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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 12/5/2025, the previous rejections under 112 are withdrawn however the amendments necessitated a new rejection under 112(b), see below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Amendments to the claims necessitated different rejections in view of new references. Applicant’s previous arguments are all directed to references which are not cited in the current rejection. Additionally, since the elected claims remain rejected, the withdrawn claims are not yet eligible for a rejoinder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites “a second region in which the thickness is unreduced by a counterbore.” Claim 24 depends from claim 18 which previously recites “a second region in which the thickness is reduced.” It is not clear if this is the same second region as in claim 18 and further not clear if the thickness in this region should be reduced or not. This is interpreted as being a separate region than the second region recited in claim 18.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 14-16, 18, 20-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masumura (US 2012/0309175.)
Regarding claim 1, Masumura meets the claimed, A tooling assembly suitable for use in infiltrating a fibrous preform, the tooling assembly comprising: a perforated fixture having a thickness defined between a first side and an opposite second side of a monolithic body, (Masumura [0081] describes a susceptor 30 and Figure 3 shows the susceptor is all in one piece and has two holes at the bottom) the fixture comprising: a plurality of holes extending through the thickness; (Masumura Figure 3 shows the susceptor 30 has holes at the bottom, [0060] refers to these as hole portions 20a) and a first counterbore extending partially through the thickness to define a first region in which the thickness is reduced; (Masumura Figure 3 shows the pocket portion 31 is a counterbore shape) wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes extends through the first region (Masumura Figure 3 shows the holes extending through the remaining thickness at the pocket portion 31.)
Regarding claim 2, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 1, wherein the perforated fixture is formed from at least one of graphite, a refractory metal alloy, a non-graphitic carbon material, and a ceramic material (Masumura [0055] describes the susceptor is made from graphite.)
Regarding claim 6, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 1 and further comprising: a second counterbore extending partially through the thickness to define a second region in which the thickness is reduced (Masumura Figure 3 shows the top of the holes form a second counterbore which forms a second region of further reduced thickness.)
Regarding claim 14, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 1, wherein the perforated fixture is configured to interface with a fibrous preform (Masumura [0081] and Figure 3 show the susceptor 30 holding a substrate W.)
Regarding claim 15, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 14, wherein the first counterbore and the at least one hole are configured to align with the fibrous preform
Regarding claim 16, Masumura does not explicitly meet the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 14, wherein the fibrous preform is formed from silicon carbide, however the fibrous preform is the material being worked upon by the apparatus. As per MPEP §2115, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.”
Regarding claim 18, Masumura meets the claimed, A tooling assembly suitable for use in infiltrating a fibrous preform, the tooling assembly comprising: a perforated fixture having a thickness defined between a first side and an opposite second side of a monolithic body, (Masumura [0081] describes a susceptor 30 and Figure 3 shows the susceptor is all in one piece and has two holes at the bottom) the fixture comprising: a plurality of holes extending through the thickness; (Masumura Figure 3 shows the susceptor 30 has holes at the bottom, [0060] refers to these as hole portions 20a) a first counterbore extending partially through the thickness to define a first region in which the thickness is reduced; (Masumura Figure 3 shows the pocket portion 31 is a counterbore shape) and a second counterbore extending partially through the thickness to define a second region in which the thickness is reduced; (Masumura Figure 3 shows the top of the holes form a second counterbore which forms a second region of further reduced thickness) wherein at least a first hole of the plurality of holes extends through the first region and at least a second hole of the plurality of holes extends through the second region (Masumura Figure 3 shows that the holes extend through both regions.)
Regarding claim 20, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 18, wherein the perforated fixture is formed from at least one of graphite, a metallic material, a non-graphitic carbon material, and a ceramic material (Masumura [0055] describes the susceptor is made from graphite.)
Regarding claim 21, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 6, wherein the thickness in the second region is less than the thickness in the first region (Masumura Figure 3 shows the thickness between the second counterbore and the bottom is less than between the pocket and the bottom of the susceptor.)
Regarding claim 23, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 18, wherein the thickness in the second region is less than the thickness in the first region (Masumura Figure 3 shows the thickness between the second counterbore and the bottom is less than between the pocket and the bottom of the susceptor.)
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 (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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masumura (US 2012/0309175.)
Regarding claim 7, Masumura Figure 3 does not specify the number of holes for the lift pins and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 1, wherein a subset of the plurality of holes extends through the first region, the subset comprising at least three holes, however, Masumura [0058] describes there should be three hole portions for three lift pins so they can be supported at equal angular intervals.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the number of holes in the susceptor described in Figure 3 of Masumura to have three holes spaced apart in radially equal directions for balance purposes, see Masumura [0061] describing a similar configuration with other support members.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masumura as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (JPH02165621A, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 8, Masumura does not meet the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 7, wherein the first counterbore has a rectangular geometry
Analogous in the field of epitaxial growth, Kobayashi also describes an epitaxial susceptor and meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 7, wherein the first counterbore has a rectangular geometry (Kobayashi page 5 lines 30-35 describe an epitaxial susceptor which has a wafer holder 4 with a rectangular recess for accommodating a rectangular wafer.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the shape of the pocket of the susceptor in Masumura to be a rectangular shape as described in Kobayashi in order to match the rectangular shape of wafers used in semiconductor laser elements, see Kobayashi page 3 lines 30-32.
Claims 10, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumura as applied to claims 1 or 18 or modified Masumura as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yu (CN114686976A, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 10, Masumura meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 7, wherein the thickness in the first region is non-uniform, (Masumura [0081] and Figure 3 show a tapered portion 33.)
Masumura does not describe and wherein a first hole of the subset has a first length, and wherein a second hole of the subset has a second length different from the first length.
Analogous in the field of epitaxial susceptors, Yu does not explicitly meet the claimed, and wherein a first hole of the subset has a first length, and wherein a second hole of the subset has a second length different from the first length, however Yu [0040] and Figure 4 describe the sidewall regions outside the groove 102 have hole structures 103 penetrating the base body. When combined with the tapered area described in Masumura, these holes are not all of uniform length.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the tapered area and the pocket of Masumura which do not have a uniform depth with the holes of Yu which extend through the thickness in order to provide holes which can provide for different airflow and thereby adjust the thickness of the epitaxial layer, see Yu [0040]-[0041].
Regarding claim 22, Masumura does not show any holes where the thickness has not been reduced and does not meet the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 1, wherein a subset of the plurality of holes extends through a second region in which the thickness is unreduced by a counterbore.
Analogous in the field of epitaxial susceptors, Yu meets the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 1, wherein a subset of the plurality of holes extends through a second region in which the thickness is unreduced by a counterbore (Yu [0040] and Figure 4 describe the sidewall regions outside the groove 102 have hole structures 103 penetrating the base body where the thickness is not reduced.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the susceptor of Masumura with the holes of Yu which extend through the thickness on the sidewall order to provide holes which can provide for different airflow and thereby adjust the thickness of the epitaxial layer, see Yu [0040]-[0041].
Regarding claim 24, Masumura does not show any holes where the thickness has not been reduced and does not meet the claimed, The tooling assembly of claim 18, wherein a subset of the plurality of holes extends through a second region in which the thickness is unreduced by a counterbore (Yu [0040] and Figure 4 describe the sidewall regions outside the groove 102 have hole structures 103 penetrating the base body where the thickness is not reduced.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the susceptor of Masumura with the holes of Yu which extend through the thickness on the sidewall order to provide holes which can provide for different airflow and thereby adjust the thickness of the epitaxial layer, see Yu [0040]-[0041].
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744