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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “wherein the nozzle is provided on an upper surface of the bottom plate, and the gas is blown toward the adjustment member from below the adjustment member”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2009/0314207 to Endoh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2999735 to Konrad and alternatively United States Patent Application No. 2011/0126761 to Lee in view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0241838 to Endoh is presented below.
Claim 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Adjustment member, in claims 1-9, interpreted as an adapter or the like, as supported by [0035].
Cooling member, in claims 1-9, which in interpreted as a nozzle, as supported by claims 2, 3, a heat dissipation insulating member, as supported by claim 4, and a flow path, as supported in claim 5, and also in [0041-0055].
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.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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, 3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2011/0126761 to Lee in view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0241838 to Endoh.
In regards to Claim 1, Lee teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a polysilicon rod 100 Fig. 2 comprising: a core wire 34 on which polysilicon 36 is deposited; a core wire 38 electrode provided to penetrate a bottom plate 40; an adjustment member 37, 39 provided between the silicon core wire and the core wire electrode; and a cooling part (nozzle 42 that sources gas through the base plate that has a coolant of 48a, 48b circulating through, the gas being implicitly cooling as per the claimed structure and as it is passing through the cooled base before entering the reaction chamber) capable of cooling the adjustment member (as it blow gas towards the adjustment member), wherein the cooling part comprises a nozzle that blows gas toward the adjustment member (bas broadly recited, as the nozzle is placed close to it) wherein the nozzle is provided on an upper surface of the bottom plate, and the gas is blown toward the adjustment member, as shown in Fig. 2, 3, 4) [0050-0090].
Lee does not expressly teach that the gas comes from below the adjustment member or that the adjustment member is movable with respect to the bottom plate.
Endoh teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a polysilicon rod Fig. 1-3 comprising: a core wire 4 on which polysilicon is deposited [seed rod 4, 0024]; a core wire electrode 31 [0029] provided to penetrate a bottom plate 2 (as shown in Fig. 1); an adjustment member (27, 32, 33) provided between the silicon core wire (silicon seed wire 4 [0024]) and the core wire electrode 31, and movable with respect to the bottom plate (as it is fastened with a nut and screw portion of 4 structure and is thus implicitly moveable with the loosening of the screw portion of 34 from the bottom plate of 2); and a plurality of raw gas ejection nozzles 6 [0023-0024] are installed in the bottom surface of the bottom plate portion 2 and eject raw material gas of silane of hydrogen gas into the furnace [0021-0040].
Endoh teaches the adjustment member connects the core wire electrode and the silicon core wire so that a central axis of the core wire electrode is different from a central axis of the silicon core wire, as 4 is laterally or horizontally shifted from 31 in Fig. 1.
Endoh teaches the adjustment member has a resistivity lower than a resistivity of the core wire electrode (as 27 which is part of the adjustment member is made out of carbon, which has a thermal resistivity, as broadly recited.
Endoh teaches a heat dissipation insulating member provided between the bottom plate and the adjustment member and configured to cool the adjustment member via the bottom plate (in the form of an annular insulating material 37 formed between the bottom plate 2 and the adjustment member 33, 32, the insulating material implicitly insulating heat as it is an insulating material), and a flow path 40 that is provided in the core wire electrode and through which a coolant flows [0031, 0036].
The Examiner notes that the adjustment members of Endoh are elevated above the base/bottom plate of 2 whileas the cooling gas nozzle of Lee is close to the base/bottom plate, such that the nozzle of Lee is supplying the gas from below the adjustment member.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. As the adjustment member of Endoh is analogous to the adjustment members of Lee, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Lee with the adjustment members of Endoh. The resulting apparatus would result in an adjustment member that is elevated above the bottom plate and the nozzle that is close and contacting with the bottom plate, such that the nozzle is provided on the upper surface of the bottom plate and the gas is blown toward the adjustment member from below the adjustment member. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Lee teaches wherein the gas is a silane source gas (claims 1-4; [0003-0005]).
In regards to Claim 6, Lee in view of Endoh teaches the adjustment member connects the core wire electrode and the silicon core wire so that a central axis of the core wire electrode is different from a central axis of the silicon core wire, as shown in the adjustment member of Endoh, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Lee in view of Endoh teaches the adjustment member is made of a material different from a material of the core wire electrode, as part of the adjustment member is 27 and made out of carbon [0031] and the core wire electrode is made of stainless steel [0029], as shown in the adjustment member of Endoh, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 8, Lee in view of Endoh teaches the adjustment member has a resistivity lower than a resistivity of the core wire electrode (as 27 which is part of the adjustment member is made out of carbon, which has a thermal resistivity, as broadly recited, as shown in the adjustment member of Endoh, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 9, Lee in view of Endoh teaches a heat dissipation insulating member provided between the bottom plate and the adjustment member and configured to cool the adjustment member via the bottom plate (in the form of an annular insulating material 37 formed between the bottom plate 2 and the adjustment member 33, 32, the insulating material implicitly insulating heat as it is an insulating material), and a flow path 40 that is provided in the core wire electrode and through which a coolant flows [0031, 0036], as shown in the adjustment member of Endoh, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0314207 to Endoh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2999735 to Konrad.
In regards to Claim 1, Endoh teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a polysilicon rod Fig. 1-4 comprising: a core wire 4 on which polysilicon is deposited [seed rod 4, 0024-0025]; a core wire electrode 5B, 22, 23 [0028-29] provided to penetrate a bottom plate 2 (as shown in Fig. 1-2); an adjustment member (44, 47, 46 Fig. 4) provided between the silicon core wire (silicon seed wire 4 [0024]) and the core wire electrode 31, and movable with respect to the bottom plate (as it is fastened with a nut and screw portion of 4 structure and is thus implicitly moveable with the loosening of the screw portion of 34 from the bottom plate of 2); and a plurality of raw gas ejection nozzles 6 [0023-0024] are installed in the bottom surface of the bottom plate portion 2 and eject raw material gas of silane of hydrogen gas into the furnace [0024-0040].
Endoh also teaches a cooling part capable of cooling the adjustment member in the form of cooling passageway 40 that flows a cooling medium through the nozzle of 27 that is provided through the bottom plate and thus also an upper surface of the bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 4), and the medium is blown toward the adjustment 44, 46 from below the adjustment member [0024-0064].
Endoh does not expressly teach the cooling medium is a gas.
Konrad teaches a cooling medium for the adjustment member is a cooling gas (Col. 3 lines 25-37) and that it is sealed within using an electrically insulating seal 12 (see claims 1-4; Columns 1-6).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cooling medium analogous to that of the cooling medium in Endoh out of a cooling gas, as taught by Konrad, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 4, Endoh teaches the cooling part 27 has a heat dissipation insulating member (in the form of an annular insulating material 34 [0038] formed between the bottom plate 2 and the adjustment member 46, 44, the insulating material implicitly insulating heat as it is an insulating material) provided between the bottom plate and the adjustment member and configured to cool the adjustment member via the bottom plate, as shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 5, Endoh teaches the cooling part is provided in the core wire electrode (through lines 27/40) and has a flow path 40 through which a coolant flows [0024-0064].
In regards to Claim 6, Endoh teaches the adjustment member connects the core wire electrode and the silicon core wire so that a central axis of the core wire electrode is different from a central axis of the silicon core wire, as 4 is laterally or horizontally shifted from 31 in Fig. 1-4.
In regards to Claim 7, Endoh teaches the adjustment member is made of a material different from a material of the core wire electrode, as part of the electrode is 23 and made out of carbon [0031] and the core wire electrode is made of stainless steel [0034].
In regards to Claim 8, Endoh teaches the adjustment member has a resistivity lower than a resistivity of the core wire electrode (as 23 which is part of the adjustment member is made out of carbon, which has a thermal resistivity, as broadly recited and the adjustment member 34 is made of stainless steel).
In regards to Claim 9, Endoh teaches a heat dissipation insulating member 34 provided between the bottom plate and the adjustment member and configured to cool the adjustment member via the bottom plate (in the form of an annular insulating material 37 formed between the bottom plate 2 and the adjustment member 22, the insulating material implicitly insulating heat as it is an insulating material), and a flow path 27,40 that is provided in the core wire electrode and through which a coolant flows [0024-0064].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0314207 to Endoh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2999735 to Konrad, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0223432 to Park et al.
The teachings of Endoh in view of Konrad are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 3, Endoh in view of Konrad do not expressly teach that the cooling gas can be a silane source gas.
Park teaches that cooling gas in a Siemens reactor can be hydrogen gas (analogous to the teachings of Endoh in view of Konrad) or a gas that has a silane compound [0018; 0008-0023].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cooling gas analogous to that of Endoh in view of Konrad out of silane, as taught by Park, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 3.
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11673809 to Okada et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2011/0274926 to Oda et al.
Specifically, both claim an apparatus for manufacturing a polysilicon rod comprising a core wire, a core wire electrode, an adjustment member/holding body, but Okada et al does not expressly claim a cooling part.
Oda teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a polysilicon rod Fig. 6 comprising: a core wire 9 on which polysilicon X is deposited; a core wire electrode 4 [0029] provided to penetrate a bottom plate 3 (as shown in Fig. 6); and a raw gas ejection nozzles 20 installed in the bottom surface of the bottom plate portion and eject raw material gas of silane of hydrogen gas into the furnace via side ejection ports that are directed to the bottom ends of the wire (where an adjustment member would be) [0059-0067], the temperature of the gas being set to room temperature to 700°C, wherein the raw material gas is fed without a particular limitation of the reaction gas temperature, such that it can cool [0066; 0029-0103]. Oda teaches the raw material/ejection nozzle locally cools the surfaces rod at the lower end to cool that portion, which is close to the adjustment member in Endoh, so that it lowers the rate of silicon deposition at the portions where the reaction gas is blown to form recessed portions [0060] which are necessary for transfer [0014].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Okada and its raw material gas sources/nozzles with the raw material nozzles of Oda, which supplies cooled raw material gas to the rods at the base, which is where the adjustment members are located. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of apply cooling gas to create an indentation for the transfer of the rods later. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights