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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 10/29/25 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-2 are pending. Claims 1-2 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Li et al. does not teach that the screws are made of a fluorine resin but rather that the screws are made of plastic: Li et al. teaches the bottom plate 113 and each of the side plates 112 being coupled to each other by screwing screws each made of a fluorine resin (see page 6 of the translation, the basket, which includes screws, may be composed of PTFE). The fact that Li et al. teaches that the screws are made of plastic does not negate the teaching that the basket as a whole, including screws, may be constructed of a fluorine resin such as PTFE, since PTFE is itself a plastic.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Li et al. does not teach that a surface of a screw head of each of the screws is flush with a surface of each of the side plates: Li et al. teaches that screws may be used to provide a mechanical connection between the side plates 112 and the bottom plate 113 and side plates 112. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the screws may be screwed in to their entire lengths (which corresponds to the screw head being flush with a surface of the side plate) so as to allow for the full mechanical connection afforded thereby.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Matsuda et al. does not teach that a surface of a screw head of each of the screws is flush with a surface of each of the side plates: Matsuda et al. teaches that a surface of a screw head (see outer distal end of each screw 4/17 as shown in figures 1 and 5) of each of the screws 4/17 is flush with a surface of each of the side plates 3/19 (see figures 1, 5).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach that a welding portion is formed at a boundary between part of the screw head and part of each of the side plates. Matsuda et al. teaches each of the side plates 3/19 being coupled to each other by screws 4/17 each made of a resin (see figures 2, 5, abstract, pages 3-5 of the translation) and that welding allows for improved strength and intensity of a mechanical connection (see page 5 of the translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a welding portion may be formed at a boundary part or the screw head and the side plates so as to enhance the strength and intensity of the mechanical connection between the screw and side plates, as shown to be known and conventional by Matsuda et al.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN204651297U).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches a cleaning basket (see abstract) capable of being used for cleaning an item accommodated in the cleaning basket, the cleaning basket comprising a plurality of component parts each made of a resin (see page 6 of the translation, all component parts of the basket may be composed of PTFE) the component parts including a bottom plate 113 and side plates 112 that are connected to a periphery of the bottom plate 113 and that extend in a direction away from a surface of the bottom plate 113 (see figures 1-2 and page 6 of the translation), the bottom plate 113 and each of the side plates 112 being coupled to each other by screwing screws each made of a resin (see page 6 of the translation, the basket, which includes screws, may be composed of PTFE), so that an accommodation space capable of accommodating an item to be cleaned is formed (see space enclosed between sidewalls 112 and bottom wall 113 in figure 1), the cleaning basket is capable of being immersed in a cleaning liquid in a state in which the item to be cleaned is accommodated in the accommodation space formed by the component parts. Li et al. does not explicitly teach that a surface of a screw head of each of the screws is flush with a surface of each of the side plates. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the screws may be screwed in to their entire lengths (which corresponds to the screw head being flush with a surface of the side plate) so as to allow for the full mechanical connection afforded thereby. Li et al. does not explicitly teach that the cleaning basket is used for cleaning polycrystalline silicon or that the cleaning basket is configured to be immersed in a cleaning liquid. However, all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art and the cleaning basket of Li et al. is capable of accommodating an item of polycrystalline silicon as well as being immersed in a liquid, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN204651297U) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Matsuda et al. (JP2007022547A).
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Li et al. teaches the bottom plate 113 and each of the side plates 112 being coupled to each other by screwing screws each made of a fluorine resin (see page 6 of the translation, the basket, which includes screws, may be composed of PTFE). Li et al. does not explicitly teach that a welding portion is formed at a boundary between part of the screw head and part of each of the side plates. Matsuda et al. teaches a cleaning basket (see abstract and page 2 of the translation) and that welding allows for improved strength and intensity of a mechanical connection (see page 5 of the translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a welding portion may be formed at a boundary part or the screw head and the side plates of the system by Li et al. so as to enhance the strength and intensity of the mechanical connection between the screw and side plates, as shown to be known and conventional by Matsuda et al.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. (JP2007022547A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda et al. teaches a cleaning basket (see abstract and page 2 of the translation) capable of being used for cleaning an item that is accommodated in the cleaning basket 1/22, the cleaning basket 1/22 comprising a plurality of component parts each made of a resin, the component parts including a bottom plate 2/18 and side plates 3/19 that are connected to a periphery of the bottom plate 2/18 and that extend in a direction away from a surface of the bottom plate 2/18 (see figures 2, 5, pages 3-5 of the translation), each of the side plates 3/19 being coupled to each other by screwing screws 4/17 each made of a resin (see figures 2, 5, abstract, pages 3-5 of the translation, the entire cleaning basket may be constructed of a fluorine resin material), so that an accommodation space (see space between side plates 3/19 and bottom plates 2/18 in figures 2 and 5) capable of accommodating the item to be cleaned is formed, the cleaning basket 1/22 being capable of being immersed in a cleaning liquid in a state in which item to be cleaned is accommodated in the accommodation space formed by the component parts; a surface of a screw head (see outer distal end of each screw 4/17 as shown in figures 1 and 5) of each of the screws 4/17 is flush with a surface of each of the side plates 3/19 (see figures 1, 5). Matsuda et al. does not explicitly teach that the cleaning basket is used for cleaning polycrystalline silicon or that the cleaning basket is configured to be immersed in a cleaning liquid. However, all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art and the cleaning basket of Matsuda et al. is capable of accommodating an item of polycrystalline silicon as well as being immersed in a liquid, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Matsuda et al. does not explicitly teach that the bottom plate is coupled to the side plates with screws. However, since Matsuda et al. teaches that screws may be used in order to provide mechanical support and reinforce mechanical connections (see pages 3-5 of the translation), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the bottom plate may be coupled to the side plates with screws so as to provide the expected mechanical support and reinforced mechanical connection.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Matsuda et al. teaches each of the side plates 3/19 being coupled to each other by screwing screws 4/17 each made of a resin (see figures 2, 5, abstract, pages 3-5 of the translation, the entire cleaning basket may be constructed of a fluorine resin material); and that welding allows for improved strength and intensity of a mechanical connection (see page 5 of the translation). Matsuda et al. does not explicitly teach that a welding portion is formed at a boundary between part of the screw head and part of each of the side plates. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a welding portion may be formed at a boundary part or the screw head and the side plates so as to enhance the strength and intensity of the mechanical connection between the screw and the side plates.
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 TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711