Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/053,031

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING SILICON CARBIDE POWDER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 07, 2022
Examiner
MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
Art Unit
1716
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
617 granted / 948 resolved
At TC average
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
981
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 948 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 paragraphs one – three filed November 7, 2025, with respect to Powell et al (US 2006/0236937), Zwieback (WO 2015/012954), and Pinkasov (US 4,556, 711) all singly or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest the system as recited in claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of Powell et al (US 2006/0236937), Zwieback (WO 2015/012954), and Pinkasov (US 4,556, 711) has been withdrawn as all fail to teach a system with a combination of an enclosure, a vapor production system, a transportation system, and a collection system as recited in claim 1. Upon further review of claim 1 it is noted that the original specification fails to define “the processing time sufficient to react the graphite powder with the silicon vapor to produce a silicon carbide powder”, thus the specification is objected. The claim is also indefinite and requires clarification (without introducing new matter) to define “the processing time sufficient to react the graphite powder with the silicon vapor to produce a silicon carbide powder”. Likewise, is noted that claim 8 is also indefinite and requires clarification (without introducing new matter) to define the structure or conditions that ensure that “the system is configured to convert the graphite powder to the silicon carbide power while within the enclosure.” It is further noted that the original specification fails to define the structure or conditions that ensure that “the system is configured to convert the graphite powder to the silicon carbide power while within the enclosure.” Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the original specification fails to define “the processing time sufficient to react the graphite powder with the silicon vapor to produce a silicon carbide powder” as recited in claim 1. The original specification also fails to define the structure or conditions that ensure that “the system is configured to convert the graphite powder to the silicon carbide power while within the enclosure” as recited in claim 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without defining “the processing time sufficient to react the graphite powder with the silicon vapor to produce a silicon carbide powder” as recited in claims 1-8 which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without defining, “the system is configured to convert the graphite powder to the silicon carbide power while within the enclosure” as recited in claim 8 See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Claims 1-8 are 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. The limitation as recited in claim 1, “the processing time sufficient to react the graphite powder with the silicon vapor to produce a silicon carbide powder” is undefined. Claim 8 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. The limitation as recited in claim 8, “the system is configured to convert the graphite powder to the silicon carbide power while within the enclosure” is undefined as it is unclear what process conditions are required to produce the claimed result. Claim Interpretation The terms “vapor production system” and “transportation system” are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) also referred to as means plus function as the terms have sufficient structure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm. 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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. /SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 07, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604695
EFEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598956
VAPOR DEPOSITION DEVICE AND VAPOR DEPOSITION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595567
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589465
PLATEN ROTATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588426
Susceptor for a Chemical Vapor Deposition Reactor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 948 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month