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 Status
Claim 1 is newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 7/9/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under the non-final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 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(s) 1, 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakawa (US Pub.: 2005/0023735) and in view of Deckert (US Pat.: 4269654).
As to Claims 1 and 5, Miyakawa describes a method of producing a silicon nitride product (abstract) using process steps that includes obtaining metal silicon particles that have a size range of 10 to 75 micrometers (para. 10). This can be considered a powder. The silicon particles are shaped in molds, such as press molds to form a green body (para. 22). The green body is then heated in the presence of a nitrogen atmosphere (para. 23, 24). The process produces silicon nitride (title and abstract). As to the pores, the shaped body is mixed with pore formers (para. 14), which produce pores ranging from 45-80% (para. 27).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
The reference explains that the process heats. This can be considered a method of propagating nitriding combustion heat. Although Miykawa teaches heating the green body (para. 24), it does not specifically state that the whole of the housed powder is heated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat all the raw powder to produce the desired product since the nitriding heat is used to convert the raw material to the nitride form.
The reference does not teach that the distance between the molded bodies is within 10mm in the furnace.
Deckert describes a structure that includes a silicon nitride layer (col. 4, lines 36-38) that has a thickness of about 1000 Angstroms (col. 4, line 38). In one embodiment, Deckert teaches that the thickness of this layer is 500 Angstroms (col. 5, lines 12-14). A second layer of silicon nitride about 1000 Angstroms thick (example 4). These are effective for use in various silicon devices that use various different n-type and p-type doping layers (col. 1, lines 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the silicon particles into sheets, about 500 Angstroms thick and 1000 Angstroms thick, as taught by Deckert for use with the process of making silicon nitride particles, as taught by Miyakawa because this structure is is effective for use in a variety of different silicon devices using various n-type and p-type doping layers.
The distance between the layers are less than 10mm, as required by Claim 1.
As to Claim 2, Miykawa teaches that the green body comprises 60-95 mass % silicon metal particles (para. 7).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakawa and Deckert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan (CN 104296366).
Yan describes a method of making silicon nitride (title) using a furnace (para. 5). The process used treats multiple silicon nitride heating bodies inside the furnace chamber (para. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a furnace that houses multiple moulded bodies, as taught by Yan for use with Miyakawa and Deckert because it is known to effectively make silicon nitride by using a furnace that can house several of these in one reactor.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakawa and Deckert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie (CN 103526153).
Miyakawa does not describe use of a heat insulating layer having nitrogen permeability and made of a material inert to a nitriding reaction.
Xie describes a method for nitriding a material using a reactor (abstract) and a catalyst (see pg 4, (2)). The catalyst can be a porous material for surface nitriding (pg 4 (3)). The catalyst may have a composition, such as a rare earth material, a transition metal described by the reference as R and T (see pg 3, second half of page).
Xie explains that in one example, after nitriding to obtain a product, the catalyst lacks nitrogen (see pg 5, second to last para). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the catalyst does not react with nitrogen and can be considered inert to nitrogen.
Further, although Xie does not specifically state that the catalyst layer is an insulating layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this layer can be considered a heat insulating layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the porous metal layer, as taught by Xie for use with Miyakawa and Deckert because this layer can function nitriding catalytically.
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 SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 September 8, 2025