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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 11 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 13 and 14 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14 are amended. Claims 1, 7 and 10 are independent claim. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn. Claims 7-10, 13 and 14 are currently examined on the merits.
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.
Claims 7-10, 13 and 14 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 7 “…a step of setting the silicon core wire after wet etching in a reactor” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “wet etching” refers to the previously recited “wet etching” or not, and it is not clear whether “wet etching” is carried out in a reactor or not. For examining purpose, this limitation is interpreted as “a step of setting the silicon core wire in a reactor after the wet etching.” Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 7 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 8, 9 and 13 are rejected because they depend on claim 7.
The recited in claim 9 “…a step of removing an oxide film and impurities on a surface of the silicon core wire by wet etching before setting the silicon core wire in the reactor.” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is noted that parent claim 7 already recites “a step of removing an oxide film and impurities on a surface of the silicon core wire by wet etching;” it is not clear whether “a step of removing an oxide film and impurities on a surface of the silicon core wire by wet etching” refers to the previously recited step in parent claim 7 or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 9 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 10 “…a step of setting the silicon core wire after wet etching in a reactor” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “wet etching” refers to the previously recited “wet etching” or not, and it is not clear whether “wet etching” is carried out in a reactor or not. For examining purpose, this limitation is interpreted as “a step of setting the silicon core wire in a reactor after the wet etching.” Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 10 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claim 14 is rejected because they depend on claim 10.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabry et al (US 20120100302 A1, “Fabry”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabry in view of Miyao et al (US 20180002180 A1, “Miyao”), Narukawa et al (US 20100068125 A1, “Narukawa”) and Altmann et al (US 20080038178 A1, “Altmann”).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Fabry teaches a method for manufacturing a polysilicon rod, the method comprising a step of setting a silicon thin rod (core wire) in a reactor (abstract, 0005, 0019, claim 1); and a step of cleaning (etching) the silicon core wire (thin rod) with a hydrogen halide in a situation where the silicon core wire (thin rod) has a temperature of 400°C-1000°C (0019, 0020, 0024 and claim 1), within the instantly claimed temperature of more than 300°C but not more than 1000°C. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962; also see MPEP 2131.03 I.
Fabry further teaches that it is well known in the prior art to etch silicon core wire with a mixture of HF and HNO3 (same composite for wet etching as described in the instant PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1, for example [0049]), and a step of transporting the thin rod from the HF/HNO3 etching installation to inert gas container and from the latter (inert gas container) to a reactor (e.g., wet etching carried out before setting the silicon core wire in the reactor, e.g., setting the silicon core wire in a reactor after the wet etching) (0009-0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have performed a wet etching of the silicon core wire the before setting the silicon core wire in the reactor as is taught by the prior art described in Fabry in order to provide cleaned surface of the silicon core wire for further depositing polyacrylate silicon rod (Fabry 0009-0014). As just addressed, Fabry teaches that the wet etching is performed by a mixture of HF and HNO3, same composite for wet etching as described in the instant specification for example [0049] of PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1. Therefore, “removing an oxide film and impurities on a surface of the silicon core wire” is reasonably expected. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
As addressed above, Fabry teaches the method for manufacturing the polysilicon including the same/substantially similar steps as instantly claimed, therefore, “the polysilicon rod having a diameter of 120 mm or more, the polysilicon rod having a lowest resistivity of 3300 Ωcm or more and a Radial Resisitivity Grdient (RRG) of 100% or less” and/or “the polysilicon rod having a diameter of 140 mm or more” are reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II. Furthermore, With regard to the limitation in the preamble of claim 7 reciting “polysilicon rod having a diameter of 120 mm or more, the polysilicon rod having a lowest resistivity of 3300 Ωcm or more and a Radial Resistivity Gradient (RRG) of 100% or less”, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone, consult In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976). Also, it is a known that a polycrystalline silicon rod has a diameter of 130 mm or more as taught by Miyao (0008, 0012, 0013, 0042, 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Fabry per teachings of Miyao in order to provide a polycrystalline rod for growing single crystal (Miyao 0001). Narukawa teaches a polycrystalline silicon rod has resistivity of 3000 to 4000 Ωcm (0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Fabry/Miyao per teachings of Narukawa in order to provide a polycrystalline silicon with high-purity (Narukawa 0060). Altmann teaches a radial resistance profile, wherein the gradient of the radial resistance profile is between 45 and 70 Ωcm/mm (0019), e.g., RRG is (70-45)/45x100%=55%; as describe in the instant PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1 (for example [0081]), RRG is expressed as RRG= =(ρMax−ρMin)/ρMin ×100(%), where ρMax is the maximum value of the resistivity in the plane radial direction, and ρMin is the minimum value. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Fabry/Miyao/Narukawa per teachings of Altmann in order to provide suitable polycrystalline rod with controlled gradient of the radial resistance (Altmann 0019). A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP 2143.02.
Regarding claim 8, as addressed above, Fabry/Miyao/Narukawa/Altmann (Fabry) teaches that the step of etching (clearing) with the hydrogen halide is performed at the temperature of 400°C-1000°C, overlapping the instantly claimed “more than 300°C and not more than 800°C”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 9, Fabry/Miyao/Narukawa/Altmann (Fabry) teaches setting the in the reactor as addressed above, and further teaches that it is well known in the prior art to etch silicon core wire with a mixture of HF and HNO3 (same composite for wet etching as described in the instant PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1, for example [0049]) before setting the silicon core wire in the reactor (0009-0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have performed a wet etching of the silicon core wire the before setting the silicon core wire in the reactor as is taught by the prior art described in Fabry in order to provide cleaned surface of the silicon core wire for further depositing polyacrylate silicon rod (Fabry 0009-0014). Fabry further teaches that the wet etching is performed by a mixture of HF and HNO3, same composite for wet etching as described in the instant specification for example [0049] of PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1. Therefore, “removing an oxide film and impurities on a surface of the silicon core wire” is reasonably expected. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claims 10 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoichi Kaito (US 20140004377 A1, “Kaito”), and further in view of Fabry et al (US 20120100302 A1, “Fabry”), Miyao et al (US 20180002180 A1, “Miyao”), Narukawa et al (US 20100068125 A1, “Narukawa”) and Altmann et al (US 20080038178 A1, “Altmann”).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Kaito teaches a method for manufacturing a polysilicon rod comprising a step of removing an oxide film and impurities on a surface of a silicon seed rod 11a (core wire) by a mixed liquid (wet etching) before use (0049, 0057, 0064); a step of disposing (setting) the silicon core wire (seed rod 11a) in a reactor 12 after the wet etching (0049, 0058, 0065); a step of depositing polysilicon through a CVD process (reaction) (abstract 0008, 0013, 0036, 0048, 0049, 0058, 0065, claims 1 and 6). Kaito does not explicitly teach a step of etching the silicon core wire with a hydrogen halide in a situation where the silicon core wire has a temperature of more than 300°C but not more than 800°C. However, Fabry teaches a method, wherein a step of cleaning (etching) a silicon thin rod (core wire) is performed with a hydrogen halide in a situation where the silicon core wire (thin rod) has a temperature of 400°C-1000°C (0019, 0020, 0024 and claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Kaito per teachings of Fabry in order to provide a cleaned thin rod/core wire for producing polycrystalline silicon rods under controlled conditions (0001, 0019, 0023, 0024 and 0034).
As addressed above, Kaito/Fabray teaches the method for manufacturing the polysilicon including the same steps as instantly claimed, therefore, “the polysilicon rod having a diameter of 120 mm or more, the polysilicon rod having a lowest resistivity of 3300 Ωcm or more and a Radial Resistivity Gradient (RRG) of 100% or less” and/or “the polysilicon rod having a diameter of 140 mm or more” are reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II. Furthermore, With regard to the limitation in the preamble of claim 10 reciting “polysilicon rod having a diameter of 120 mm or more, the polysilicon rod having a lowest resistivity of 3300 Ωcm or more and a Radial Resistivity Gradient (RRG) of 100% or less”, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone, consult In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976). Also, it is a known that a polycrystalline silicon rod has a diameter of 130 mm or more as taught by Miyao (0008, 0012, 0013, 0042, 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Kaito/Fabray per teachings of Miyao in order to provide a polycrystalline rod for growing single crystal (Miyao 0001). Narukawa teaches a polycrystalline silicon rod has resistivity of 3000 to 4000 Ωcm (0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Kaito/Fabray /Miyao per teachings of Narukawa in order to provide a polycrystalline silicon with high-purity (Narukawa 0060). Altmann teaches a radial resistance profile, wherein the gradient of the radial resistance profile is between 45 and 70 Ωcm/mm (0019), e.g., RRG is (70-45)/45x100%=55%; as describe in the instant PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1 (for example [0081]), RRG is expressed as RRG= (ρMax−ρMin) / ρMin×100(%), where ρMax is the maximum value of the resistivity in the plane radial direction, and ρMin is the minimum value. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Kaito/Fabray /Miyao/Narukawa per teachings of Altmann in order to provide suitable polycrystalline rod with controlled gradient of the radial resistance (Altmann 0019). A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP 2143.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “Fabry does not disclose or suggest: removing an oxide film and impurities from the surface of the silicon core wire by wet etching before the silicon core wire is set in the reactor; and subsequently etching the silicon core wire with a hydrogen halide after the silicon core wire has been set in the reactor” have been considered, but not found persuasive. It is firstly noted that “wet etching before the silicon core wire is set in the reactor; and subsequently” is not recited in the instant claims. It is well established that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Fabry explicitly teaches that it is well known in the prior art to etch silicon core wire with a mixture of HF and HNO3 (same composite for wet etching as described in the instant PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1, for example [0049]), and a step of transporting the thin rod from the HF/HNO3 etching installation to inert gas container and from the latter (inert gas container) to a reactor (Fabry 0009-0014). Based on these factual teachings of Fabry, one ordinary skilled in the art would have readily recognized that the wet etching carried out before setting the silicon core wire in the reactor, e.g., setting the silicon core wire in a reactor after the wet etching. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have performed a wet etching of the silicon core wire the before setting the silicon core wire in the reactor (e.g., setting the silicon core wire in a reactor after the wet etching) as is taught by the prior art described in Fabry in order to provide cleaned surface of the silicon core wire for further depositing polyacrylate silicon rod (Fabry 0009-0014). As just addressed, Fabry teaches that the wet etching is performed by a mixture of HF and HNO3, same composite for wet etching as described in the instant specification for example [0049] of PGPUB US 2024/0150934 A1. Therefore, “removing an oxide film and impurities on a surface of the silicon core wire” is reasonably expected. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II. Fabry also teaches a step of cleaning (etching) the silicon core wire (thin rod) with a hydrogen halide in a situation where the silicon core wire (thin rod) has a temperature of 400°C-1000°C (0019, 0020, 0024 and claim 1), within the instantly claimed temperature of more than 300°C but not more than 1000°C. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962; also see MPEP 2131.03 I. The examiner’s position is that Fabry teaches the instantly argued/claimed “removing an oxide film and impurities from the surface of the silicon core wire by wet etching before the silicon core wire is set in the reactor; and subsequently etching the silicon core wire with a hydrogen halide after the silicon core wire has been set in the reactor.” Applicants cannot ignore the factual teachings of Fabry, e.g., based on the factual teachings of Fabry, the applicant’s argument concerning "Fabry does not disclose or suggest: removing an oxide film and impurities from the surface of the silicon core wire by wet etching before the silicon core wire is set in the reactor; and subsequently etching the silicon core wire with a hydrogen halide after the silicon core wire has been set in the reactor" merely represents the counselor's opinion, which is not supported by factual evidence. It is well established that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights