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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 7-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 21-34 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1, 21 and 29 are independent claims. Claims 21-34 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 are currently examined on the merits.
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 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 4 “…the divider includes a second graphite membrane having a porosity that does not permit passage of the vapor between the first crucible portion and the second crucible portion …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Amended parent claim 1 recites “inner wall extending along an entire length of the outer wall;” it is not clear how the inner wall can still extend along the entire length of the outer wall when the divider includes a second graphite membrane having a porosity that does not permit passage of the vapor between the first crucible portion and the second crucible portion as recited in the instant claim 4. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 4 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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 1 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshihiko et al (JP 2000044395 A, machine translation, “Toshihiko”) in view of Gupta et al (US 20120103249 A1, “Gupta”).
Regarding claim 1, Toshikiko teaches a crucible for manufacturing a silicon carbide crystal (same semiconductor crystal as recited in the instant specification for example [0002] of PGPUB US 20240150926 A1), comprising a hollow wall that includes a side wall of crucible 11 (an outer wall) and a partition made of porous graphite (an inner wall) (fig 4, 0022, 0023), the inner wall (porous graphite partition) being formed using a porous graphite and defining a compartment between the inner wall and the outer wall (fig 4, 0022, 0023), the porous graphite partition (inner wall) having a porosity sufficient to enable diffusion of vapor sublimated from a circular raw material 14 (source powder) disposed within the compartment when the source powder is sublimated by a heating element 13 (0022-0026); a top/bottom (first seed) crystal site disposed to receive a top/bottom (first seed) crystal 4; and a bottom/top (second seed) crystal site at an opposed end of the crucible from the top/bottom (first seed) crystal site and disposed to receive a bottom/top (second seed) crystal 4 (fig 4, 0023), wherein the hollow wall (including the outer wall and the inner wall) extends along a direction between the top/bottom (first seed) crystal and the bottom/top (second seed) crystal (fig 4. 0023).
Toshikiko teaches the inner wall (graphite partition), the outer wall (side wall of the crucible), and the circular raw material 14 (source powder) disposed within the compartment defined by the inner wall (graphite partition) and the outer wall (side wall of the crucible) as addressed above, and further teaches that the circular raw material 14 (source powder) disposed along an entire length of the outer wall (entire side wall of the crucible) (fig 4, 0023); although Toshikiko does not explicitly teach the inner wall (graphite partition) extending along the entire length of the outer wall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the inner wall (graphite partition) would have extended along the entire length of the outer wall in order to holding the entire raw material because the circular raw material (source powder) disposed along the entire length of the outer wall (entire side wall of the crucible) as shown in fig 4, and the raw material is placed outside the graphite partition (0023). Furthermore, it is a conventionally known practice in the prior art that a cylindrical gas-permeable member/divider 25 (inner wall) made of porous graphite extends along an entire length of an outer wall of a crucible 20 as taught by Gupta (fig 2, 0019). 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 Toshikiko per teachings of Gupta in order to provide a crystal growth system with divided two compartments including a source compartment and a growth compartment (Gupta 0019). The growth system as exemplified by Fig 2 of Gupta teaches the gas-permeable graphite inner wall (divider) as just addressed, but does not explicitly teach the graphite inner wall/divider being form of membrane. However, Gupta also teaches another crystal growth system, wherein the gas-permeable graphite member is in form of graphite membrane for separating source material chamber/compartment and seed crystal chamber/compartment (Gupta 0043-0046). 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 the inner wall of Toshikiko/Gupta as exemplified by fig 2 with a graphite membrane as suggested by Gupta in order to provide suitable dividing member/inner wall for growing crystal with improved quality (Gupta 0043-0046). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Toshikiko/Gupta teaches that the crucible is generally cylindrical (Toshihiko figs 2 and 4, 0009 and 0022).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshikiko/Gupta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Straubinger et al (US 20130305983 A1, “Straubinger”).
Regarding claim 2, Toshikiko/Gupta teaches the second seed crystal site as addressed above, and further teaches that the crucible has a vertical orientation and the second seed crystal site is at a bottom of the crucible (Toshikiko fig 4), but does not explicitly teach a graphite filter within the crucible and positioned above the second seed crystal site. However, Straubinger teaches a crucible, wherein a membrane made of graphite (graphite filter) is positioned within the crucible and above a second seed crystal site (figs 1 and 2, 0025). 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 Toshikiko/Gupta per teachings of Straubinger in order to provide suitable structure/ conditions for growing silicon carbide with defect free (Straubinger 0002, 0003, 0036, 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Toshikiko/Gupta teaches the crucible as addressed above, and further teaches the crucible having different portions (Toshihiko fig 4), but does not explicitly teach a divider. However, Straubinger teaches a crucible, wherein a membrane (divider) is configured to separate the crucible into a first crucible portion and a second crucible portion (figs 1 and 2, 0025). 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 Toshikiko/Gupta per teachings of Straubinger in order to provide suitable structure/conditions for growing silicon carbide with defect free (Straubinger 0002, 0003, 0036, 0038).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshihiko/ Gupta /Straubinger as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kagan et al (WO 2022106639 A1, “Kagan”).
Regarding claim 4, Toshikiko/Gupta/Straubinger teaches the divider separating the crucible into the first crucible portion and the second crucible portion as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the divider includes a second graphite membrane having a porosity that does not permit passage of the vapor. However, Kagan teaches a furnace for growing crystals, wherein a member made of graphite is used for preventing leakage of vapor (page 31). 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 Toshikiko/Gupta/Straubinger per teachings of Kagan in order to provide an improved furnace apparatus for crystal production (Kagan page 4). 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshikiko/ Gupta /Straubinger as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shaoping Wang (US 20070256630 A1, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 5, Toshikiko/Gupta/Straubinger teaches the crucible being divided into the first crucible portion including the first seed crystal site and the second crucible portion including the second seed crystal site as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the crucible is detachable. However, it is a known practice that a top/first portion for a first seed and a bottom/second portion for a second seed crucible are jointed together through a mating joint as taught by Wang (figs 7-10, 0082 and 0084), e.g.., the crucible being detachable. 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 Toshikiko/Gupta/Straubinger per teachings of Wang in order to provide an apparatus which is capable of producing crystal with controlled qualities (Wang 0021, 0082 and 0084). Furthermore, the court has held that making the structure integral or separable would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Conclusion
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