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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in the European Patent Office on January 24, 2022. It is noted that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. In a document dated June 24, 2023, the U.S. Patent Office indicated that an attempt to retrieve an electronic copy of the foreign priority document was made, but was unsuccessful. Consequently, a certified copy of the foreign priority application is not part of the current record.
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:
Claims 12 and 16 recite that “the transport agent is an inorganic salt with formula Me1Me2L1L2, where Me1 and Me2 are metals and L1 and L2 are ligands.” However, the specification as originally filed does not provide proper antecedent basis for the recited limitations. It appears as if ¶[0029] of the published application discloses that the transport agent has the formula MeyLx rather than Me1Me2L1L2. The latter is actually disclosed in ¶[0027] as being the composition of the primary substance.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of an “inert material” in claim 4 and in step (b) of claim 15 is interpreted in light of ¶[0028] of the published application as a material characterized by an ability not to react with the substance (1) and/or with the transport agent or precursor at the temperature at which the shaped crystalline layer (5) is obtained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The preceding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-16 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the growth of shaped crystalline layers from a primary substance comprised of a metal or a metal compound, does not reasonably provide enablement for the production of shaped crystalline layers from any and all primary substances. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? The standard to be applied is set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also MPEP 2164. The factors to be considered to determine whether any necessary experimentation is undue, also known as The Wand factors, include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The invention as disclosed and claimed in the instant application relates to a method of forming a shaped crystalline layer of a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness by providing a primary substance within an ampoule and then generating a temperature gradient along the ampoule until the shaped crystalline layer is deposited on a first internal ampoule surface. Thus, the present invention relates generally to the thermal evaporation or sublimation of a heated source material which is then deposited onto an opposing surface in order to produce a thin film or crystalline layer having the desired crystal structure. This is a well-known process in the art which normally involves heating the source material to a higher temperature than the seed or substrate such that the source material evaporates or sublimes and then condenses onto the surface of the seed or substrate which is held at a comparatively cooler temperature. This is typically performed in order to, for example, form a conformal thin film and/or to perform epitaxial growth in which the deposited layer takes on the crystal structure of the underlying seed crystal. Independent claims 1, 15, and 17 generally recite that the method involves providing a primary substance within an ampoule and generating a heat gradient along the ampoule of at least 5 °C with the highest temperature being at a first internal ampoule surface where a shaped crystalline layer is formed. Thus, the scope of the invention as claimed involves depositing a shaped crystalline layer from a “primary substance” which can be essentially any material and that this is achieved by heating the deposition surface rather than the source material to the highest temperature. In at least ¶[0027] of the published application the primary substance (1) is disclosed as being a metal or a metal compound and, in particular, is a precious metal or a metal compound having the general formula of Me1Me2L1L2 where Me1 and Me2 are metals and L1 and L2 are ligand. However, since independent claims 1, 15, and 17 merely recite the use of a “primary substance” without limitation this therefore includes the use of any and all materials such as wood, plastic, glass, or even plant or organic material. It is therefore the Examiner’s position that the experimental conditions required to form a shaped crystalline layer on a first internal surface within an ampoule using, for example, the aforementioned wood, plastic, glass, plant, or organic material as the primary substance cannot be determined without undue experimentation because these materials will not readily evaporate or sublime such that a shaped crystalline layer is deposited onto a surface maintained at a comparatively higher temperature. Stated in other words, the experimental conditions including the temperature(s), growth ambient, chamber pressures, and duration required to produce a shaped crystalline layer from any and all primary materials, including wood, plastic, glass, plant, or organic material cannot be determined without undue experimentation. Consequently, the scope of claims 1, 15, and 17 is not enabled by the specification as originally filed. Dependent claims 2-8, 11-14, and 16 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1 or 15. In order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) scope of enablement rejection it is recommended that applicants limit the primary substance to materials such as those disclosed in ¶[0027] of the published application subject to clarification of the enablement rejection discussed infra with respect to claims 9-10 regarding the direction of the temperature gradient.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As detailed supra, the invention as disclosed and claimed in the instant application relates to a method of forming a shaped crystalline layer of a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness by providing a primary substance within an ampoule and then generating a temperature gradient along the ampoule until the shaped crystalline layer is deposited on a first internal ampoule surface. In at least claims 9 and 10 the primary substance is specifically recited as a precious metal, a compound of said precious metal, or alloy of said precious metal and specifically recites that the precious metal may be chosen from ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, platinum, gold, iridium, and rhenium. However, claims 9-10 depend from claim 1 which specifically recites that the highest temperature is at the first internal ampoule surface which therefore means that the precious metal used as the “primary substance” is at a lower temperature than the surface upon which deposition occurs. In ¶[0030] of the published application the specification explains that the temperature gradient is set to provide chemical transport from the bottom surface (4) to the top surface (3) of the ampoule (2) and is preferably set such that the bottom surface (4) has a temperature lower than the top surface (3). In a particular embodiment the temperature gradient between the bottom (4) and top (3) surfaces is also disclosed as being no less than 50 °C, but the growth rate is negatively affected if the temperature difference is less than 5 °C. The specification does not appear to provide any actual examples where growth of a shaped crystalline layer is obtained using any of ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, platinum, gold, iridium, and rhenium as the primary substance with the deposition surface being heated to a temperature that is at least 5 °C higher than the primary substance. In conventional thermal evaporation or sublimation processes the source material is heated to a higher temperature such that atoms within the source material have sufficient thermal energy to evaporate or sublime from the surface. These atomic species are then deposited onto a seed or substrate that is maintained at a comparatively lower temperature which facilitates adsorption of atomic species from the vapor phase. In claims 9-10 the method as claimed purports to deposit a primary substance in the form of ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, platinum, gold, iridium, and/or rhenium onto a first internal ampoule surface which is maintained at a temperature that is at least 5 °C higher than the temperature of the primary substance. It is unclear how this would occur since if the first internal ampoule surface is maintained at a higher temperature, then atoms of the aforementioned precious metals would desorb from rather than be deposited upon the first internal ampoule surface. As such, it is the Examiner’s position that claims 9-10 do not appear to be enabled by the specification as originally filed since the direction of the temperature gradient appears to be opposite that which is conventionally used in the art.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a shaped crystalline layer" in l. 3-4 and l. 11. It is unclear whether applicants intended to refer to the same or a different shaped crystalline layer as that recited in l. 1 of the claim. For examination purposes it is assumed applicants intended to recite “the shaped crystalline layer.” Dependent claims 2-14 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a shaped crystalline layer" in l. 3. It is unclear whether applicants intended to refer to the same or a different shaped crystalline layer as that recited in claim 1. For examination purposes it is assumed applicants intended to recite “the shaped crystalline layer.” Dependent claims 7-8 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 6.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a shaped crystalline layer" in l. 3-4 and l. 13. It is unclear whether applicants intended to refer to the same or a different shaped crystalline layer as that recited in claim 1. For examination purposes it is assumed applicants intended to recite “the shaped crystalline layer.” Dependent claim16 is similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said second shaped crystalline layer surface" in bullet (ii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed that the preceding recitation of “a second shaped crystalline layer” should be “a second shaped crystalline layer surface.” Dependent claim 16 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a shaped crystalline layer" in l. 3-4 and l. 11. It is unclear whether applicants intended to refer to the same or a different shaped crystalline layer as that recited in claim 1. For examination purposes it is assumed applicants intended to recite “the shaped crystalline layer.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Appl. Publ. No. CN 201506852 U to Li, et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method of forming a shaped crystalline layer of a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness (see the Abstract, Fig. 1, and entire reference which teach a method of forming a crystalline layer of mercury iodide having a predetermined shape, major dimension, and average thickness), comprising the steps of.
a. selecting a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness for a crystalline layer to be formed (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that a mercury iodide crystal having a predetermined form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness is formed as a result of the crystal growth process; see also ¶[0003] of the Background-Art section which teaches that typical growth ampoules have a diameter of 100 to 200 mm (i.e., 10 to 20 cm) with a top nucleation area of about 2 to 4 cm and, consequently, have a desired form, shape, and major dimension);
b. forming an ampoule having a first internal ampoule surface of said desired form shape, and major dimension (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0017] which teach that an ampoule (11) having a first internal surface at a top thereof with a predetermined form, shape, and major dimension (i.e., a width or diameter thereof) is provided);
c. providing a primary substance within the ampoule (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that mercuric iodide polycrystalline powder is provided in the bottom of the growth ampoule (11));
d. sealing the ampoule (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the ampoule (11) is evacuated to 10-5 Torr and is sealed or, alternatively, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to seal the ampoule (11) in order to preserve the desired vacuum level and provide a growth environment substantially free of atmospheric contaminants);
e. generating a heat gradient along the ampoule of at least 5 degrees Celsius, with the highest temperature at the first internal ampoule surface (See Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the raw material is heated to a temperature of 110 °C and a temperature gradient is produced such that gaseous species from the mercuric iodide source material are transported to a top of the ampoule (11) for deposition as a crystal with temperatures of T = 118 °C and 104 °C producing a temperature gradient along the ampoule of at least 5 °C as claimed. Moreover, since the direction and magnitude of the temperature gradient determines the direction and amount of vapor species that are transported for film growth, it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the magnitude and direction of the temperature gradient within the ampoule (11) of Li to produce the desired flux of gaseous precursors for crystal growth of a particular material by chemical vapor transport and, consequently, to deposit a crystal, including those other than mercuric iodide, at a predetermined growth rate and with the desired materials properties.);
f. maintaining the heat gradient until a shaped crystalline layer of the desired average thickness forms on the first internal ampoule surface (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the temperature gradient is maintained until a mercury iodide crystal of the desired size is produced on an internal surface at a top of the ampoule (11)), said shaped crystalline layer comprising:
(i) a first shaped crystalline layer surface corresponding to said desired form, major dimension, and shape of said first internal ampoule surface (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the growth conditions are maintained until a mercury iodide crystal of the desired size, shape, and major dimension is produced on an internal surface at a top of the ampoule (11)),
(ii) and a second shaped crystalline layer surface opposing said first shaped crystalline layer surface, said second shaped crystalline layer surface comprising a plurality of crystalline facets (See Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0020]-[0022] which teach that the mercury iodide crystal is slowly deposited onto an internal surface at a top of the growth ampoule (11) to a predetermined thickness in order to form a 0.8 cm3 mercury iodide single crystal and, consequently, an inner surface of the mercury iodide crystalline layer corresponds to an internal surface of the ampoule (11). Moreover, an outer surface of the mercury iodide crystal away from the internal surface of the ampoule (11) necessarily has multiple facets visible either to the naked eye or in an optical microscope as the crystal is a 3D object and is not formed into a sphere. Alternatively, since the method of Li performs each and every step of the claimed process, it must necessarily produce the same results, namely an outer surface with multiple visually distinguishable crystalline facets. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, an outer surface with multiple visually distinguishable crystalline facets, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).).
Li does not explicitly teach that said shaped crystalline layer has an average thickness that is less than said major dimension of said shaped crystalline layer. However, in at least ¶[0003] of the Background-Art section Li teaches that typical growth ampoules have a diameter of 100 to 200 mm (i.e., 10 to 20 cm) with a top nucleation area of about 2 to 4 cm. Since ¶[0022] of Li teaches that the finished product is comprised of 0.8 cm3 of mercury iodide single crystal this therefore means that the average thickness is necessarily less than the 2 to 4 cm width of the top nucleation area. This is necessarily the case because a 2 to 4 cm diameter top surface has an area of π[Symbol font/0xD7]r2 = 3.14 to 12.56 cm2 which yields a volume of 0.8 cm3 when the crystal thickness is approximately 0.25 or 0.06 cm, respectively (i.e., cylinder volume = area of base × height of cylinder). Alternatively, since the duration of crystal growth determines the thickness of the deposited crystal it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal crystal growth duration and, consequently, the thickness of the deposited crystalline layer necessary for a particular application. In this case the duration of crystal growth would be set to obtain an average thickness which is less than the width of the deposited area as claimed in order to, for example, obtain a disc-shaped crystal suitable for its intended use as, for example, a device wafer or structural component in a device.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches that the step of generating a heat gradient comprises generating a temperature of at least 100 degrees Celsius at the first internal ampoule surface (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the ampoule, including a top thereof where crystal growth occurs, is heated to a temperature of greater than 100 °C).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches that the step of maintaining the heat gradient until said shaped crystalline layer forms on the first internal ampoule surface comprises maintaining the heat gradient for between one hour and one month (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that crystal growth proceeds for 30 days).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches that the step of maintaining the heat gradient until a shaped crystalline layer of the desired average thickness forms further comprises providing motion to the ampoule while the heat gradient is generated (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0020] which teach that the ampoule (11) is rotated during crystal growth by an adjusting mechanism (15) and a metal rod (7)).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches that the step of providing motion to the ampoule comprises rotating the ampoule about an axis of rotation substantially parallel to the direction of the heat gradient (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0020] which teach that the ampoule (11) is rotated during crystal growth by an adjusting mechanism (15) and a metal rod (7) about an axis of rotation that is parallel to the direction of the temperature gradient).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches that the step of rotating the ampoule comprises rotating the ampoule with a rotational velocity of between one revolution per week and six hundred revolutions per minute (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0020] which teach that the ampoule (11) is rotated during crystal growth by an adjusting mechanism (15) and a metal rod (7) at a rate of 11 to 2 revolutions per minute which falls within the claimed range).
Claims 4-5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,885,356 to Zhao, et al. (“Zhao”).
Regarding claim 4, Li does not teach that the step of forming an ampoule further comprises the step of coating the first internal ampoule surface of the ampoule with a layer of inert material. However, in Figs. 5-6 and col. 7, l. 15 to col. 8, l. 5 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Zhao teaches an embodiment of a process chamber in which at least the inside of an exhaust chamber (239) is coated with ceramic liners (44), (46), and (48) comprised of a material such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3) which serves to extend the service life of the process chamber by reducing particulate build-up such that the frequency of cleaning operations is reduced. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Zhao and would be motivated to include a liner/coating comprised of an inert material such as Al2O3 on interior surfaces of the ampoule in the method of Li in order to minimize the accumulation of particulate deposits on the walls during crystal growth such that a higher quality crystal may be grown over a longer period of time.
Regarding claim 5, Li does not teach that said layer of inert material comprises an inorganic thin layer comprising one of TiO2 or Al2O3. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in Figs. 5-6 and col. 7, l. 15 to col. 8, l. 5 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Zhao teaches an embodiment of a process chamber in which at least the inside of an exhaust chamber (239) is coated with ceramic liners (44), (46), and (48) comprised of a material such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3) which serves to extend the service life of the process chamber by reducing particulate build-up such that the frequency of cleaning operations is reduced. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Zhao and would be motivated to include a liner/coating comprised of an inert material such as Al2O3 on interior surfaces of the ampoule in the method of Li in order to minimize the accumulation of particulate deposits on the walls during crystal growth such that a higher quality crystal may be grown over a longer period of time.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches a method of forming a shaped crystalline layer of a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness (see the Abstract, Fig. 1, and entire reference which teach a method of forming a crystalline layer of mercury iodide having a predetermined shape, major dimension, and average thickness), comprising the steps of.
a. selecting a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness for a shaped crystalline layer to be formed (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that a mercury iodide crystal having a predetermined form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness is formed as a result of the crystal growth process; see also ¶[0003] of the Background-Art section which teaches that typical growth ampoules have a diameter of 100 to 200 mm (i.e., 10 to 20 cm) with a top nucleation area of about 2 to 4 cm and, consequently, have a desired form, shape, and major dimension);
b. forming an ampoule having a first internal ampoule surface of said desired form, shape, and major dimensions (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0017] which teach that an ampoule (11) having a first internal surface at a top thereof with a predetermined form, shape, and major dimension (i.e., a width or diameter thereof) is provided);
c. providing a primary substance within the ampoule (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that mercuric iodide polycrystalline powder is provided in the bottom of the growth ampoule (11));
d. sealing the ampoule (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the ampoule (11) is evacuated to 10-5 Torr and is sealed or, alternatively, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to seal the ampoule (11) in order to preserve the desired vacuum level and provide a growth environment substantially free of atmospheric contaminants);
e. generating a heat gradient along the ampoule of at least 5 degrees Celsius, with the highest temperature at the first internal ampoule surface (See Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the raw material is heated to a temperature of 110 °C and a temperature gradient is produced such that gaseous species from the mercuric iodide source material are transported to a top of the ampoule (11) for deposition as a crystal with temperatures of T = 118 °C and 104 °C producing a temperature gradient along the ampoule of at least 5 °C as claimed. Moreover, since the direction and magnitude of the temperature gradient determines the direction and amount of vapor species that are transported for film growth, it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the magnitude and direction of the temperature gradient within the ampoule (11) of Li to produce the desired flux of gaseous precursors for crystal growth of a particular material by chemical vapor transport and, consequently, to deposit a crystal, including those other than mercuric iodide, at a predetermined growth rate and with the desired materials properties.), and
providing motion to the ampoule while the heat gradient is generated (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0020]-[0022] which teach that the ampoule (11) is rotated during crystal growth);
f. maintaining the heat gradient until a shaped crystalline layer of the desired average thickness forms on the first internal ampoule surface according to said form, shape, and major dimension (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the temperature gradient is maintained until a mercury iodide crystal of the desired size is produced on an internal surface at a top of the ampoule (11)), said shaped crystalline layer comprising:
(i) a first shaped crystalline layer surface corresponding to said desired form, major dimension, and shape of said first internal ampoule surface (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the growth conditions are maintained until a mercury iodide crystal of the desired size, shape, and major dimension is produced on an internal surface at a top of the ampoule (11)),
(ii) and a second shaped crystalline layer opposing said first shaped crystalline layer surface, said second shaped crystalline layer surface comprising a plurality of crystalline facets (See Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0020]-[0022] which teach that the mercury iodide crystal is slowly deposited onto an internal surface at a top of the growth ampoule (11) to a predetermined thickness in order to form a 0.8 cm3 mercury iodide single crystal and, consequently, an inner surface of the mercury iodide crystalline layer corresponds to an internal surface of the ampoule (11). Moreover, an outer surface of the mercury iodide crystal away from the internal surface of the ampoule (11) necessarily has multiple facets visible either to the naked eye or in an optical microscope as the crystal is a 3D object and is not formed into a sphere. Alternatively, since the method of Li performs each and every step of the claimed process, it must necessarily produce the same results, namely an outer surface with multiple visually distinguishable crystalline facets. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, an outer surface with multiple visually distinguishable crystalline facets, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).).
Li does not explicitly teach that said shaped crystalline layer has an average thickness that is less than said major dimension of said shaped crystalline layer. However, in at least ¶[0003] of the Background-Art section Li teaches that typical growth ampoules have a diameter of 100 to 200 mm (i.e., 10 to 20 cm) with a top nucleation area of about 2 to 4 cm. Since ¶[0022] of Li teaches that the finished product is comprised of 0.8 cm3 of mercury iodide single crystal this therefore means that the average thickness is necessarily less than the 2 to 4 cm width of the top nucleation area. This is necessarily the case because a 2 to 4 cm diameter top surface has an area of π[Symbol font/0xD7]r2 = 3.14 to 12.56 cm2 which yields a volume of 0.8 cm3 when the crystal thickness is approximately 0.25 or 0.06 cm, respectively (i.e., cylinder volume = area of base × height of cylinder). Alternatively, since the duration of crystal growth determines the thickness of the deposited crystal it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal crystal growth duration and, consequently, the thickness of the deposited crystalline layer necessary for a particular application. In this case the duration of crystal growth would be set to obtain an average thickness which is less than the width of the deposited area as claimed in order to, for example, obtain a disc-shaped crystal suitable for its intended use as, for example, a device wafer or structural component in a device.
Li also does not teach coating said first internal ampoule surface with a layer of inert material. However, in Figs. 5-6 and col. 7, l. 15 to col. 8, l. 5 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Zhao teaches an embodiment of a process chamber in which at least the inside of an exhaust chamber (239) is coated with ceramic liners (44), (46), and (48) comprised of a material such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3) which serves to extend the service life of the process chamber by reducing particulate build-up such that the frequency of cleaning operations is reduced. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Zhao and would be motivated to include a liner/coating comprised of an inert material such as Al2O3 on interior surfaces of the ampoule in the method of Li in order to minimize the accumulation of particulate deposits on the walls during crystal growth such that a higher quality crystal may be grown over a longer period of time.
Claims 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of a publication to Strobel, et al. entitled "Growth of large platinum crystals by chemical vapor transport," Journal of Crystal Growth, Vol. 54, pp. 345-46 (1981) (“Strobel”).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not explicitly teach that the primary substance comprises at least one of: a precious metal chosen from the group consisting of ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, platinum, gold, iridium, and rhenium; a compound of said precious metal; and an alloy of said precious metal. However, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces. Alternatively, the Hg utilized in the method of Li may be broadly considered as a precious metal as claimed due to its relative rarity and comparatively higher cost.
Regarding claim 10, Li does not teach that said primary substance comprises one of: ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, platinum, gold, iridium, or rhenium. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 9, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces.
Regarding claim 11, Li does not teach the further step, between step b) and step d), of providing within the ampoule a transport agent or its precursor, the transport agent being selected so as to reversibly react with the primary substance at an elevated temperature. However, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces. Moreover, in this case Te and Cl2 are included as transport agents in order to facilitate more efficient transport of Pt to a predetermined temperature zone within the ampoule where crystal growth occurs. During crystal growth Cl reacts with Pt and Te to form, inter alia, gaseous compounds such as Pt6Cl12 which transports the Pt atoms and itself comprised of multiple Pt atoms as the M1 and M2 atoms and multiple Cl atoms as the ligands L1 and L2.
Regarding claim 12, Li does not teach that the transport agent is an inorganic salt with the formula Me1Me2L1L2, where Me1 and Me2 are metals and L1 and L2 are ligands. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces. Moreover, in this case Te and Cl2 are included as transport agents in order to facilitate more efficient transport of Pt to a predetermined temperature zone within the ampoule where crystal growth occurs. During crystal growth Cl reacts with Pt and Te to form, inter alia, gaseous compounds such as Pt6Cl12 which transports the Pt atoms and itself comprised of multiple Pt atoms as the M1 and M2 atoms and multiple Cl atoms as the ligands L1 and L2.
Regarding claim 13, Li does not teach that the transport agent comprises a mixture of three substances: a transported metal; another metal; and a halogen. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces. Moreover, in this case Te and Cl2 are included as transport agents in order to facilitate more efficient transport of Pt to a predetermined temperature zone within the ampoule where crystal growth occurs. The use of Te and Cl2 necessarily means that the transport agent includes a mixture of the transported Pt, another metal Te, and the halogen Cl.
Regarding claim 14, Li does not teach that said transport agent comprises a metal; wherein the metal of the transport agent is one of: Al, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ru, Rh, Pd, Sn, Mo, W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Pb, Ga, In, and Tl. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces. Moreover, in this case Te and Cl2 are included as transport agents in order to facilitate more efficient transport of Pt to a predetermined temperature zone within the ampoule where crystal growth occurs. During crystal growth Cl reacts with Pt and Te to form, inter alia, gaseous compounds such as PtCl2, PtCl3, and Pt6Cl12, all of which are transport agents which include the metal Pt.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhao and further in view of Strobel.
Regarding claim 16, Li and Zhao do not teach the further step, between step b) and step d), of providing within the ampoule a transport agent or its precursor, the transport agent being selected so as to reversibly react with the primary substance at an elevated temperature; wherein the transport agent is an inorganic salt with the formula Me1Me2L1L2, where Me1 and Me2 are metals and L1 and L2 are ligands. However, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces. Moreover, in this case Te and Cl2 are included as transport agents in order to facilitate more efficient transport of Pt to a predetermined temperature zone within the ampoule where crystal growth occurs. During crystal growth Cl reacts with Pt and Te to form, inter alia, gaseous compounds such as Pt6Cl12 which transports the Pt atoms and itself comprised of multiple Pt atoms as the M1 and M2 atoms and multiple Cl atoms as the ligands L1 and L2.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Strobel.
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches a method of forming a shaped crystalline layer of a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness (see the Abstract, Fig. 1, and entire reference which teach a method of forming a crystalline layer of mercury iodide having a predetermined shape, major dimension, and average thickness), comprising the steps of.
a. selecting a desired form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness for a shaped crystalline layer to be formed (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that a mercury iodide crystal having a predetermined form, shape, major dimension, and average thickness is formed as a result of the crystal growth process; see also ¶[0003] of the Background-Art section which teaches that typical growth ampoules have a diameter of 100 to 200 mm (i.e., 10 to 20 cm) with a top nucleation area of about 2 to 4 cm and, consequently, have a desired form, shape, and major dimension);
b. forming an ampoule having a first internal ampoule surface of said desired form, shape, and major dimensions (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0017] which teach that an ampoule (11) having a first internal surface at a top thereof with a predetermined form, shape, and major dimension (i.e., a width or diameter thereof) is provided);
c. providing a primary substance within the ampoule (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that mercuric iodide polycrystalline powder is provided in the bottom of the growth ampoule (11));
d. sealing the ampoule (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the ampoule (11) is evacuated to 10-5 Torr and is sealed or, alternatively, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to seal the ampoule (11) in order to preserve the desired vacuum level and provide a growth environment substantially free of atmospheric contaminants);
e. generating a heat gradient along the ampoule of at least 5 degrees Celsius, with the highest temperature at the first internal ampoule surface (See Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the raw material is heated to a temperature of 110 °C and a temperature gradient is produced such that gaseous species from the mercuric iodide source material are transported to a top of the ampoule (11) for deposition as a crystal with temperatures of T = 118 °C and 104 °C producing a temperature gradient along the ampoule of at least 5 °C as claimed. Moreover, since the direction and magnitude of the temperature gradient determines the direction and amount of vapor species that are transported for film growth, it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the magnitude and direction of the temperature gradient within the ampoule (11) of Li to produce the desired flux of gaseous precursors for crystal growth of a particular material by chemical vapor transport and, consequently, to deposit a crystal, including those other than mercuric iodide, at a predetermined growth rate and with the desired materials properties.), and
f. maintaining the heat gradient until a shaped crystalline layer of the desired average thickness forms on the first internal ampoule surface (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the temperature gradient is maintained until a mercury iodide crystal of the desired size is produced on an internal surface at a top of the ampoule (11)), said shaped crystalline layer comprising:
(i) a first shaped crystalline layer surface corresponding to said desired form, major dimension, and shape of said first internal ampoule surface (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0020] which teach that the growth conditions are maintained until a mercury iodide crystal of the desired size, shape, and major dimension is produced on an internal surface at a top of the ampoule (11)),
(ii) and a second shaped crystalline layer opposing said first shaped crystalline layer surface, said second shaped crystalline layer surface comprising a plurality of crystalline facets (See Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0020]-[0022] which teach that the mercury iodide crystal is slowly deposited onto an internal surface at a top of the growth ampoule (11) to a predetermined thickness in order to form a 0.8 cm3 mercury iodide single crystal and, consequently, an inner surface of the mercury iodide crystalline layer corresponds to an internal surface of the ampoule (11). Moreover, an outer surface of the mercury iodide crystal away from the internal surface of the ampoule (11) necessarily has multiple facets visible either to the naked eye or in an optical microscope as the crystal is a 3D object and is not formed into a sphere. Alternatively, since the method of Li performs each and every step of the claimed process, it must necessarily produce the same results, namely an outer surface with multiple visually distinguishable crystalline facets. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, an outer surface with multiple visually distinguishable crystalline facets, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).).
Li does not explicitly teach that said shaped crystalline layer has an average thickness that is less than said major dimension of said shaped crystalline layer. However, in at least ¶[0003] of the Background-Art section Li teaches that typical growth ampoules have a diameter of 100 to 200 mm (i.e., 10 to 20 cm) with a top nucleation area of about 2 to 4 cm. Since ¶[0022] of Li teaches that the finished product is comprised of 0.8 cm3 of mercury iodide single crystal this therefore means that the average thickness is necessarily less than the 2 to 4 cm width of the top nucleation area. This is necessarily the case because a 2 to 4 cm diameter top surface has an area of π[Symbol font/0xD7]r2 = 3.14 to 12.56 cm2 which yields a volume of 0.8 cm3 when the crystal thickness is approximately 0.25 or 0.06 cm, respectively (i.e., cylinder volume = area of base × height of cylinder). Alternatively, since the duration of crystal growth determines the thickness of the deposited crystal it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal crystal growth duration and, consequently, the thickness of the deposited crystalline layer necessary for a particular application. In this case the duration of crystal growth would be set to obtain an average thickness which is less than the width of the deposited area as claimed in order to, for example, obtain a disc-shaped crystal suitable for its intended use as, for example, a device wafer or structural component in a device.
Li and Zhao do not teach a further step, between step b) and step d), of providing within the ampoule a transport agent or its precursor, the transport agent being selected so as to reversibly react with the primary substance at an elevated temperature. However, in Figs. 1-4 and pp. 345-46 Strobel teaches that crystals of a precious metal such as platinum may be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule comprised of an evacuated silica tube using a source material of Pt along with Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Strobel and would be motivated to utilize the system and method of Li to produce larger and more uniform crystals of a precious metal such as Pt for use as, for example, a catalyst or unique jewelry pieces. Moreover, in this case Te and Cl2 are included as transport agents in order to facilitate more efficient transport of Pt to a predetermined temperature zone within the ampoule where crystal growth occurs. During crystal growth Cl reacts with Pt and Te to form, inter alia, gaseous compounds such as Pt6Cl12 which transports the Pt atoms and itself comprised of multiple Pt atoms as the M1 and M2 atoms and multiple Cl atoms as the ligands L1 and L2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Applicants initially argue that the shaped crystalline layer having a jagged crystalline-like surface (5) and the first smooth surface that conforms to the shape of the ampoule surface (3) only form when the ampoule side of applicants’ shaped crystalline layer comprises a single inner surface which, in one embodiment, is a flat surface. See applicants’ 1/22/2026 reply, pp. 7-9. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive because it appears to be based upon features which are not claimed. Claims 1, 15, and 17 merely recite the step of forming an ampoule having “a first internal ampoule surface” and does not specifically recite that the surface is flat, bent, bowed, wavy, etc. or that it has a certain dimension. Since the top of the ampoule (11) in Fig. 1 of Li has an internal surface which has a predetermined form, major dimension, and shape it therefore reads upon the claim. Moreover, once the crystal is deposited onto the upper surface of the ampoule (11) it necessarily conforms to the shape of the ampoule (11) itself. Since the top of the ampoule (11) as well as the growing crystal are not in the shape of a sphere, the deposited crystal necessarily will form at least two facets on its growth surface since it exists in three dimensions which satisfies the limitation relating to forming a second shaped crystalline layer surface comprising “a plurality of crystalline facets.”
Applicants then discuss the teachings of Li and contend that Li teaches a very different chemical in the form of mercuric iodide to obtain a very different result. Id. at pp. 10-11. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it is again pointed out that with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 17 applicants’ argument is based on features which are not claimed. At most, the claims recite the step of growing “a shaped crystalline layer” by providing “a primary substance” within the ampoule. There is no specific recitation in the aforementioned claims that the crystal or the primary substance cannot be mercuric iodide. In the teachings of Li the steps of using mercuric iodide as the primary substance to deposit a shaped crystalline layer on an upper surface of the ampoule (11) in Fig. 1 reads upon the limitations relating to providing “a primary substance” to grow “a shaped crystalline layer.”
Applicants subsequently argue that Li does not teach the growth of a crystalline layer because Li teaches bulk growth of a “massive” solid body of 0.8 cm3 which fills the bottom of the ampoule. Id. at pp. 11-12. This argument also is found unpersuasive as growth of a 0.8 cm3 mercuric iodide crystal does not automatically mean that it is a “massive, solid body.” Moreover, the claims do not specifically recite any limitations which distinguish a “layer” from a “solid body.” A crystalline layer necessarily also has a volume which is defined by an area and a thickness which therefore makes it a “solid body.” Additionally, the method of Li does not use the Bridgman technique to form the grown crystal in the bottom of the ampoule (11) as it is the mercuric iodide source material that is provided in the bottom. Crystal growth then occurs via evaporation or sublimation of the source material such that it deposits as a crystalline material on an upper surface of the ampoule (11) in Fig. 1 of Li. Furthermore, as detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 17, in at least ¶[0003] of the Background-Art section Li teaches that typical growth ampoules have a diameter of 100 to 200 mm (i.e., 10 to 20 cm) with a top nucleation area of about 2 to 4 cm. Since ¶[0022] of Li teaches that the finished product is comprised of 0.8 cm3 of mercury iodide single crystal this therefore means that the average thickness is less than the 2 to 4 cm width of the top nucleation area. This is necessarily the case because a 2 to 4 cm diameter top surface has an area of π[Symbol font/0xD7]r2 = 3.14 to 12.56 cm2 which yields a volume of 0.8 cm3 when the crystal thickness is approximately 0.25 or 0.06 cm, respectively (i.e., cylinder volume = area of base × height of cylinder). Alternatively, since the thickness depends on the duration of growth, the optimal thickness required to form a “layer” may be determined through routine experimentation.
Applicants argue against the reliance on Zhao by contending that Zhao merely describes a ceramic liner that is mechanically attached via screws while maintaining an air gap and does not teach a coating applied directly to an ampoule surface. Id. at p. 12. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it is pointed out that in Figs. 5-6 and col. 7, l. 15 to col. 8, l. 5 Zhao further teaches ceramic liners (44), (46), and (48) which are directly attached to the walls of the exhaust chamber (239) without the presence of an air gap in order to extend the service life of the process chamber by reducing particulate build-up. Although at least some of the liners are attached via a screw (41), in providing the claims with their broadest reasonable interpretation, the ceramic liners (44), (46), and (48) of Zhao may be considered as a “coating” as claimed because they are in contact with and thereby coat interior surfaces of the exhaust chamber (239).
Finally, applicants argue that since Strobel teaches the growth of discrete, individual crystals rather than the formation of a continuous crystalline layer that replicates the macroscopic form of the ampoule wall, combining the teachings of Li and Strobel would yield either a bulk ingot or loose individual crystals rather than a shaped crystalline layer. Id. Applicants’ argument is noted, but remains unpersuasive as it appears to amount to arguing against the references individually. In this case it is Li instead of Strobel is not relied upon to teach the growth of a crystalline layer. Strobel itself is merely introduced to teach that crystals of a precious metal such as Pt may also be grown by chemical vapor transport in an ampoule with the use of Te and Cl2 gas as transport agents. Moreover, the Examiner has provided the requisite motivation for utilizing the system and method of Li to grow a crystalline layer of Pt as taught by Strobel which is, for example, to produce a crystal for use as a catalyst or a unique jewelry piece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Figures 1-3 and associated descriptive text in U.S. Patent No. 4,508,931 to Michel, et al. teaches an analogous system and method for heating reactants (36) contained within a tube (32) in order to form, inter alia, polycrystalline films (48) and/or (50) deposited on internal surfaces of the tube (32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on (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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714