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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the outset, Applicant argues that claim 1 relates to a cleaning basket used for at least one of cleaning and drying of polycrystalline silicon. However, the claim is directed to the structural configuration of a basket and not the intended use of cleaning and drying of polycrystalline silicon. As long as the prior art basket is capable of such use, the prior art anticipates the claim. MPEP 2115 and caselaw is replete with teachings disclosing that expressions relating an apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Applicant is further reminded that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)) and that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (emphasis in original)
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues the additional holes on the side plates “improve the drying efficiency” of the contents therein. This is not persuasive because one having ordinary skill in the art would have known that increasing holes in a basket would increase the fluid flow into and out of the basket, such being an expected and predictable result.
Regarding new claim 11, Applicant similarly argues that Yu does not disclose the angle between the middle area and oblique surfaces of “not less than 30º and not more than 75º” and opines that “setting the angle between the oblique surfaces and the middle area to be not less than 30º would bring the U-shaped pipe into contact with the oblique surfaces, thus causing the U-shaped pipe to be located far away from the bottom surface. This is not persuasive because such argument is mere speculation. One having ordinary skill in the art would know how to modify the structure shapes as desired in order to size the basket for cleaning the content therein. Moreover, one skilled in the art would readily understand the increased draining effects of additional through holes and/or increased sloping angles of the oblique sides. Simply stated, there appears to be nothing unexpected or unpredictable from increasing the number of drain holes and/or sloping angle of a bottom wall to increase a draining/drying effect based on the current record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112058778 A to Yu et al. (“Yu”; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a cleaning basket used for at least one of cleaning and drying of polycrystalline silicon in a state in which the polycrystalline silicon is accommodated in the cleaning basket (note the use of the basket and contents therein are intended use recitations and not afforded patentable weight), the cleaning basket comprising:
a bottom plate provided with a plurality of through holes formed therein (shown in Fig. 1 including reference numeral 12 for the holes);
oblique plates each of which has an inner surface that makes, with an upper surface of the bottom plate, an angle of not less than 10° and not more than 80°, the oblique plates each being connected to the bottom plate and inclining in an upward and outward direction and each being provided with a plurality of through holes formed therein (see Fig. 1; note angled/sloping plates at outer edge of the bottom horizontal plate); and
side plates which are connected to the oblique plates and which extend in an upward direction (see Fig. 1; note vertically extending plates at outer edge of angled/sloping plates),
the bottom plate, the oblique plates, and the side plates forming an accommodation space accommodating the polycrystalline silicon (note the plates of Yu cumulatively form a basket fully capable of the intended use of accommodating polycrystalline silicon).
Yu discloses the claimed invention including plural holes in the bottom plate and oblique plate. You does not expressly disclose a bottom-plate aperture ratio of the bottom plate being not smaller than an oblique-plate aperture ratio of each of the oblique plates, the bottom-plate aperture ratio being a ratio of a total of aperture areas of the plurality of through holes provided in the bottom plate relative to an area of the upper surface of the bottom plate, the oblique-plate aperture ratio being a ratio of a total of aperture areas of the plurality of through holes provided in each of the oblique plates relative to an area of an inner surface of each of the oblique plates as recited in claim 1.
The position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of choice to modify the size of the holes/apertures to achieve the desired hole ratio for draining of the basket, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component (namely, the holes/apertures). A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B) regarding Obviousness and changes in Size or Shape.
Further regarding claim 1, while Examiner’s primary position is that the portions of the basket in Yu that reads on “oblique plates” has an angle of not less than 10 degrees and not more than 80 degrees based on Fig. 1, Yu does not expressly disclose the precise angle of the angled basket sections readable on “oblique plates”. However, such modification of the angle of the plates in Yu is considered prima facie obvious to achieve the desired drainage/drying effect (see above regarding Obviousness and Changes in Shape above). Similarly regarding claim 11, modifying the angle of the plates to a range of “not less than 30º and not more than 75º” (which includes merely angling the oblique plates at 30º) is prima facie obvious as increasing the angle would predictably result in an increase in draining/drying of contents therein (see above regarding MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) above and Obviousness and Changes in Shape).
Further regarding claim 1, Yu teaches the bottom plate and oblique plates with a plurality of holes but does not expressly disclose the side plates having holes. However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to duplicate the holes as desired to achieve increased drainage of the basket, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) regarding Obviousness and Duplication of Parts.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses through holes but does not expressly disclose “long holes extending in a long-axis direction.” However, such shape modification of the holes in Yu are considered prima facie obvious to achieve a desired drainage (see Obviousness and Changes in Shape above).
Regarding claims 5-8 and the aperture ratio, see above regarding Obviousness and Changes of Size regarding aperture ratio above.
Regarding claim 9, Yu further discloses wherein: the plurality of through holes provided in the bottom plate cause the upper surface of the bottom plate and a surface of the bottom plate opposite to the upper surface of the bottom plate to communicate with each other (see Fig. 1). Yu does not expressly disclose the distance between the upper and lower surfaces of the bottom plate (i.e. the thickness) such that a distance between the upper surface of the bottom plate and the surface of the bottom plate opposite to the upper surface of the bottom plate is not less than 1 mm and not more than 8 mm as recited in claim 9. However, such thickness modification is considered a prima facie obvious change in shape (see Obviousness and Changes in Shape above).
Regarding claim 10, Yu further discloses wherein: the bottom plate has a lower surface provided with recesses each forming a space that extends upwards from the lower surface of the bottom plate; and the recesses each have an upper surface provided with a plurality of through holes formed therein, the plurality of through holes causing the upper surface of the recess and the upper surface of the bottom plate to communicate with each other (see Fig. 1; manifestly, the holes in the plate extend from the upper to lower surface with recesses in order to function as designed for draining).
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 JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights