Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/146,304

QUALITY EVALUATION METHOD, MANUFACTURING SYSTEM OF SILICON FOR EVALUATION, MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SILICON FOR EVALUATION, AND SILICON FOR EVALUATION

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 23, 2022
Examiner
LEONG, NATHAN T
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
527 granted / 745 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
49.6%
+9.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 745 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 II, claims 8-11 in the reply filed on 9/18/25 is acknowledged. Since the election is made without traverse, the restriction is deemed as proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al JP 2014/114184. Per claim 8, Ishida teaches manufacturing and growing single crystal silicon [0013] utilizing crystal grains in a polycrystalline rod in a diameter direction which is formed in a reactor (2) (see abstract) [0025]. The step of evaluation of the crystal and/or polycrystalline silicon is inherently disclosed by Ishida (e.g., Figures 5C-8 which shows imaging of the silicon). Ishida teaches that growth occurs until a diameter of 120mm (Example 1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al JP 2014/114184. Per claims 9-11, Ishida is silent regarding the claimed growth length. However, Ishida teaches a growth rate of 3.5 mm/hour [0042] and further teaches that the time of deposition controls various parameters including power supply capacity, economic efficiency, etc., [0042]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled and optimized the time and therefore the growth length of the silicon to arrive at the desired results via routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the rejection over Kobayashi is withdrawn. Regarding Ishida, Applicant argues that core wire 10 is a polycrystalline silicon rod (see page 3 of the response). However, this is not persuasive because Ishida clearly teaches that the silicon core wire 10 (abstract) is a single crystal rod, which is grown and manufactured using single crystal production [0013]. Ishida then refers to depositing polycrystalline onto this wire and refers to the next product as a polycrystalline silicon rod 20 (not item 10). As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /NATHAN T LEONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 16, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590461
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584234
CASING STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582778
SURFACE COATING LAYER FORMATION METHOD AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING GASKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576416
INTELLIGENT MARKING PAINT APPLICATOR SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565706
ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COATING AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 745 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month