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 1-7 in the reply filed on 09/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-7 are currently examined on the merits.
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 1-7 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 the limitation "the ingot" “the ingot growth”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 3 “…a first coordinate of the first calibration light source… a second coordinate of the second calibration light source…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “first coordinate” and the “second coordinate” refers to the previously recited “first coordinate” and “second coordinate” in parent claims. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the product” "the reciprocal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the product” "the reciprocal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiro et al (JP 2013087039 A, machine translation, “Jiro”), and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 114549408 A, machine translation, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Jiro teaches a method for diameter measurement of Czochralski monocrystalline silicon comprising controlling a first one of light-emitting means 15 (first calibration light source) and a second one of light-emitting means 15 (second calibration light source) to emit light (0012, 0018, 0029, 0030, 0036 and claim 7), wherein the first calibration light source and the second calibration light source have a spacing/distance between the light-emitting means (first distance therebetween) (0012, 0030, claim 7), and a line connecting the first calibration light source and the second calibration light source (light-emitting means 15) has a midpoint located at center of a cross section perpendicular to axial direction of an ingot 1 during an ingot growth (figs 1-3, 5, 0010, 0014, 0016, 0026, 0031, 0032); obtaining a first position (first coordinate being expected) of the first calibration light source based on a first imaging means of imaging means 11/11a/11b (measuring device) (fig 5, 0009, 0011, 0012, 0025, 0030, 0034, claim 7), obtaining a second position (second coordinate being expected) of the second calibration light source based on a second imaging means of imaging means 11/11a/11b (measuring device) (fig 5, 0009, 0011, 0012, 0025, 0030, 0034, claim 7), wherein the first measuring device and the second measuring device (imaging means 11) have a spacing/distance therebetween (figs 1 and 5, 0012, 0025, 0029, 0030). Jiro/Zhang further teaches obtaining a diameter measurement coefficient based on the first position/coordinate, the second position/coordinate and the first distance (Jiro 0014, 0030, 0033, 0034); obtaining a first diameter position/location (coordinate) of one end of the ingot diameter by the imaging means 11/11a/11b (first measuring device) (figs 6 and 7, abstract, 0008, 0014, 0032, 0034, claim 2), and obtaining a second diameter coordinate of the other end of the ingot diameter by the imaging means 11/11a/11b (second measuring device) (figs 6 and 7, abstract, 0008, 0014, 0032-0034, claim 2); obtaining a calculated (measured) value of the ingot diameter based on the first diameter coordinate, the second diameter coordinate and the diameter measurement coefficient (abstract, 0007-0014, 0016, 0018, 0025-0035, claim 7). Furthermore, Zhang teaches a method, wherein precision of a workpiece is detected by calculating and correcting pixel equivalent, converting the position and the size of the processed finished product from a pixel coordinate system to a processing coordinate system, and establishing a processing coordinate system (abstract, 0009, 0012, 0016-0022, 0029-0035, 0072-0078, 0085-0091, 0097-0113, claim 1). 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 Jiro per teachings of Zhang in order to accurately detect position size errors of workpiece (Zhang abstract, 0032, 0033, 0089, n0014, claim 1).
Jiro/Zhang teaches the first distance, and the distance between the first measuring device and the second measuring device as addressed above, and further teaches a predetermined ingot diameter/a target value of the ingot (Jiro fig 3, 0005, 0010, 0027, claim 4), e.g., an absolute value of a difference between the first distance and the predetermined ingot diameter being expected; Jiro/Zhang does not explicitly teach an absolute value of the difference being less than a predetermined threshold, and the distance between the first measuring device and the second measuring device equal to the predetermined ingot diameter. However, Jiro teaches the light-emitting means (the first measuring device and the second measuring device) is attached to a rail/motor, thus light-emitting means being movable in order to accurately control the diameter of the ingot (figs 1 and 5, abstract, 0012-0018, 0023-0025, 0029, 0030). 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 the absolute value of the difference between the first distance and the predetermined ingot diameter and the distance between the first measuring device and the second measuring device, and obtained various absolute value of the difference and the distance including the instantly claimed the absolute value of the difference between the first distance and the predetermined ingot diameter being less than predetermined threshold and the distance between the first measuring device and the second measuring device equal to the predetermined ingot diameter, in order to accurately control the diameter of the ingot, 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).
Regarding claim 2, Jiro/Zhang teaches setting two calibration light sources (one set of the first calibration light source and the second calibration light source), and obtaining the diameter measurement coefficient based on the one sets of the first calibration light source and the second calibration light source (Jiro 0012, 0014, 0018, 0029, 0033, 0034, claim 7; Zhang 0009-0035, claim 1). Furthermore, it is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 4, Jiro/Zhang teaches that the pixel equivalent is the ratio K 'of the actual length of the calibrated line segment to its corresponding pixel distance in the image (Zhang 0010, n0006, 0039, n0011, 0066, n0014, claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the diameter measurement coefficient is equal to the product of the first distance and the reciprocal of the absolute value of the difference between the first coordinate and the second coordinate.
Regarding claim 5, Jiro/Zhang teaches that the pixel diameter of each hole is converted to the corresponding machined diameter in the world coordinate system, d1 = du-K (Zhang 0009-n0007, 0060-0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that measured value of the ingot diameter is equal to the product of the diameter measurement coefficient and the absolute value of the difference between the first diameter coordinate and the second diameter coordinate.
Regarding claim 6, Jiro/Zhang teaches that obtaining an actual value of the ingot diameter after the ingot growth (Jiro 0026); obtaining an actual diameter measurement coefficient based on the first diameter coordinate, the second diameter coordinate, and the actual value of the ingot diameter (Jiro abstract, 0007-0014, 0016, 0018, 0025-0035, claim 7); and while a difference between the actual diameter measurement coefficient and the diameter measurement coefficient is more than the predetermined coefficient threshold, applying the actual diameter measurement coefficient to update the diameter measurement coefficient (Jiro fig 3, abstract, 0007-0014, 0016, 0018, 0025-0035, claim 7; Zhang 0009-n0007, 0060-0091, claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Jiro/Zhang teaches that in the step of obtaining an actual diameter measurement coefficient based on the first diameter coordinate, the second diameter coordinate (Jiro abstract, 0007-0014, 0016, 0018, 0025-0035, claim 7), and the pixel equivalent is the ratio of the actual length of the calibrated line segment to its corresponding pixel distance in the image (Jiro abstract, 0007-0014, 0016, 0018, 0025-0035, claim 7; Zhang 0009-n0007, 0060-0091, claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the actual value of the ingot diameter, the actual diameter measurement coefficient is equal to the product of the actual value of the ingot diameter and the reciprocal of the absolute value of the difference between the first diameter coordinate and the second diameter coordinate.
Allowable claims
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record to Jiro et al (JP 2013087039 A, machine translation, “Jiro”) teaches a method for diameter measurement of Czochralski monocrystalline silicon, but does not teach, disclose, anticipate or reasonably suggest that “obtaining a first diameter measurement coefficient based on the first coordinate, the second coordinate, and the first distance between the first calibration light source and the second calibration light source in the first set… obtaining a third coordinate of the first calibration light source in the second set based on the first measuring device, and obtaining a fourth coordinate of the second calibration light source in the second set based on the second measuring device; obtaining a second diameter measurement coefficient based on the third coordinate, the fourth coordinate, and a second distance between the first calibration light source and the second calibration light source in the second set; repeating the above steps to obtain plural diameter measurement coefficients relative to the plural sets of the first calibration light source and the second calibration light source”, as recited in claim 3.
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
