim. Dependent claims 8-26 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 7.
Claims 8-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 7 and recite “a single crystal silicon ingot” in l. 1. Since there is a previous recitation of “a single crystal silicon ingot” in l. 1 of claim 7 it is unclear whether the claims refer to the same or a different single crystal silicon ingot. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the single crystal silicon ingot.”
Claims 15-18 depend directly or indirectly from claim 7 and recite “a single crystal silicon ingot” in l. 1 and l. 4. Since there is a previous recitation of “a single crystal silicon ingot” in l. 1 of claim 7 it is unclear whether the claims refer to the same or a different single crystal silicon ingot. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the single crystal silicon ingot.” Dependent claims 23-26 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 15, 16, 17, or 18.
Claims 19-26 depend directly or indirectly from claim 7 and recite “a single crystal silicon ingot” in l. 1. Since there is a previous recitation of “a single crystal silicon ingot” in l. 1 of claim 7 it is unclear whether the claims refer to the same or a different single crystal silicon ingot. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the single crystal silicon ingot.”
Claims 23-26 recite “a silicon melt” and “a brown ring” in l. 3 and “a single crystal silicon ingot” in l. 4. Since there is a previous recitation of “a silicon melt,” “a brown ring,” and “a single crystal silicon ingot” in the parent claim(s) it is unclear whether the claims refer to the same or a different silicon melt, brown ring, and single crystal silicon ingot. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the silicon melt,” “the brown ring,” and “the single crystal silicon ingot.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 7-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2003/0159646 to Hiroyuki Watanabe (“Watanabe”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0160155 to Sudo, et al. (“Sudo”).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe teaches a quartz glass crucible for pulling a single crystal silicon ingot, the crucible having a crucible shape including a straight body portion, a curved portion, and a bottom portion (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-2, ¶[0001], and ¶¶[0022]-[0029] which teach an embodiment of a quartz crucible (3) and (4) for pulling a Si single crystal ingot, the crucible having straight body, curved, and bottom portions), the crucible comprising:
an outer layer made of an opaque quartz glass containing bubbles (see Fig. 2, ¶[0010], and ¶¶[0028]-[0029] which teach a naturally occurring quartz glass outer layer (3) which necessarily contains bubbles which makes it at least partially opaque; alternatively, see infra in which Sudo teaches the use of an opaque outer layer); and
an inner layer made of a transparent quartz glass and having a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.5 mm (see Fig. 2, ¶[0010], and ¶¶[0028]-[0031] which teach a bubble-free synthetic quartz glass inner layer (4) which necessarily is transparent due to the absence of bubbles; alternatively, see infra in which Sudo teaches the use of a transparent inner layer),
wherein concentrations of Na, K, and Li in the inner layer at 1 mm from an inner surface of the quartz glass crucible are less than 5 ppb by mass for Na, less than 5 ppb by mass for K, and less than 100 ppb by mass for Li (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0033]-[0038] which teach that the concentration of Na, K, and Li in the inner layer was measured with ¶[0037] specifically teaching that a chemical analysis of the inner layer (4) of the quartz crucible indicates that Na, K, and Li are not detected which necessarily means that the concentration is substantially zero and is less than 5 ppb, 5 ppb, and 100 ppb, respectively, throughout the entire thickness of the inner layer (4)), and
average concentrations of Na, K, and Li in a thickness direction at the curved portion and the bottom portion in the outer layer are less than 10 ppb by mass for Na, less than 50 ppb by mass for K, and less than 180 ppb by mass for Li (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0033]-[0038] which teach that the outer layer (3) includes a concentration of Na, K, and Li with ¶[0037] specifically teaching that the alkali metals Na, K, and Li are contained in the outer layer (3) by less than 0.01 ppm (i.e., 10 ppb) which necessarily means the curved and bottom portions also have a Na, K, and Li concentration that falls within the claimed range).
Watanabe does not teach that the inner layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.5 mm. However, in Fig. 1, ¶[0018], and ¶¶[0036]-[0051] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Sudo teaches an analogous embodiment of a quartz crucible which includes an opaque outer layer (11) containing bubbles and a transparent bubble-free inner layer (12). In ¶[0043] Sudo teaches that the crucible preferably contains Na, K, and Li in an amount of 0.05 ppm (i.e., 50 ppb) or less in order to avoid releasing impurities into the Si melt. Then in ¶[0050] Sudo specifically teaches that the thickness of the inner transparent layer (12) preferably has a thickness of up to 2.0 mm in order to avoid having the entire inner layer (12) become totally corroded during growth of a Si single crystal. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize an opaque bubble-containing outer layer (3) with a bubble-free transparent inner layer (4) having a concentration of Na, K, and Li that is substantially zero (i.e., is less than 5 ppb) with a thickness of the inner layer (4) being greater than or equal to 1.5 mm in order to avoid contaminating the Si melt with an alkali metal and to ensure that the inner layer does not completely corrode during growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe teaches that
the concentrations of Na, K, and Li in the inner layer at 1 mm from the inner surface of the quartz glass crucible are less than 5 ppb by mass for Na, less than 5 ppb by mass for K, and less than 50 ppb by mass for Li (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0033]-[0038] which teach that the concentration of Na, K, and Li in the inner layer was measured with ¶[0037] specifically teaching that a chemical analysis of the inner layer (4) of the quartz crucible indicates that Na, K, and Li are not detected which necessarily means that the concentration is substantially zero and is less than 5 ppb, 5 ppb, and 50 ppb, respectively, throughout the entire thickness of the inner layer (4)), and
average concentrations of Na, K, and Li in the thickness direction at the curved portion and the bottom portion in the outer layer are less than 5 ppb by mass for Na, less than 50 ppb by mass for K, and less than 100 ppb by mass for Li (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0033]-[0038] which teach that the outer layer (3) includes a concentration of Na, K, and Li with ¶[0037] specifically teaching that the alkali metals Na, K, and Li are contained in the outer layer (3) by less than 0.01 ppm (i.e., 10 ppb) which necessarily means the curved and bottom portions also have a Na, K, and Li concentration that falls within the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo Watanabe does not teach that the average concentration of Na is also less than 5 ppb by mass, this would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Sudo. As noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 7, in Fig. 1, ¶[0018], and ¶¶[0036]-[0051] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Sudo teaches an analogous embodiment of a quartz crucible which includes an opaque outer layer (11) containing bubbles and a transparent bubble-free inner layer (12). In ¶[0043] Sudo teaches that the crucible preferably contains Na, K, and Li in an amount of 0.05 ppm (i.e., 50 ppb) or less in order to avoid releasing impurities into the Si melt which would cause the quality of the Si single crystal grown therefrom to deteriorate. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize an opaque bubble-containing outer layer (3) having a concentration of Na, K, and Li that is as low as possible and is less than 5 ppb in order to avoid contaminating the Si melt with an alkali metal during growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe teaches that average concentrations of Na, K, and Li in the thickness direction at the straight body portion in the outer layer satisfy at least one of: greater than or equal to 10 ppb by mass for Na; greater than or equal to 50 ppb by mass for K; and greater than or equal to 180 ppb by mass for Li (See Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0033]-[0038] which teach that the outer layer (3) includes a concentration of Na, K, and Li with ¶[0037] specifically teaching that the alkali metals Na, K, and Li are contained in the outer layer (3) by less than 0.01 ppm (i.e., 10 ppb). This necessarily means that the straight body portion may have a Na concentration that is as high as 9.9999 ppb which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of 10 ppb that it would be reasonably expected to yield the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe teaches that average concentrations of Na, K, and Li in the thickness direction at the straight body portion in the outer layer satisfy at least one of: greater than or equal to 10 ppb by mass for Na; greater than or equal to 50 ppb by mass for K; and greater than or equal to 180 ppb by mass for Li (See Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0033]-[0038] which teach that the outer layer (3) includes a concentration of Na, K, and Li with ¶[0037] specifically teaching that the alkali metals Na, K, and Li are contained in the outer layer (3) by less than 0.01 ppm (i.e., 10 ppb). This necessarily means that the straight body portion may have a Na concentration that is as high as 9.9999 ppb which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of 10 ppb that it would be reasonably expected to yield the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 11, Watanable does not teach that an outer diameter of the quartz glass crucible is greater than or equal to 800 mm. However, in at least ¶[0033] Watanabe teaches the production of a quartz glass crucible having an outer diameter of 22 inches (i.e., 558.8 mm). Then in ¶[0049] Sudo teaches that through the use of a suitable thickness for the crucible body the crucible itself can be configured as a large crucible having an opening diameter of 40 inches (i.e., 1,016 mm). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a crucible with an outer diameter of up to 1,016 mm in order to support a larger mass of Si melt for the production of a larger diameter Si single crystal.
Regarding claim 12, Watanable does not teach that an outer diameter of the quartz glass crucible is greater than or equal to 800 mm. However, in at least ¶[0033] Watanabe teaches the production of a quartz glass crucible having an outer diameter of 22 inches (i.e., 558.8 mm). Then in ¶[0049] Sudo teaches that through the use of a suitable thickness for the crucible body the crucible itself can be configured as a large crucible having an opening diameter of 40 inches (i.e., 1,016 mm). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a crucible with an outer diameter of up to 1,016 mm in order to support a larger mass of Si melt for the production of a larger diameter Si single crystal.
Regarding claim 13, Watanable does not teach that an outer diameter of the quartz glass crucible is greater than or equal to 800 mm. However, in at least ¶[0033] Watanabe teaches the production of a quartz glass crucible having an outer diameter of 22 inches (i.e., 558.8 mm). Then in ¶[0049] Sudo teaches that through the use of a suitable thickness for the crucible body the crucible itself can be configured as a large crucible having an opening diameter of 40 inches (i.e., 1,016 mm). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a crucible with an outer diameter of up to 1,016 mm in order to support a larger mass of Si melt for the production of a larger diameter Si single crystal.
Regarding claim 14, Watanable does not teach that an outer diameter of the quartz glass crucible is greater than or equal to 800 mm. However, in at least ¶[0033] Watanabe teaches the production of a quartz glass crucible having an outer diameter of 22 inches (i.e., 558.8 mm). Then in ¶[0049] Sudo teaches that through the use of a suitable thickness for the crucible body the crucible itself can be configured as a large crucible having an opening diameter of 40 inches (i.e., 1,016 mm). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a crucible with an outer diameter of up to 1,016 mm in order to support a larger mass of Si melt for the production of a larger diameter Si single crystal.
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that a density of bubbles with a diameter of greater than or equal to 3.0 mm in the inner layer within an inner region of the brown ring is greater than or equal to 4.0 bubbles/mm2. However, in at least ¶[0044] Sudo teaches that the bubble concentration in the transparent inner layer (12) is preferably present at a concentration of 0.1% or less with the average diameter of any bubbles that are present being 100 mm or less. Sudo further teaches that it is preferable that the number of bubbles in the inner transparent layer be minimized in order to inhibit the detachment of vitreous silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal size and concentration of bubbles in the brown ring formed on the inner layer, including within the claimed ranges of ≥3.0 mm with a density of ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, that is necessary to minimize detachment of silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible.
Alternatively, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that a density of bubbles with a diameter of greater than or equal to 3.0 mm in the inner layer within an inner region of the brown ring is greater than or equal to 4.0 bubbles/mm2. However, in at least ¶[0044] Sudo teaches that the bubble concentration in the transparent inner layer (12) is preferably present at a concentration of 0.1% or less with the average diameter of any bubbles that are present being 100 mm or less. Sudo further teaches that it is preferable that the number of bubbles in the inner transparent layer be minimized in order to inhibit the detachment of vitreous silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal size and concentration of bubbles in the brown ring formed on the inner layer, including within the claimed ranges of ≥3.0 mm with a density of ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, that is necessary to minimize detachment of silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible.
Alternatively, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that a density of bubbles with a diameter of greater than or equal to 3.0 mm in the inner layer within an inner region of the brown ring is greater than or equal to 4.0 bubbles/mm2. However, in at least ¶[0044] Sudo teaches that the bubble concentration in the transparent inner layer (12) is preferably present at a concentration of 0.1% or less with the average diameter of any bubbles that are present being 100 mm or less. Sudo further teaches that it is preferable that the number of bubbles in the inner transparent layer be minimized in order to inhibit the detachment of vitreous silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal size and concentration of bubbles in the brown ring formed on the inner layer, including within the claimed ranges of ≥3.0 mm with a density of ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, that is necessary to minimize detachment of silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible.
Alternatively, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that a density of bubbles with a diameter of greater than or equal to 3.0 mm in the inner layer within an inner region of the brown ring is greater than or equal to 4.0 bubbles/mm2. However, in at least ¶[0044] Sudo teaches that the bubble concentration in the transparent inner layer (12) is preferably present at a concentration of 0.1% or less with the average diameter of any bubbles that are present being 100 mm or less. Sudo further teaches that it is preferable that the number of bubbles in the inner transparent layer be minimized in order to inhibit the detachment of vitreous silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal size and concentration of bubbles in the brown ring formed on the inner layer, including within the claimed ranges of ≥3.0 mm with a density of ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, that is necessary to minimize detachment of silica pieces from the inner surface of the crucible.
Alternatively, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a density of bubbles having a diameter of ≥3.0 mm that is ≥4.0 bubbles/mm2, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 21, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 22, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 25, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe teaches that the quartz glass crucible holds a silicon melt therein, and has a brown ring formed on the inner surface thereof after pulling a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (see ¶¶[0001]-[0004] which teach that the quartz crucible holds a Si melt therein and a brown ring forms on an inner surface thereof), but does not teach that the brown ring has an outer diameter reference line with a length of from 10 mm to 13 mm, the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring being defined as a bisecting line extending along a circumferential direction of the quartz glass crucible, and the brown ring having the outer diameter reference line with the length of from 10 mm to 13 mm satisfies the following formula (1):
y ≥ 10x - 70 ... (1)
where the length of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as x [mm], an uppermost portion at an end of the outer diameter reference line of the brown ring is defined as a reference height 0 [mm], and a protrusion height, which is a height of an uppermost portion on the outer diameter reference line in an inner region of the brown ring, is defined as y [mm]. However, since the crucible taught by the combination of Watanabe and Sudo possesses the claimed structure, it would be reasonably expected to produce the same properties when utilized for the growth of a Si single crystal by the Czochralski method, namely the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70 as recited in the claim. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a brown ring with a length of 10 to 13 mm which satisfies the formula (1) y ≥ 10x – 70, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In at least Table 1 of International Patent Appl. Publ .No. WO 03/078321 to Szillat, et al. teaches a method of producing silica powder having concentrations of Na, K, and Li in amounts that are less than 5 ppb.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
