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 1-13, 16, 19, 33, 42 and 43 are cancelled. Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20-32 and 34-41 are pending. Claims 14, 15, 31, 36 and 41 are amended. Claim 14 is an independent claim. Claims 20 and 22 are withdrawn. Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23-32 and 34-41 are currently examined on the merits.
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 14, 15, 31, 32, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26-30 and 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 20100180814 A1, “Wu”) in view of Katsuno et al (US 20110308449 A1, “Katsuno”) and Sakaguchi et al (US 20060144324 A1, “Sakaguchi”).
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches an apparatus for sublimation growth of a SiC single crystal, comprising a growth crucible 4 having a wall and an exterior surface (fig 2, 0037), the growth crucible 4 having an interior containing a silicon carbide (SiC) source material 2 and a SiC single crystal seed 6 spaced apart from each other (fig 2, 0037), wherein the wall of the growth crucible 4 (made of porous graphite) is gas-permeable (fig 2, 0037); a growth chamber 13 (an envelope) having an interior surface for holding the growth crucible 4 in the growth chamber (envelope) in spaced relation from the interior surface of the envelope such that a space exists between the exterior surface of the growth crucible and the interior surface of the envelope/chamber (fig 2, 0007, 0016, 0018, 0024 and 0037); a heating means 16 (heater) configured to heat the growth crucible 4 (fig 2, 0037), and to form a temperature gradient between the SiC source material 2 and the SiC single crystal seed 6 when being held by the growth crucible 4 (fig 2, 0037 and 0038); an inlet conduit connected to the inner surface of the growth chamber 13 (envelope) and having a pathway therein connected to the space (fig 2, 0037), the inlet conduit being configured to introduce a dopant precursor comprising a dopant into the envelope from a source outside the envelope (fig 2, 0007, 0016, 0018, 0024 and 0037), the dopant permeable to the growth crucible and is within the space (fig 2), within the interior of the growth crucible (fig 2), and within the wall of the growth crucible (fig 2).
Wu teaches the dopant precursor comprising dopant as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that dopant is a pyrolysis product of the dopant precursor, and the gaseous dopant precursor is chosen from the group of volatile hydride compounds, volatile halogenated compounds, and volatile metallo-organic compounds. However, Katsuno teaches an apparatus for producing a crystal, wherein trimethylaluminum (volatile metallo-organic compound) is used as doping gases (0065). 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 Wu per teachings Katsuno in order to provide doping conditions for obtaining silicon carbide single crystal with high quality (Katsuno 0010-0012, 0028 and 0070). Wu/Katsuno teaches the volatile metallo-organic compound as dopant precursor, the growth crucible, the envelope and the heater, similar to the instantly claimed features as addressed above, therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Wu/Katsuno is capable of performing the function of “the dopant being a pyrolysis product of the dopant precursor”. It is well established that 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. Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Wu/Katsuno teaches the envelope as addressed above, and further teaches an outlet conduit (connected to a valve/evacuator controlling gas leaving the envelop/ growth chamber from the inner surface of the envelope) connected to the inner surface of the envelope and having a pathway therein connecting the space to an outside portion of the envelope/chamber (Wu fig 2; Katsuno fig 6, 0057), but does not explicitly teach a chamber having a volume, a chamber inlet and a chamber outlet. However, Sakaguchi teaches an apparatus for producing a crystal, wherein a chamber 51 having a volume and an enclosure 1 (envelope) within the volume (figs 1 and 2, 0038, 0042-0046); a gas feed line 53 (chamber inlet) separated from an inlet conduit 31 and connected to the volume adapted to provide a process gas to the volume (figs 1 and 2, 0040-0044); an apparatus 52 for gas discharging (chamber outlet) connected to the volume adapted to receive the process gas from the volume such that a flow of the process gas is established across the chamber (Sukaguchi figs 1 and 2, 0042). 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 Wu/Katsuno by proving the chamber with the volume, the chamber inlet and the chamber outlet, as suggested/motivated by Sakaguchi in order to provide an apparatus for producing a large-sized silicon carbide single crystal of high quality containing few crystal defects (Sakaguchi 0002 and 0012).
Wu/Katsuno/Sakaguchi teaches the growth of SiC single crystal while introducing dopant into the growth crucible as addressed above, even if it is not clearly envisaged growth of a doped SiC single crystal, it still would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the grown SiC crystal is a doped SiC single crystal since the crystal is grown within the growth crucible when a dopant is intruded into the growth crucible. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the chamber, the outlet conduit, the chamber outlet and the and the chamber outlet as addressed above, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the chamber outlet (figs 1 and 2, 0042) is separated from the outlet conduit (Wu fig 2; Katsuno fig 6, 0057) since they are located at different locations. It is also well established that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Also, the court has held that making the structure integral or separable would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claim 15, as addressed above, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the gaseous dopant precursor within the envelope, the heater and the chamber (a furnace that includes the heater) (Wu fig 2; Katsuno fig 6; Sukaguchi figs 1 and 2), similar structural elements as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of pyrolyzing the gaseous dopant precursor within the envelope into a dopant. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)).
Regarding claim 31, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that the pathway is connected to a gas mixture comprising the dopant precursor (Wu fig 2, 0007, 0016, 0018, 0024 and 0037; Katsuno fig 6, 0065).
Regarding claim 32, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that the doping gas mixture comprises a carrier gas (Wu fig 2, 0007, 0016, 0018, 0024 and 0037).
Regarding claim 17, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that the carrier gas comprises an inert gas (Wu 0007, 0016, 0018, 0024 and 0037).
Regarding claim 21, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the gaseous dopant precursor is trimethylaluminum (Katsuno 0065).
Regarding claim 23, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the growth crucible is formed of graphite (Wu fig 2, 0037), and the enclosure/outer crucible (the envelope) is formed from graphite (Sakaguchi figs 1 and 2, 0026). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 24, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the growth crucible gas permeable into the growth crucible (Wu fig 2, 0007, 0016, 0018, 0024 and 0037; Sukaguchi figs 1 and 2, 0043, 0044) as addressed above, and further teaches that the envelop (growth chamber/outer crucible) is gas-tight/gas maintaining chamber (Wu 0037; Sukaguchi figs 1 and 2, 0043, 0044), and the gas retaining crucible 1 made of graphite (Sukaguchi 0026); thus, “the envelope being formed from graphite treated to have reduced permeability as compared to the growth crucible” is within the teachings of Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi. It is also well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the envelope and the space between the envelope and exterior crucible surface as addressed above; apparently a thickness of the envelope and a certain size of the space between the envelope and the exterior surface crucible of the growth crucible are within the teachings of Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi. It is well-established that “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.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 28, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that a temperature of the growth crucible ranges between 2000 and 2350 ºC (Wu 0038).
Regarding claim 29, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that a pressure at the growth crucible is between 1 and 200 Torr (Wu 0016), overlapping the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. (MPEP 2144.05 I). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 30, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the inlet gas conduit as addressed above; apparently an inner diameter and an outer diameter are within the teachings of Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi. it is well-established that “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.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 34, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches apparatus and the doping gas mixture permeable to the growth crucible, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of flowing “the gas mixture having a flow rate of about 10 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm)”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 35, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that the gas mixture is flowed through the space (Wu fig 2). Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)).
Regarding claim 36, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that the dopant is gaseous and is within and permeates through the wall of the growth crucible (Wu fig 2; Sukaguchi 0044). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 37, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that the growth crucible comprises sublimated (gaseous) SiC and the gaseous dopant precursor mixed therein (Wu fig 2, 0037).
Regarding claim 38, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the growth crucible for producing SiC crystal on the see while introducing a dopant as addressed above, it is reasonably expected that the crucible comprises the doped SiC crystal formed on the SiC single crystal seed.
Regarding claim 39, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the crucible having the wall made of graphite (Wu 0037), same material as instantly recited in claim 23, it is reasonably expected that the wall of the growth crucible has an effective permeability coefficient of about 10-1 to about 10-4 cm/s. It is well established that 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. Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 40, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches that the process gas comprises argon (Wu 0016, 0018). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 41, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the process gas across the chamber as address above, and further teaches a flow rate of the process gas is controlled in order to provide suitable conditions for growing the crystal (Wu 0037; Katsuno 0026, 0057; 0065; Sukaguchi 0042), but does not explicitly teach the flow rate being between 100 and 500 sccm. It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)).
Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi as applied to claims 17 and 14 above, and further in view of Zwieback e al (US 20140234194 A1, “Zwieback””).
Regarding claim 18, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the inert gas as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach gaseous additives of hydrogen and/or halogen. However, Zwieback teaches an apparatus for producing a crystal, wherein hydrogen is introduced for crystal growth (0067 and 0069). 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 Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi per teachings Zwieback in order to provide suitable conditions for producing silicon carbide single crystal with high quality (Zwieback 0098). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 25, Wu/Katsuno/Sukaguchi teaches the growth crucible as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the growth crucible wall ranges from about 5 to about 25 mm. However, Zwieback teaches an apparatus for producing a crystal, wherein a thickness of a growth crucible is between 4 and 20 mm (0081). 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 Wu/Katsuno/ Sukaguchi per teachings Zwieback in order to provide suitable conditions for producing silicon carbide single crystal with high quality (Zwieback 0081 and 0098). Furthermore, it is well-established that “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.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Wu does not teach or “the inlet conduit being configured to introduce a dopant precursor into the envelope” and “a dopant, wherein the dopant is a pyrolysis product of the dopant precursor, and the dopant is permeable to the growth crucible, and is within the space, within the interior of the growth crucible, and within the wall of the growth crucible … the only mention of doping gas is seen in paragraph [0007] of Wu… the only mention of doping gas in Katsuno is full doping gases in paragraphs [0006] and [0065]” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As applicant already noted, [0007] of Wu mentioned a doping gas; other than that, Wu also describes that the dopant is nitrogen, and an inlet conduit (located at top portion for example as shown in fig 2) is configured to enter introduce a gas mixture (dopant precursor) comprising the nitrogen (dopant) into the envelope, and the dopant is permeable to the growth crucible, and is within the space, within the interior of the growth crucible, and within the wall of the growth crucible (fig 2, 0007, 0016, 0018, 0024 and 0037). It is noted that Wu does not explicitly teach that dopant is a pyrolysis product of the dopant precursor, and the gaseous dopant precursor is chosen from the group of volatile hydride compounds, volatile halogenated compounds, and volatile metallo-organic compounds. Thus, Katsuno teaches an apparatus for producing a crystal, wherein trimethylaluminum (volatile metallo-organic compound) is used as doping gases (0065), same dopant precursor as instantly recited in claim 21. 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 Wu per teachings Katsuno in order to provide doping conditions for obtaining silicon carbide single crystal with high quality (Katsuno 0010-0012, 0028 and 0070). Wu/Katsuno teaches the volatile metallo-organic compound as dopant precursor, the growth crucible, the envelope and the heater, similar to the instantly claimed features as addressed above, therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Wu/Katsuno is capable of performing the function of “the dopant being a pyrolysis product of the dopant precursor”. It is well established that 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. Also, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it should be noted that the instant claims are apparatus claims, and the courts have ruled that expressions relating an apparatus to the contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claims, consult Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App, 1969). ln re Young (25 U.S.P.Q. 69, 71 (CCPA 1935)) and ln re Rishoi (94 U.S.P.Q. 71,73 (CCPA 1952)). Also, Katusuno discloses that crystal growth apparatus having the introduced the doping precursor is operated at a temperature range of 2000 ºC to 2400 ºC; apparently the trimethylaluminum is decomposed via pyrolysis at the operation temperature of the apparatus; “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2133. Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
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