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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims1 to 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 to 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,195,871. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sole difference between the instant claims and the patented claims is the addition charges of the dopant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims and use only one dopant charge as is now claimed growing a set dopant level in the silicon.
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) 1, and 8 to 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer (2019/0345629) in view of Chu et al (11,982,019).
The Haringer et al reference teaches a method of growing a doped silicon ingot, note entire reference. The silicon ingot is grown in an ingot pulling apparatus including an inner chamber, a crucible disposed within the inner chamber, a heat source, and a feed tube having an open end, note figure 1. The method includes adding polycrystalline silicon to the crucible and heating to form a silicon melt from the polycrystalline silicon in the crucible para 0003. Then growing a single crystal silicon ingot from the melt by contacting the melt with a seed crystal and pulling the seed crystal up from the melt to grow the single crystal silicon ingot, para 0016. The single crystal silicon ingot having a neck region, a shoulder region, and a body region. Further, the reference teaches adding a charge of a volatile dopant into the feed tube, para 0017. Then positioning the feed tube within the inner chamber such that the open end of the feed tube has a first height relative to a surface of the melt. The height of the feed tube can then be change or adjusted as needed, note para 0020. The dopant is heated by the heat source and radiant heat from the surface of the melt, note para 0017. The dopant species is flowed into the melt while growing the body region of the single crystal silicon ingot by contacting the surface of the melt with the gaseous dopant para 0017. The vaporization rate is controlled such that the dopant species are introduced at a rate sufficient to maintain a resistivity of the body region over an axial length of the body region ,note para 0010 and 0011. The differences between the instant claim and the prior art is the use of a capsule for the dopant and the second height of the feed tube. However, the Chu et al reference teaches a gaseous dopant feeder for czochralski methods of silicon, using a capsule in the feed tube near the melt for the solid dopant, note figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Haringer reference by the teachings of the Chu et al reference to use a capsule for the dopant feed in order to increase control over the dopant heating and feed rates.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable feed tube second position, and further the dopant feed rate in the Haringer reference as the reference does teach moving the feed tube for the dopant as needed and that such does materially affect the dopant feed rate ,note para 0020.
With respect to claim 8, the Haringer reference teaches using inert gases in the inner chamber, note, para 0016.
With respect to claim 9, the Haringer reference teaches adding solid dopants, note figures.
With respect to claim 10, the Haringer reference teaches n-type dopants, para. 0007
Claim(s) 2 to 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer (2019/0345629) in view of Chu et al (11,982,019).
The Haringer and Chu et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the control of the dopant amount in the growing silicon maintaining a unform resistivity. 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 invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable dopant gas flow in the combined references in order to grow a uniformly doped silicon crystal, includes uniform resistivity.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer (2019/0345629) in view of Chu et al (11,982,019) and Luter (2020/0407869).
The Haringer and Chu et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the specific dopant. However, the Luter reference teaches adding boric acid a n type dopant in solid form to silicon, note figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Haringer reference by the teachings of Luter reference to add boric acid in order to create the desired resistivity type in the silicon acid.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer (2019/0345629) in view of Chu et al (11,982,019) and Luter (2020/0407869).
The Haringer and Chu et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the heat shield. However, the Luter reference teaches adding boric acid to a silicon growing ingot which is surrounded by a heat shield and the feed tube opening is between the heat shield and ingot, note para 0038. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Haringer reference by the teachings of Luter reference to add a heat shield in order to control the cooling of the ingot.
With regards to claim 14, the Luter reference teaches the placement of the heat shield, feed tubes and ingot, note figure 1.
Claim(s) 15 to 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer (2019/0345629) in view of Chu et al (11,982,019) and Luter (2020/0407869).
The Haringer, Luter and Chu et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the timing of the movement of the feed tube. However, the Luter reference teaches adding boric acid a n type dopant in solid form to silicon, note figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable feed tube second position, and further the dopant feed rate in the Haringer reference as the reference does teach moving the feed tube for the dopant as needed and that such does materially affect the dopant feed rate ,note para 0020.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cite of interest as showing the state of the art in silicon growth by the czochralski method.
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
Prosecution Insights