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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 09/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-3 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
Figures 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3 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 1 recites both an apparatus and method steps, which fail to clearly limit the boundaries sought for protection (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). While reciting “A method for growing monocrystalline silicon,” claim 1 positively recites “a monocrystalline pull-up apparatus” depleted with the structural elements. Therefore, claim 1 embraces the apparatus and process limitations in the same claim, thus failing to clearly recite the boundaries sought for protection. Claims 2 and 3 are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 3 “…a surface area of a smaller side of the first and second sides is denoted as A and a surface area of a larger side thereof is denoted as B, the heat shield is arranged at a ratio A/B falling within a range from 0.3 to 0.96 …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear how a ratio A/B can be equal to or greater than 0.5 since the instant claim 3 recites “a surface area of a smaller side of the first and second sides is denoted as A and a surface area of a larger side thereof is denoted as B,” e.g., a smaller side surface area denoted as A and a larger side surface area denoted as B. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama et al (US 20210108337 A1, “Yokoyama”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al (US 20210108337 A1, “Yokoyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a method for growing monocrystalline silicon using a monocrystal pull-up apparatus, the monocrystal pull-up apparatus comprising a chamber 2 (figs 2, 6 and 7, 0007, 0040, 0042, 0046, 0047); a crucible 3 in which a silicon melt 9 is stored (figs 2, 6 and 7, 0007, 0040-0050); a heater 5 configured to heat the silicon melt 9 (figs 2, 6 and 7, 0042, 0044, 0083); a heat shield 12/16 arranged above the crucible 3 in a manner to surround monocrystalline silicon 10 pulled up from the silicon melt 9 (figs 2, 6 and 7, 0007, 0044-0048, 0059-0065); and an inert gas inlet 13 (supply unit) configured to supply an inert gas to pass through between the monocrystalline silicon 10 and the heat shield 12/16 (figs 2, 5, 6 and 7, abstract, 0007-0014, 0045-0048, 0059-0065), the method comprising pulling up the monocrystalline silicon while applying a horizontal magnetic field to the silicon melt (figs 2, 4, 6 and 7, abstract, 0007-0011, 0028-0031, 0048-0076), wherein the heat shield 12/16 is arranged such that a center axis of the heat shield vertically passes through a center position of an opening of the heat shield 12/16 (fig 2, 6 and 7), the center axis of the heat shield is eccentric (displaced) from a vertical rotation center axis 7 of the crucible 3 in a direction different from a magnetic-field application direction in a magnetic-field center portion of the horizontal magnetic field (fig 2, 5, ,6 and 7, 0065). In the alternative, Yokoyama also teaches that the relative arrangement of the heat shield, the crucible and the horizontal magnetic field affect the convection flow of the silicon melt and quality of the grown monocrystalline silicon (0008, 0010, 0026-0036, 0051-0059, 0076-0082). It is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Yokoyama teaches that the heat shield is arranged such that the center axis of the heat shield is displaced from the rotation center axis of the crucible in a horizontal direction orthogonal to the magnetic-field application direction (fig 5, 0065). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Yokoyama teaches the heat shield being arranged as addressed above, and further teaches that when a surface of the silicon melt viewed from above through the opening of the heat shield is divided into a first side and a second side in a horizontal direction orthogonal to the magnetic-field application direction with respect to a line passing through the center position of the opening and being parallel to the magnetic-field application direction (figs 1 and 5), apparently a surface area of a smaller side of the first and second sides can be denoted as A and a surface area of a larger side thereof can denoted as B, and a ratio A/B is expected, but does not explicitly teach a specific ratio of the heat shield being arranged at a ratio A/B falling within a range from 0.3 to 0.96. However, Yokoyama explicitly teaches that the relative arrangement of the heat shield, the crucible and the horizontal magnetic field affect the convection flow of the silicon melt and quality of the grown monocrystalline silicon (figs 1 and 5, 0008, 0010, 0026-0036, 0051-0059, 0076-0082), e.g., the arrangement of the heat shield is result effective variable, and Yokoyama has provided sufficient guidance to allow one ordinary skill in the art to vary/optimize the arrangement of the heat shield. Thus 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 Yokoyama, and obtained various arrangement of the heat shield including the instantly claimed “the heat shield being arranged at a ratio A/B falling within a range from 0.3 to 0.96%” in order to pull up silicon crystal having stable qualities without polarization of oxygen concentration in the pulled crystal, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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