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 8-9 and 12-14 are cancelled. Claims 18-22 are newly added. Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 15-22 are pending. Claims 10, 11, 15 are amended. Claims 1, 5, 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn. Claims 10, 11 and 15-22 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “…supplying the silicon deposition raw material gas… a silicon deposition raw material gas...” which should read “…supplying [[the]] a silicon deposition raw material gas… [[a]] the silicon deposition raw material gas...”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites "... an arithmetic average surface roughness Ra of the rough surface part is 2.5 µm or more …", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. For example, “2.5 µm or more” is broader than the arithmetic average surface roughness Ra of the rough surface part as originally filled.
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 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa et al (WO 2019194045 A1, US 20210054499 A1 used as corresponding translation, “Tatsukawa”), and further in view of Sheng et al (CN 202504016 U, machine translation, “Sheng”) and Zhang et al (CN 206654735 U, machine translation, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 15, Tatsukawa teaches a method for producing a polycrystalline silicon rod comprising providing (placing) a silicon core wire 4 inside a bell jar 2, wherein the bell jar 2 and a base plate 3 are sealed inside of a reactor 1 (reaction furnace) (0003, 0013, 0016, 0027); wherein the base plate comprises a plurality of electrode pairs holding the silicon core wire and supplying electric power to the silicon core wire (0003, 0013, 0016, 0027, claims 1, 5 and 8); and a plurality of gas supply nozzles, each nozzle having an injection tip opening facing upwards, for supplying a silicon deposition raw material gas to an internal space of the bell jar (0003, 0013-0017, 0027, 0045, claims 1, 5 and 8); wherein at least part of a contacting surface of the gas supply nozzles contacting the internal space of the bell jar comprises quartz (0044), but does not explicitly teach the quartz having a rough surface part having a ten-point average roughness Rz of 1.0 to 5.0 µm. However, Sheng teaches a method, where a roughness of a feed nozzle is 1.6 or less (0029). 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 Tatsukawa per teachings of Sheng in order to provide suitable nozzle for improving the quality of polysilicon (Sheng abstract, 0002, 0007, 0009, 0010, 0017, 0029). Regarding the limitation of surface of the gas supply nozzles, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Tatsukawa/Sheng further teaches jetting (injecting) the silicon deposition raw material gas onto the silicon core wire 4 while energizing (supplying electric power to) the silicon core deposit polycrystalline silicon on the silicon core wire 4 (Tatsukawa 0002, 0003, 0005, 0008-0018, 0027-0048), a gas supply nozzle 6 in the reaction furnace for producing the polycrystalline silicon rod 7, and the gas supply nozzle 6 contacting an internal space of the bell jar 2 (Tatsukawa fig 6, 0003, 0027, 0028), but does not explicitly teach removing the gas supply nozzle in the reaction furnace for producing the polycrystalline silicon rod after the polycrystalline silicon is deposited, and washing a surface of the removed gas supply nozzle contacting an internal space of the bell jar. However, Zhang teaches a method, wherein a gas supply nozzle is disassembled (removed) and cleaned (washed) a surface of the removed (0062, 0063). 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 Tatsukawa/ Sheng per teachings of Zhang in order to polycrystalline silicon rod with improved efficiency and reduced costs (Zhang abstract, 0007-0011, 0031, 0062-0064).
Regarding claim 18, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches that a minimum of an arithmetic average surface roughness Ra of the rough surface part is 1.6 (i.e., 1.6 or more) (Sheng 0029), overlapping the instantly claimed 2.5 µm or more; 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 19, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches the gas supply nozzle and the base plate as addressed above, and further teaches each gas supply nozzle having a gas supplying part 13 that has a circular cylindrical shape along its length and a joint part 14 connecting the gas supply nozzle to the base plate (Tatsukawa figs 1-6, 0032, 0035, 0037, 0040, 0042, 0066). Furthermore, regarding the limitations of the gas supply nozzle, the gas supplying part, and the joint part, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). Furthermore, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B).
Regarding claim 21, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches that the rough surface part of each gas supply nozzle exposed to an environment of the silicon deposition (Tatsukawa fig 6); it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that silicon would have adhered on the surface part of each gas supply nozzle because the surface part of each gas supply nozzle is exposed to the environment of the silicon deposition.
Regarding claim 22, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches that the entire outer surface of each gas supply nozzle is exposed to an internal surface of the bell jar (Tatsukawa fig 6).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kazuyuki Ito (US 20190248657 A1, “Ito”).
Regarding claim 10, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches injecting the silicon deposition raw material gas onto the silicon core wire as addressed above but does not explicitly teach removing impurities mixed in the silicon deposition raw material gas, and injecting the silicon deposition raw material gas from which the impurities are removed onto the silicon core wire. However, Ito teaches a method, wherein a silicon raw material gas is purified (removes impurities), and the purified silicon deposition raw material is supplied onto the silicon core wire (0026-0034). 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 Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang per teachings of Ito in order to provide controlled conditions for producing uniform polycrystalline silicon rod (Ito 0016 and 0024-0026).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hanns Wochner (US 20160273099 A1, “Wochner”).
Regarding claim 11, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches the polycrystalline silicon rod being produced as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the polycrystalline silicon rod is produced under an atmosphere satisfying a cleanliness of Class 1 to 3 defined by ISO 14644-1. However, Wochner teaches a method, wherein polycrystalline silicon rods are produced preferably in a cleanroom of class 1 to 100 (ISO 3 to ISO 5) (abstract, 0017, 0018, 0027, 0046-0051). 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 Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang per teachings of Wochner in order to reduce surface contamination of the polycrystalline silicon (Wochner abstract and 0011-0015).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang/Ito as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ravi et al (US 20100061911 A1, “Ravi”).
Regarding claim 16, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang/Ito teaches removing the impurities as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the removing being by a filter. However, Ravi teaches a method, wherein impurities/metallic compound is separated/removed by a filter bed (claims 1 and 16). 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 Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang/Ito per teachings of Ravi in order to provide high purity silicon raw material for producing pure polycrystalline silicon (Ravi 0007, 0014, 0092, 0103).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Oda et al (US 20110274928 A1, “Oda”).
Regarding claim 17, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches the gas supply nozzle as addressed above but does not explicitly teach that each gas supply nozzle has a cylindrical shape. However, Oda teaches a method, wherein a nozzle has a cylindrical shape (0063). 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 Tatsukawa/ Sheng/Zhang per teachings of Oda in order to provide suitable conditions for producing polycrystalline silicon rod without contamination (0009-0011 and 0059-0064). Regarding the limitation of each gas supply nozzle has a cylindrical shape, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). Furthermore, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B).
Regarding claim 20, Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang teaches the gas supply nozzle as addressed above, and further teaches that each gas supply nozzle has a gas introducing pathway that is a straight (Tatsukawa figs 1-6), but does not explicitly teach that the cross section does not change. However, Oda teaches a method, wherein a nozzle has a cylindrical shape (0063), e.g., cross section does not change. 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 Tatsukawa/Sheng/Zhang per teachings of Oda in order to provide suitable conditions for producing polycrystalline silicon rod without contamination (0009-0011 and 0059-0064). Regarding the limitation of each gas supply nozzle having cross section does not change, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). Furthermore, it is well established that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Sheng does not teach “contacting surface of the gas supply nozzles that contact the internal space of the bell jar, much less adhering any materials thereon” have been considered, but not found persuasive. It should be noted that primary reference to Tatsukawa (figs 1-6) already teaches contacting surface of the gas supply nozzles that contact the internal space of the bell jar, and supply nozzle exposed to an environment of the silicon deposition (Tatsukawa fig 6), and the surface part of each gas supply nozzle is exposed to the environment of the silicon deposition (Tatsukawa fig 6); it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that silicon would have adhered on the surface part of each gas supply nozzle because the surface part of each gas supply nozzle is exposed to the environment of the silicon deposition. It is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Applicant’s arguments Tatsukawa et al. and Sheng et al. do not teach or suggest “1) removing the gas supply nozzle in the reaction furnace for producing the polycrystalline silicon rod after the polycrystalline silicon is deposited; and 2) washing a surface of the removed gas supply nozzle contacting the internal space of the bell jar to remove adherend materials thereon” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, Tatsukawa/Sheng already teaches 1) the gas supply nozzle in the reaction furnace for producing the polycrystalline silicon rod and the polycrystalline silicon is deposited; 2) gas supply nozzle contacting the internal space of the bell jar; and silicon adherend materials on the surface of the gas supply nozzle. Tatsukawa/ Sheng does not explicitly performance of removing and washing the gas supply nozzle. Thus, Zhang teaches a method, wherein a gas supply nozzle is disassembled (removed) and cleaned (washed) a surface of the removed (0062, 0063). 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 Tatsukawa/Sheng per teachings of Zhang in order to polycrystalline silicon rod with improved efficiency and reduced costs (Zhang abstract, 0007-0011, 0031, 0062-0064). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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
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
