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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites, “a value of F2/S is 1785.6 mol/hr/m2”. There is no support in the original disclosure for this claimed value. It is noted that applicant alleges that claim 6 was amended to replace 40 Nm3hr/m2 with 1785.6 mol/hr/m2, however original claim 6 recited, 0.4 Nm3hr/m2 not 40 Nm3hr/m2.
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.
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) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al (US 2020/0392627), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kurosawa et al (US 2014/0302239) and Park et al (US 2006/0115967).
Hoshino et al teaches a method of for producing a polycrystalline silicon rod, comprising the steps of: depositing polycrystalline silicon on a surface of a silicon core wire by heating the silicon core wire in the presence of a chlorosilane compound (trichlorosilane) and hydrogen; and thermally treating, in the presence of hydrogen, the polycrystalline silicon having been deposited in the step of depositing the polycrystalline silicon, the polycrystalline silicon, in the step of thermally treating the polycrystalline silicon, having a surface temperature T2 (1020°C) of (T1 + 30°C) or higher and (T1 + 100°C) or lower for a period of time, the surface temperature T2 being lower than 1030°C, where T1 (970°C) represents a surface temperature of the polycrystalline silicon at a time point at which a value of an electric current caused to pass through the silicon core wire in heating the silicon core wire starts to be decreased in the step of depositing the polycrystalline silicon. (Fig 2, Fig 5; [0048]-[0053] teaches a method of manufacturing a polycrystalline silicon rod by Siemens process using tricholorosilane and hydrogen gas at 970°C, and includes a post-deposition heat treatment at 1020°C after an end of a deposition step of polycrystalline silicon).
Hoshino et does not teach the step of thermally treating the polycrystalline silicon includes a period in which a value of F1/S is 892.8 mol/hr/m2or more, where F1 represents a flow rate of a first annealing gas which is the gas that flows into the reactor, and S represents a cross sectional area of the straight barrel part.
In a Siemens growth method, Kurosawa et al teaches a reactor 100 is sealed by a bell jar 1 having a straight barrel portion, and a base plate 5; a plurality of silicon cores 12; polycrystalline silicon is deposited on the surfaces of the silicon cores using cholorosilane and hydrogen; and the source gas is supplied from the gas supplying nozzle 9 at 150 m/sec or more, and continuously increasing the source gas supply amount with increasing diameter of the silicon rod 13 (Table 1; Fig 1-2; [0030]-[0059]), which clearly suggests deposition in a straight barrel part of a reactor. Kurosawa et al teaches a reactor with a base plate diameter of 1 to 3 m to grow silicon wires having a length of 1500-3000 mm ([0030]-[0049]).
In a method of treating polysilicon, Park et al teaches the hydrogen gas (H.sub.2) may be supplied at a flow rate in a range of about 1 sccm to about 500,000 sccm at a heat treatment temperature of 400 to 1200°C ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Hoshino et al by providing a flow rate of more than 150 m/sec in a reactor having a diameter of 1 m, as taught by Kurosawa et al, and optimize the flow rate of hydrogen to 500,000 sccm (500 L/min) to heat treat the polysilicon to reduce voids, as taught by Park et al. In regards to the F1/S is 892.8 mol/hr/m2 or more, the combination of Hoshino et al, Kurosawa et al, and Park et al teaches a reactor having a cylindrical barrel portion and supplying gases a high flow rate. Therefore, the flow rate taught by the combination of Hoshino et al, Kurosawa et al, and Park et al would be expected to overlap the claimed range (1 m reactor diameter having 500,000 sccm (500 L/min), wherein 1 mole of ideal gas occupies 22.414 liters; thus 500 L/min/22.414L/mol=22.3 mol/min; 22.3 mol/min * 60min/hr=1338.44 mol/hr; for a 1 m reactor= area is p * (d/2)^2= 3.14* (1/2)^2=0.7854 m2; 1338.44mol/hr /0.7854 m2= 1704.15 mol/hr/m2) H2 flow for the reactor taught by the combination of Hoshino et al, Kurosawa et al and Park. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and optimization of a result effective variable, flow rate, by conducting routine experimentation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to obtain the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05)
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Hoshino et al, Kurosawa et al, and Park et al does not explicitly teach the step of cooling the polycrystalline silicon after the step of thermally treating the polycrystalline silicon, the step of cooling including a period in which a value of F2/S is 1785.6 mol/hr/m2 or more, where F2 represents a flow rate of a second annealing gas which is the gas that flows into the reactor. As discussed above, the claimed range is not supported by the original disclosure, and the range should be 1.785 mol/hr/m2. The process taught by the combination of Hoshino et al, Kurosawa et al, and Park et al teaches heat treating and cooling (Hoshino Fig 2 and 5) and providing a flow rate of more than 150 m/sec in a reactor having a diameter of 1 m, as taught by Kurosawa et al, and optimize the flow rate of hydrogen between 1 sccm and 500,000 sccm (0.001 to 500 L/min) to heat treat the polysilicon to reduce voids, as taught by Park et al in a first heat treatment; therefore, the cooling period would include at least a 0.0001 sec period which would cool the ingot while still flowing the gas, thus meeting the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the claimed flow rate is noted but not found persuasive. As discussed above, based on the combined teachings of the prior art; the claimed range would overlap the range taught by the prior art and for a conventional 1 m diameter reactor. The combination of Hoshino et al, Kurosawa et al, and Park et al would be expected to overlap the claimed range (1 m reactor diameter having 500,000 sccm (500 L/min), wherein 1 mole of ideal gas occupies 22.414 liters; thus 500 L/min/22.414L/mol=22.3 mol/min; 22.3 mol/min * 60min/hr=1338.44 mol/hr; for a 1 m reactor= area is p * (d/2)^2= 3.14* (1/2)^2=0.7854 m2; 1338.44mol/hr /0.7854 m2= 1704.15 mol/hr/m2) H2 flow for the reactor taught by the combination of Hoshino et al, Kurosawa et al and Park. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and optimization of a result effective variable, flow rate, by conducting routine experimentation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to obtain the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hoshino et al teaches a method of manufacturing a polycrystalline silicon rod by Siemens process using tricholorosilane and hydrogen gas at 970°C, and includes a post-deposition heat treatment at 1020°C after an end of a deposition step of polycrystalline silicon (Fig 2, Fig 5; [0048]-[0053]). Park et al teaches a method of treating polysilicon, wherein the hydrogen gas (H.sub.2) may be supplied at a flow rate in a range of about 1 sccm to about 500,000 sccm at a heat treatment temperature of 400 to 1200°C ([0030]). Hoshino et al teaches treating polysilicon with hydrogen after a Siemens process, and Park et al teaches the flow rate used to treat polysilicon; therefore, the rejection is maintained. The examiner maintains that treating the polysilicon in a rod form and/or a wafer form would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the rod and wafer are both made of polysilicon.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights