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 .
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 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether the metal of the metal chloride salt and metal chloride salt melt as claimed is limited to one alkali metal and/or one earth alkaline earth metal. The language is inconsistent with examples in the Specification and with dependent claims where the metal chloride salt consists of both NaCl and KCl or mixture of NaCl, KCl, and/or MgCl. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to where “metal chloride salt” throughout claim 1 is instead “metal chloride salt or mixtures of metal chloride salts” and their respective melts. Support for the “mixtures” construction is in the Specification as filed at Page 5, Ln 11-12.
Claims 2-19 depend directly or indirectly on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation 20-80°C, and the claim also recites preferably 40-60°C, more preferably 45-55°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 3, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation alkali metal, and the claim also recites preferably K and/or Na which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 5, the claim includes limitation to mixture of NaCl, KCl, and/or MgCl2 of equivalent stoichiometries. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear to what the mixture of NaCl, KCl, and/or MgCl2 have equivalent stoichiometry with respect to.
Regarding claim 6, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation NaCl:KCl ≥ 1:1, and the claim also recites preferably is >5:1, even more preferably >20:1, most preferably >50:1 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the NaCl" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation at least 700°C, and the claim also recites more preferably at least 750°C, most preferably at least 800°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation at least 0.01 m/s, and the claim also recites preferably 0.01 – 0.20 m/s, more preferably 0.10-20 m/s, most preferably, 0.14 – 0.18 m/s which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation at most 8 wt.-%, and the claim also recites preferably at most 5 wt.-%, more preferably at most 2 wt.-%, even more preferably at most 0.5 wt.-%, most preferably at most 0.3 wt.-% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation up to 2.0 mm, and the claim also recites preferably up to 0.25 mm, more preferably up to 0.16 mm, most preferably up to 0.10 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 14, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation at least 0.01 mm, and the claim also recites more preferably at least 0.03 mm, most preferably at least 0.0516 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 attempts to claim a use of silicon tetrachloride obtained by the process according to claim 1 for production of silicon nanopowders, the application of battery electrode material, the production of fumed silica, the production of magnesium disilicide, the production of silicon carbides, nitrides and carbonitries, and/or the production of epitaxial films and semiconductor products without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Regarding claim 18, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation alkali metal, and the claim also recites preferably K and/or Na which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 19, the claim includes limitation to mixture of NaCl, KCl, and/or MgCl2 of equivalent stoichiometries. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear to what the mixture of NaCl, KCl, and/or MgCl2 have equivalent stoichiometry with respect to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, namely SU136329 and Hornbachner et al (EP 2530052) both submitted in the IDS filed 5/15/2024 does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1. SU136329 teaches a method comprising:
Mixing a melt of KCl, NaCl, FeCl3 and FeCl2 with ferrosilicon (silicon source) containing 69.5% Si in a chlorination reactor (i.e. providing a metal chloride salt melt in a chlorination reactor and feeding a silicon source to the metal chloride salt melt);
Passing chlorine gas through at a speed of 300 cm3/min while heating to 700°C to produce silicon tetrachloride (i.e., feeding a chlorination agent, which is chlorine to the metal chloride salt melt).
SU136329 does not teach a method where the temperature of the metal chloride salt melt or mixture of metal chloride salt melt is kept below the equilibrium melting point of the metal chloride salt or mixture of metal chloride salt, while silicon tetrachloride is formed as required in claim 1. SU136329 teaches a process where ferrosilicon (silicon source) is chlorinated in an environment of molten complex iron and alkali metal chloride to produce silicon tetrachloride. Since the melting point of NaCl is 801°C and the melting point of KCl is 770°C and the melting point of FeCl3 is 307.6°C, in the example SU136329 teaches a process comprising chlorinating in a temperature above the equilibrium melting point of the mixture of NaCl/KCl/FeCl3/FeCl2.
Hornbachner teaches a method of producing silicon tetrachloride comprising chlorination of a silicon source comprising metallurgical silicon and ferrosilicon in an alkali chloride melt at a temperature in the range of their melting temperature to 900°C (see Inventive method and Claim 1). Hornbachner does not teach a method where the temperature of the metal chloride melt is kept below the equilibrium melting point of the metal chloride melt as required in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
