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 .
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 1-2 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.
The recited in claim 1 “an intensity of the magnetic field of the cusp magnetic field at an intersection of a plane having a same height as the magnetic field minimum plane and an inner wall of the quartz crucible from 800 to 1200 G” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “an intersection of a plane having a same height as the magnetic field minimum plane” means; it is not clear what a plane refers to; it appears that magnetic field minimum plane comprises the intersection; it is not clear whether the intensity from 800 to 1200G is related to the magnetic field minimum plane or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claim 2 is rejected because it depends on claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basak et al (US 20200216975 A1, “Basak”), and further in view of Lee et al (KR 20100015251 A, machine translation, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Basak teaches a method for producing a silicon single crystal by a CZ method using a cusp magnetic field formed by an upper coil and a lower coil provided in a pulling furnace, wherein the silicon single crystal is pulled up in a cylindrical ingot (straight-body) step by setting a rotational rate of the silicon single crystal to 8 to 12 rpm (reading on 7 rpm or more and 12 rpm or less) (0039, 0050, 0060, 0061), a rotational rate of a quartz crucible to approximately 0.5 rpm to approximately 1.0 rpm (reading on 1.0 rpm or less) (0063, 0064), an intensity of the magnetic field of a cusp magnetic field an inner wall of a quartz crucible from 0.075 to 0.18 T (=750 to 1800G (reading on 800 to 1200 G) (0010, 0066, 0067). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); also see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Basak teaches the intensity of the magnetic field of the cusp magnetic field at the inner wall of the quartz crucible as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a position of a magnetic field minimum plane of the cusp magnetic field in a range of 10 mm downward to 5 mm upward from a raw-material melt surface, and an intersection of a plane having a same height as the magnetic field minimum plane. However, Lee teaches a method, wherein a position of a zero gauss plane (magnetic field minimum plane) of a cusp magnetic field is in a range of -30mm to 60mm (overlapping a range of 10 mm downward to 5 mm upward) from a raw-material melt surface (abstract, pages 4, 6-8, claims 1 and 5); Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, 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 Basak per teachings of Lee in order to grow an improved crystals with reduced defect (Lee pages 3-4 and 7-8). Basak/Lee further teaches an intersection of a plane having a height and an inner wall of a crucible (figs 1 and 4), the strength, distribution and position/location/height of the cusp magnetic field being adjusted to control the amount of oxygen introduced into the single crystal and improve the quality of the single crystal (pages 2, 7 and claim 5). 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/optimized Basak/Lee, and obtained various heights including the instantly claimed “intersection of a plane having a same height as the magnetic field minimum plane and an inner wall of the quartz crucible” in order to control the amount of oxygen introduced into the single crystal and improve the quality of the single crystal. 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basak/Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al (US 20060144321 A1, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 2, as addressed above, Basak/Lee teaches a similar method for producing the silicon single crystal as instantly claimed. “the silicon single crystal being produced in which an oxygen concentration based on ASTM'79 is 2 x 1017 atoms/cm3 or less, and an ROG in a crystal cross-section at right angles to a growth direction of the silicon single crystal is 8 % or less” are reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP 2143.02. Also, Basak/Lee teaches that an oxygen concentration is less than 3 ppma (1.5 x 1017 atoms/cm3 or less) (Basak 0077, 0079). Furthermore, Lu teaches a silicon crystal, wherein an oxygen gradient is less than 5% in a radial direction of the crystal (0061). Therefore, 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 Basak/Lee per teachings of Lu in order to produce a crystal with carefully controlled quality, which is suitable for use in device manufacturing (Lu 0004, 0011-0015, 0045, 0061).
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