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 .
Status of the Rejection
The drawing objections have been overcome by the applicant's amendments.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. This is a second nonfinal rejection to incorporate new grounds of rejection under 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 and to address the 112(b) issues and 112(f) limitations that were previously omitted.
Claims Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a. a device…” (line 2) and “d. a device…” (line 13) both in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. No corresponding structures for these two devices are described in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitations “a. a device…” (line 2) and “d. a device…” (line 13) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In addition, these two claim limitations are indefinite because it is not clear whether these two devices are distinct from the apparatus and from each other. It appears that two devices are generally referring to the apparatus itself.
For the reasons above, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 13-19 are rejected for their dependency on rejected base claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “the nozzle that feeds in the silicon-containing starting material…” and “at least one second nozzle opens directly into the reaction space…” are indefinite because it appears that these limitations have the same function as the amended first nozzle channel and second nozzle channel in claim 11. It is not clear whether they are referring to the nozzle channels in claim 11 since they are reciting the same functions. In addition, line 3, the limitation “the device” lacks antecedent basis since it is not clear whether it is referring to the device in a or d.
Regarding claim 15, line 5, the limitation “the nozzle channel” lacks antecedent basis since it is not clear whether it is referring to the first nozzle channel or the second nozzle channel in claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, lines 3 and 5, the limitation “the nozzle channel” lacks antecedent basis since it is not clear whether it is referring to the first nozzle channel or the second nozzle channel in claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, lines 2 and 4, the limitation “the nozzle channel” lacks antecedent basis since it is not clear whether it is referring to the first nozzle channel or the second nozzle channel in claim 11. In addition, line 7, the limitation “the device” lacks antecedent basis since it is not clear whether it is referring to the device in a or d.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hugo (U.S. 2010/0047148) in view of Li et al. (CN1548369, cited in IDS 1/11/2024).
Regarding Claim 11, Hugo teaches an apparatus that forms liquid silicon in a device which employs a high-temperature gas which includes gas partially in a state of plasma (para 0023-0025, and para 0055-0059, Fig 1B, Fig 4) comprising:
a device (reactor chamber 4, Fig. 1B) by which a gas can be brought to a high-temperature state in which it is at least partially present as plasma;
a reaction space (reactor space 13) and a feed conduit (left feedstock inlet 2, Fig. 1B) for the high temperature gas to enter the reaction space through an opening (para 0070);
a nozzle having a nozzle channel (top feedstock inlet 2, Fig. 1B) that opens directly into the reaction space through which a gaseous or particulate silicon-containing starting material can be fed into the reaction space (para 0056-0057); and
a device (any of the feedstock inlet 2, Fig. 1B) adapted to introduce an inert gas into the reaction space such that it protects the exit opening of the nozzle channel against thermal stress resulting from the high temperature gas.
Hugo does not explicitly teach a multi-fluid nozzle comprising a first nozzle channel and a second nozzle channel such that the first and second nozzle channels have parallel longitudinal axes.
Li et al. teaches a reactor for preparing nano-silica based on high temperature hydrolysis of silicon tetrachloride (paragraph 5). Li et al. recognizes that conventional nozzles for introducing the silicon-containing gas mixture in a combustion reactor are easy to clog at the nozzle outlet (paragraph 9). To solve this problem, Li et al. uses a coaxial multi-tube nozzle. The central tube in Fig. 1 (i.e., reads on first nozzle channel) is filled with a mixture of reactants (H2, air, and SiCl4) in stoichiometric proportions, while the second ring (i.e., reads on second nozzle channel which surrounds the central tube) is filled with a combustion-supporting gas composed of H2 and air (paragraph 14, Fig. 1). This nozzle configuration helps to improve the uniformity of the temperature and concentration fields in the reaction zone (paragraph 14) as well as overcomes the defects of the prior art of clogging the nozzle outlet (paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the inlet of Hugo with the coaxial multi-tube nozzle of Li et al. because it would improve the uniformity of the temperature and concentration fields in the reaction zone (paragraph 14) and minimize the clogging at the nozzle outlet (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hugo teaches a. the nozzle that feeds in the silicon-containing starting material is a first nozzle (i.e., the central tube of the multi-tube nozzle in Li et al.), b. at least one second nozzle opens directly into the reaction space is the device that introduced the inert gas (i.e., the second ring of Li et al.), and c. the at least one second nozzle is configured and/or arranged such that it produces an inert gas stream in the reaction space, which stream surrounds the exit opening of the nozzle channel of the first nozzle (the nozzle of Li et al. would be structurally capable of performing this function since it is structurally identical to the instant claim).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hugo (U.S. 2010/0047148) in view of Li et al. (CN1548369, cited in IDS 1/11/2024), and further in view of Frosch (U.S. 4,343,772).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hugo teaches all the limitations of claim 11. In addition, Hugo teaches the reactor chamber may be provided in any shape such as cylindrical, oval, rectangular, etc. Cylindrical reactor chambers are shown in the Figures. (para 0057, Fig. 1B, Hugo).
Hugo further teaches the left side feedstock inlet 2 (Fig. 1B) that opens tangentially into the reaction space. In an alternative interpretation, modified Hugo presumably does not explicitly teach the feed conduit opens tangentially into the reaction space.
However, Frosch teach a tangentially-oriented feed conduit (see Figure 5, Frosch reproduced below). The tangential flow disclosed by Frosch is advantageously disposed in such a way as to generate a vortex within the reaction chamber in order to ensure the purity of the liquid silicon product via the formation of a skull-layer (col 3, lines 38-60, Frosch).
Frosh and Hugo are both directed to the field of thermal reactors for the production of liquid silicon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the state of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the tangentially-disposed feed conduit of Frosch in the apparatus of Hugo in order to obtain an advantageous vortex flow in order to form a pure silicon product.
Regarding claim 15, Hugo teaches
a. the reaction space is cylindrical (see Fig.1B) at least in one segment,
b. the cylindrical segment is bounded radially by a circumferential side wall and axially at one side by a circular or elliptical closure element (Fig. 1B), and
c. the nozzle channel of the nozzle that feeds in the silicon-containing starting material is conducted through the closure element and opens axially or with a deviation of not more than 45° from an axial orientation into the reaction space (the top feedstock inlet 2 is oriented vertically, and thus would be 0° from the axial orientation of the reaction space).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hugo teaches the nozzle channel of the nozzle (feedstock inlet inlet 2, Fig. 1B Hugo) that feeds in the silicon-containing starting material opens into the reaction space at a distance from the circumferential side wall. In addition, modified Hugo teaches a distance of the exit opening of the nozzle channel from the circumferential side wall is at least 20% of the smallest diameter of the reaction space in the cylindrical segment (reaction space of Hugo in Fig. 1B shows that the cylindrical segment diameter narrows into a conical portion at the bottom; therefore the claimed distance is clearly at least 20% of this conical diameter).
Regarding claim 17, Hugo and Frosch teach all limitations of claim 14, including a reaction space which comprises a conical segment in which the diameter becomes smaller in the direction of gravity (Fig 1B, Hugo and Fig 5, Frosch) as well as a cylindrical segment directly adjoining the cylindrical segment.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hugo (U.S. 2010/0047148) in view of Li et al. (CN1548369, cited in IDS 1/11/2024), and further in view of Wu (CN101285122).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Hugo teaches all limitations of claim 11 including a nozzle conducted through a wall or closure element of the reaction space (left feedstock inlet 2 in Fig 1b of Hugo; and Fig. 1 of Li et al.). Li et al. teaches a nozzle 1 (Fig. 1) projecting into the reaction space so that the exit opening of the nozzle channel opens into the reaction space at a distance from the wall through which the nozzle is conducted into the reaction space.
Modified Hugo does not explicitly teach an insulation element.
Wu teaches a cyclone reactor for producing polycrystalline silicon products. Wu teaches a nozzle inlet 30 (Fig. 1) for injecting reactants into the hollow cavity of the reactor (paragraph 19). Wu further teaches an outer shell 10 made of heat insulating material (paragraph 39) to thermally insulate inlet 30.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the apparatus of modified Hugo by incorporating the heat insulating shell of Wu in order to thermally insulate the apparatus and inlet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Hugo teaches all limitations of claim 11 including an outlet port for gaseous reaction products to exit the reactor (Fig 4 Hugo), which may include carrier gases, reacting gases or gaseous silicon. However, the limitation of “at least two condensation chambers arranged parallel to one another and taper conically in a direction of gravity” is not taught by Hugo and may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot since all previous rejections are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection represented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, YVONNE EYLER can be reached at (571) 272-1200. 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.
LUAN V. VAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795