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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: according to MPEP 608.01(m), each claim must end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “temperate” must be replaced with “temperature” in each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 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.
The term “elevated temperature” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated temperature” is not defined by the claim. Paragraph 76 of applicant’s disclosure describes a heating unit configured to reach an elevated temperature, i.e. up to 2000° C. Paragraphs 100 and 109 also describe temperatures in the range of 1450-1500° C. For examination purposes, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include temperatures up to 2000oC.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2018/0291513).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses a method of producing crystalline Silicon
(paragraphs 27, 46; abstract), comprising steps of:
a. mixing silicon dioxide and at least one metal oxide (paragraphs 21-23 -
the electrolyte comprises a silicon-containing precursor, i.e. SiO2, and a variety of alkali metal oxides or alkaline earth metal oxides);
b. heating/melting said silicon dioxide and metal oxide mixture (paragraph 24);
c. creating an electronic potential (abstract; paragraph 25; figure 1A);
d. cooling said Silicon (paragraphs 27, 32 – after electrolysis, the working
electrode/cathode containing the deposited silicon was pulled out of the melt and allowed to cool down to room temperature in an argon atmosphere).
Regarding claim 2, Jin further teaches wherein said oxide is characterized by at least one of the following: a. Being a Lewis base (donor – CaO is characterized as being a Lewis base; paragraphs 22-24, 32); and b. inherently stable (Thermodynamic) at a temperature of >2000oC (the melting point of CaO is approximately 2572 to 2613oC).
Regarding claim 3, said oxide of Jin is selected from a group consisting of MgO, Li20, and CaO (the electrolyte comprises a variety of alkali metal oxides or alkaline earth metal oxides – paragraphs 22-24).
Regarding claim 4, Jin discloses wherein the ratio by weight of said oxide to said Silicon dioxide can be adjusted as desired (table S1 on page 6; paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 5, Jin teaches wherein said metal oxide and silicon oxide mixture is characterized as forming a eutectic system (paragraphs 18, 29, 41-42).
Regarding claim 8, Jin further discloses wherein said heating is characterized as a melting temperature of said mixture (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 9, the silicon product of Jin is characterized as poly- or mono- crystalline (paragraphs 27, 46; claims 17-18).
Regarding claim 10, the cooling step of Jin is characterized as only crystalizing said silicon (paragraphs 27, 32 – after electrolysis, the working electrode/cathode containing the deposited silicon was pulled out of the melt and allowed to cool down to room temperature in argon atmosphere).
Regarding claim 11, Jin discloses a method of producing silicon (paragraphs 27, 46; abstract), characterized by mixing silicon dioxide and at least one metal oxide at an elevated temperature (paragraphs 21-24 – the silicon-containing precursor and the supporting electrolyte may be provided by a material which itself comprises these components. Common glass is composed of SiO2, CaO and Na2O. Such glass may be heated to above its melting temperature to provide molten glass in the electrolyte melt),
wherein said oxide and silicon form a eutectic mixture or eutectic system having a desired melting point (paragraphs 18, 29, 41-42).
Regarding claim 12, Jin further teaches wherein said oxide is characterized by at least one of the following: a. Being a Lewis base (donor – CaO is characterized as being a Lewis base; paragraphs 22-24, 32); and b. inherently stable (Thermodynamic) at a temperature of >2000oC (the melting point of CaO is approximately 2572 to 2613oC).
Regarding claim 13, the metal oxide of Jin is selected from a group consisting of MgO, Li20, and CaO (the electrolyte comprises a variety of alkali metal oxides or alkaline earth metal oxides – paragraphs 22-24).
Regarding claim 14, Jin discloses wherein the ratio by weight of said oxide to said Silicon dioxide can be adjusted as desired (table S1 on page 6; paragraph 42).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones (US Patent no. 10,002,980).
Regarding claim 6, Jin discloses all the features discussed above, but fails to teach additionally comprising a step of providing a crystalline seed.
Jones teaches a method for manufacture of mono- or polycrystalline silicon (col. 3, lines 26-53) comprising a step of providing a crystalline seed of monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon which serves as a point from which generation of a native silicon layer can be formed (col. 5, lines 9-33 and 57-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a step that provides a crystalline seed in the method of Jin because as taught by Jones, the crystalline seed serves as a point from which generation of a native silicon layer can be formed.
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches wherein said seed is characterized as poly- or mono- crystalline (col. 1, lines 29-16; col. 4, lines 44-48; col. 5, lines 9-33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794