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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 8-11, in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 1-7 are withdrawn, claims 12-14 are cancelled, and claims 15-17 are newly added, in the reply filed on 05/29/2026. Claims 8-11 and 15-17 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tatsukawa et al (WO 2019194045 A1, US 20210054499 A1 used as corresponding translation, “Tatsukawa”).
Regarding claim 8, 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); and jetting (injecting) a 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 (0002, 0003, 0005, 0008-0018, 0027-0048).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 206654735 U, machine translation, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 9, Tatsukawa teaches 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 (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 per teachings of Zhang in order to polycrystalline silicon rod with improved efficiency and reduced costs (Zhang abstract, 0007-0011, 0031, 0062-0064).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kazuyuki Ito (US 20190248657 A1, “Ito”).
Regarding claim 10, Tatsukawa 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 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 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hanns Wochner (US 20160273099 A1, “Wochner”).
Regarding claim 11, Tatsukawa 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 per teachings of Wochner in order to reduce surface contamination of the polycrystalline silicon (Wochner abstract and 0011-0015).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sheng et al (CN 201504016 U, machine translation, “Sheng”).
Regarding claim 15, Tatsukawa teaches that 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); and 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).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa/Ito as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ravi et al (US 20100061911 A1, “Ravi”).
Regarding claim 16, Tatsukawa/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/Ito per teachings of Ravi in order to provide high purity silicon raw material for producing pure polycrystalline silicon (Ravi 0007, 0014, 0092, 0103).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukawa/Sheng as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Oda et al (US 20110274928 A1, “Oda”).
Regarding claim 17, Tatsukawa/Sheng 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 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).
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