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
Claims 4, 5, 15, 25, 29, 30, 35, and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 4, 5, 15, 25, 29, 30, 35 and 38 are related to the unelected species of boron while claim 35 would be directed towards a negative potential net carrier concentration. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/23/2025.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12, 13-14, 22, 26-28, 31-33 and 36-37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dukes (US10322936B2).
In regards to claim 1, Dukes teaches a doped polysilocarb precursor material that comprises a dopant and silicon, carbon, and oxygen (Col. 7 Lines 9-26)
Dukes also defines a potential net carrier concentration, as Dukes teaches both p-type and n-type features can be present in the end products (Col. 8 Line 66 – Col. 9 Line 8).
and teaches that the dopant can be 10% or less of the total weight of the doped polysilocarb precursor material (Col. 20 Line 67- Col. 21 Line 5).
Either a transition metal (Col. 9 Line 66 – Col. 10 Line 1) or the impurity phosphorous can be considered the dopant within the composition. When considering the dopant to be the transition metal, there would be a sigma bond between a carbon of the alkyl group and the transition metal (Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 1), which is a covalent bond between the dopant and carbon. If the dopant is considered to be the P attached to the Si in the precursor material, P and Si would form a covalent bond as evidenced by Chelikowsky (Quantum Mechanics of condensed phases, 2001), see Pages 103-104 of attached. Therefore, the presence of P in the material would be covalently bonded to silicon.
In regards to claim 2, Dukes teaches that the end product can be p-type or n-type, which would fulfill the claim language of having a positive potential net carrier, as n-type end products would have more donor atoms than acceptor atoms (Col. 8 Line 66 – Col. 9 Line 8).
In regards to claim 3, Dukes teaches that the end product can be p-type or n-type, which would fulfill the claim language of having more donor atoms than acceptor atoms, as n-type end products would have more donor atoms than acceptor atoms (Col. 8 Line 66 – Col. 9 Line 8).
In regards to claim 6, 7, and 8, Dukes teaches that the donor atoms can be selected from one or more of the elements in Group 15 of the periodic table, such as P, N, and As as they are present in the material (Col. 4 Line 51 - Col. 5 Line 5; Col. 5 Lines 53-58).
In regards to claim 10, Dukes teaches that the precursor material is a cured solid material (Col. 7 Lines 28-30).
In regards to claim 12, Dukes teaches that the end product can be p-type or n-type, which would fulfill the claim language of having a positive potential net carrier, as n-type end products would have more donor atoms than acceptor atoms (Col. 8 Line 66 – Col. 9 Line 8)
In regards to claims 13, 14, 36, and 37, Dukes teaches that the P amount in the material is less than 1x1014/cm3 (Col. 5 Lines 37-42).
In regards to claim 22, Dukes does not explicitly teach that the precursor material contains no alloys. However, it is not a material that is taught by Dukes as an embodiment, and therefore would be alloy-free.
In regards to claim 26, Dukes teaches a doped shaped charge material in making a p-type SiC crystal (Col. 11 Lines 16-20; Col. 8-9)
Comprising a porous matrix comprising Si, C, and a number of impurity atoms (Col. 4-5)
Where the impurity atoms are less than 5% by weight of the shaped material, as the purity of the SiC can 99.9% or greater (Col. 16 Lines 8-26).
Dukes also teaches that the shaped material defines a potential net carrier concentration as Dukes teaches both p-type and n-type features can be present in the end products (Col. 8 Line 66 – Col. 9 Line 8).
In regards to claim 27, Dukes teaches that the end product can be p-type or n-type, which would fulfill the claim language of having a positive potential net carrier, as n-type end products would have more donor atoms than acceptor atoms (Col. 8 Line 66 – Col. 9 Line 8).
In regards to claim 28, Dukes teaches that the end product can be p-type or n-type, which would fulfill the claim language of having a positive potential net carrier, as n-type end products would have more donor atoms than acceptor atoms (Col. 8 Line 66 – Col. 9 Line 8).
In regards to claims 31-33, Dukes teaches that donor atoms can comprise phosphorous (Col. 4-5; Col. 5 Lines 53-58).
Claim(s) 1, 12, 22, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vijay (“Synthesis, Ceramic Conversion and Microstructure Analysis of Zirconium Modified Polycarbosilane”, Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymers and Materials, Volume 26, Pages 302-311, 2015).
In regards to claim 1, Vijay teaches a polysilocarb doped material with silicon, carbon, and oxygen (3.1, “Thus the main chain of PZrCS samples is best described as alternating carbon and silicon atoms with small amounts of Si–Zr–C and Si–O–Zr in the main chain with Si–H groups in the side chain”)
That comprises a dopant of zirconium and that the dopant amount is 10% or less by weight of the doped polysilocarb precursor material (2.1, “The weight ratios of Zr to PCS were 1, 3 and 5 %, and the obtained samples were abbreviated as PZrCS-1, PZrCS-3 and PZrCS-5 correspondingly”).
Zirconium would be considered an acceptor atom per [0003] of the instant application, which states that “acceptor atoms are identified by the column in the periodic table to the left of the column containing Si and C”.
Thus, Vijay also defines a potential net carrier concentration as there are no donor atoms and Zr acts as an acceptor atom and that the dopant is covalently bonded to Si and O as seen below in Scheme 1 and discussed by Dukes (Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
1298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Scheme 1
In regards to claim 12, Vijay teaches that there are more acceptor atoms than donor atoms, as Zr is treated as an acceptor atom and per [0003] of the instant application, which states that “acceptor atoms are identified by the column in the periodic table to the left of the column containing Si and C”.
In regards to claim 22, Vijay does not explicitly teach that the precursor material contains no alloys. However, it is not a material that is taught by Vijay as an embodiment, and therefore would be alloy-free.
In regards to claim 26, Vijay teaches a polysilocarb doped material with silicon, carbon, and oxygen (3.1, “Thus the main chain of PZrCS samples is best described as alternating carbon and silicon atoms with small amounts of Si–Zr–C and Si–O–Zr in the main chain with Si–H groups in the side chain”)
And that the dopant amount is 5% or less by weight of the doped polysilocarb precursor material (2.1, “The weight ratios of Zr to PCS were 1, 3 and 5 %, and the obtained samples were abbreviated as PZrCS-1, PZrCS-3 and PZrCS-5 correspondingly”).
Zirconium would be considered an acceptor atom per [0003] of the instant application, which states that “acceptor atoms are identified by the column in the periodic table to the left of the column containing Si and C”.
Thus, Vijay also defines a potential net carrier concentration as there are no donor atoms present and Zr acts as an acceptor atom and that the dopant is covalently bonded to Si and O as seen above in Scheme 1 and discussed by Dukes (Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 1).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dukes (US10322936B2) and Vijay (“Synthesis, Ceramic Conversion and Microstructure Analysis of Zirconium Modified Polycarbosilane”, Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymers and Materials, Volume 26, Pages 302-311, 2015) are considered to be the closest prior art to the present invention.
In regards to claim 9, Dukes teaches a doped polysilocarb precursor material where the material contains phosphorous (Col. 4-5; Col. 5 Lines 53-58).
Dukes and Vijay do not teach or suggest that the polysilocarb precursor further comprises the other groups connected to phosphorous such as an alkyl group, a phenyl group, etc. as claimed in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 13, 14, 36, and 37 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to amendment. The rejection of claims 13, 14, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, 22, 26-28, 31-33, and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 Dukes (US10322936B2) and Vijay (“Synthesis, Ceramic Conversion and Microstructure Analysis of Zirconium Modified Polycarbosilane”, Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymers and Materials, Volume 26, Pages 302-311, 2015) as discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights