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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 13 and 14 are newly added. Claims 7 and 10 are amended. Claims 1, 7 and 10 are independent claims. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn. Claims 7-10, 13 and 14 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 10, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 and 14 recite “…a diameter… an RRG...” which should read “…[[a]] the diameter… [[an]] the RRG...”
In claims 7, 10, 13 and 14, “RRG” should be provided with full terms.
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 8 is 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 8 “…etching with the hydrogen halide is performed at a temperature of 800°C or less” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is noted that parent claim 7 recites “etching the silicon core wire… the silicon core wire has a temperature of more than 300°C but not more than 1000°C;” e.g., parent claim 7 limits a minimum temperature is “more than 300°C,” while the instant claim 8 does not limit a minimum temperature. Hence, it is not clear with respect to a minimum temperature of the instantly claimed temperature range. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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.
As addressed, Fabry 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 an RRG of 150% or less” 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 an RRG of 150% 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 800°C or less. 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) (0049, 0057, 0064); a step of disposing (setting) the silicon core wire (seed rod 11a) in a reactor 12 (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 an RRG of 150% or less” 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 an RRG of 150% 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 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
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 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