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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 61-73) in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 74-84 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Groups II, III, IV), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/24/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(active) Cooling element (double walled fluid, para. [0040]) in at least claims 61-73.
(passive) Cooling element (coating above or polished steel surface, para. [0455]) in at least claims 61-73.
Cooling fluid guide unit (any structure that guides a cooling fluid, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0454]) in at least claim 63.
Fluid forwarding unit (any structure that forwards fluid, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0044]) in at least claim 63.
Vent gas recycling unit (separator unit, para. [0360]) in at least claim 72.
Separator unit (any structure that separates fluid from the vent gas, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0368]) in at least claims 72-73.
Storage or Conducting element (any structure that stores or conducts the fluid, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0486]) in at least claims 72-73.
Si mass flux measurement unit (any structure that measures an amount of Si of the mixture, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0356]) in claim 73.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Gas outlet unit (vent gas outlets, para. [0458]) in at least claims 72-73.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 61-73 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.
Claims 61-73 recites the limitation "and/or" in all instances of the claims. Applicant may not have optional terminology (see MPEP 2173.05(h)) in the claims, and it is unclear if Applicant requiring to pick one limitation, or to pick all limitations. Examiner interprets broadly in all instances (as there are several instances throughout the claims which are too many to recite here individually). Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 61 recites the limitation "one or multiple SiC growth substrate (857), in particular more than 3 or 4 or 6 or 8 or 16 or 32 or 64 or up to 128 or up to 256, are arranged inside the process chamber (856) for depositing SiC," in the claim. Applicant may not have optional terminology (see MPEP 2173.05(h)) in the claims, and it is unclear if Applicant requiring to pick one limitation, or to pick all limitations. Examiner interprets broadly in all instances. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "the SiC growth substrate comprises or consists of SiC or C" in the claim. Applicant may not have multiple transitional phrases (see MPEP 211.03) in the same limitation as options, and it is unclear if Applicant requiring to pick one transitional phrase. Examiner interprets broadly in all instances. Appropriate clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 61 recites the broad recitation “at least one feed-medium source”, and the claim also recites “wherein a Si and C feed medium source…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 65 recites the broad recitation “the cooling element (868) is at least partially formed by a polished steel surface (865) of the base plate (862), the side wall section (864a) and/or the top wall section (864b),” and the claim also recites “wherein the cooling element (868) is a coating (867), wherein the coating is (867) formed on top of the polished steel surface (865) and wherein the coating (867) is configured to reflect heat,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 73 recites the broad recitation “at least two parts, wherein the two parts are a mixture of chlorosilanes and a mixture of HCI, H2 and at least one C-bearing molecule,” and the claim also recites and preferably into at least three parts, wherein the three parts are a mixture of chlorosilanes and HCI and a mixture of H2 and at least one C-bearing molecule” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “preferably” in claims 61-73 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification is requested in all instances (including removal of the term from the claims).
The term “most preferably” in at least claim 68 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification is requested in all instances (including removal of the term from the claim(s)).
Regarding claims 61-73, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate clarification is requested in all instances (including removal of the phrase from the claims).
Claim limitation “fluid forwarding unit,” “Separator unit,” “Si mass flux measurement unit,” “Storage or Conducting element,” “Cooling fluid guide unit,” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 61-62, 66-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090130333 to Kim in view of US 20160348274 to Genba.
Claims 1-60: (Cancelled).
Claim 61: Kim discloses a SiC production reactor, at least comprising a process chamber (Rs [shell], Fig. 1), wherein the process chamber (Rs) is at least surrounded by a base plate (Rb [base unit]), a side wall section (sidewall of Rs) and a top wall section (top wall of Rs),
a gas inlet unit (Nf [gas supply means]) for feeding one feed-medium or multiple feed-mediums into a reaction space (Ri [inner space]) of the process chamber (Rs) for generating a source medium (para. [0080]), wherein the gas inlet unit (Nf) is coupled with at least one feed-medium source (Nf), wherein a Si and C feed-medium source (Nf) provides at least Si and C, in particular SiCI3(CH3), and wherein a carrier gas feed-medium source (Nf) provides a carrier gas, in particular H2 (para. [0029]),
or
wherein the gas inlet unit is coupled with at least two feed-medium sources, wherein a Si feed medium source provides at least Si and wherein a C feed medium source provides at least C, in particular natural gas, Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane and/or Acetylene, and wherein a carrier gas medium source provides a carrier gas, in particular H2,
one or multiple SiC growth substrate (C1/C2 [core means], Fig. 1), in particular more than 3 or 4 or 6 or 8 or 16 or 32 or 64 or up to 128 or up to 256, are arranged inside the process chamber (Rs), wherein each SiC growth substrate (C1/C2) comprises a first power connection (one E1/E2 [electrode units]) and a second power connection (another E1/E2 [electrode units]),
wherein the first power connections (one E1/E2) are first metal electrodes (one E1/E2) and wherein the second power connections (another E1/E2) are second metal electrodes (another E1/E2), wherein the first metal electrodes (one E1/E2) and the second metal electrodes (another E1/E2) are preferably shielded from the reaction space (in Rb), wherein each SiC growth substrate (C1/C2) is coupled between at least one first metal electrode (one E1/E2) and at least one second metal electrode (another E1/E2) for heating the outer surface of the SiC growth substrates (857) or the surface of the deposited SiC to temperatures between 1300°C and 1800°C (para. [0026]), in particular by means of resistive heating and preferably by internal resistive heating (para. [0033], [0072-0075]),
wherein the base plate (Rb) comprises at least one cooling element (para. [0120], [0126], where cooling means is equipped on Rb), in particular a base cooling element (“cooling means”), for preventing heating of the base plate (Rb) above a defined temperature and/or wherein the side wall section (sidewall of Rs) comprises at least one cooling element- (“cooling means,” para. [0120]), in particular a bell jar cooling element (para. [0120]), for preventing heating the side wall section (sidewall of Rs) above a defined temperature (para. [0120]).
or
wherein the top wall section comprises at least one cooling element, in particular a bell jar cooling element, for preventing heating the top wall section above a defined temperature.
However Kim does not disclose the apparatus for depositing SiC;
Genba teaches manufacturing SiC for the purpose of achieving uniformity in impurity concentration and crystallinity to be easily manufactured (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Genba with motivation to achieve uniformity in impurity concentration and crystallinity to be easily manufactured.
Claim 62: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses the cooling element (“cooling means,” Kim) is an active cooling element (para. [0111], [0120] where it’s interpreted that “active” means to push coolant through the structure).
Claim 66: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses the side wall section (sidewall of Rs, Fig. 1, Kim) and the top wall section (top wall of Rs) are formed by a bell jar (Rs, para. [0065], [0108]), wherein the bell jar (Rs), wherein more than 50% of the side wall section (sidewall of Rs) and/or more than 50% of the top wall section (top wall of Rs) and/or more than 50% of the base plate (Rb) is made of metal (para. [0123], [0125], [0128]).
Claim 67: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses characterized in that the SiC growth substrate (C1/C2, Fig. 1, Kim) has an average perimeter of at least 5cm around a cross-sectional area (para. [0004]) orthogonal to the length direction of the SiC growth substrate (para. [0009]) or multiple SiC growth substrates (C1/C2) have an average perimeter per SiC growth substrate (C1/C2) of at least 5cm around a cross-sectional area (para. [0148]) orthogonal to the length direction of the respective SiC growth substrate (C1/C2, para. [0148]).
Claim 68: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses the SiC growth substrate (C1/C2) comprises of SiC or C (para. [0043]), in particular graphite (para. [0043]), or wherein multiple SiC growth substrates comprise or consist of SiC or C, in particular graphite;
or
the shape of the cross-sectional area orthogonal to the length direction of the SiC growth substrate differs at least in sections and preferably along more than 50% of the length of the SiC growth substrate (C1/C2) and highly preferably along more than 90% of the length of the SiC growth substrate from a circular shape and/or a ratio U/A between the cross-sectional area A and the perimeter U around the cross-sectional area is higher than 1.2 1/cm and preferably higher than 1.5 1/cm and highly preferably higher than 2 1/cm and most preferably higher than 2.5 1/cm.
Claim 69: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses the SiC growth substrate (C1/C2, Fig. 1, Kim) is formed by at least one carbon ribbon or plate (ribbon or sheet, para. [0006], [0040], [0138]), in particular graphite ribbon, wherein the at least one carbon ribbon (C1/C2) comprises a first ribbon end (first ribbon end of C1/C2) and a second ribbon end (second ribbon end of C1/C2), wherein the first ribbon end (first ribbon end of C1/C2) is coupled with the first metal electrode (one E1/E2) and wherein the second ribbon end (second ribbon end of C1/C2) is coupled with the second metal electrode (another E1/E2)
or
wherein each of multiple the SiC growth substrates is formed by at least one carbon ribbon or plate, in particular graphite ribbon, wherein the at least one
carbon ribbon per SiC growth substrate comprises a first ribbon end and a second ribbon end, wherein the first ribbon end is coupled with the first metal electrode of the respective SiC growth substrate and wherein the second ribbon end is coupled with the second metal electrode of the respective SiC growth substrate.
Claim 70: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses the SiC growth substrate (C1/C2, Fig. 1, Kim) is formed by multiple rods or plates (rods or sheet, para. [0006], [0040], [0138]), wherein each rod or plate (C1/C2) has a first rod or plate end (first rod end of C1/C2) and a second rod or plate end (second rod end of C1/C2), wherein all first rod or plate ends (first rod ends of C1/C2) are coupled with the same first metal electrode (one E1/E2) and wherein all second rod or plate ends (second rod ends of C1/C2) are coupled with the same second metal electrode (another E1/E2)
or
wherein each of multiple SiC growth substrates is formed by multiple rods or plates, wherein each rod or plate has a first rod or plate end and a second rod or plate end, wherein all first rod or plate ends are coupled with the same first metal electrode of the respective SiC growth substrate and wherein all second rod ends or plates (900) are coupled with the same second metal electrode of the respective SiC growth substrate.
Claim 71: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses the SiC growth substrate (C1/C2, Fig. 1, Kim) is formed by at least one metal rod (rods, para. [0006], [0040], [0138], [0140]), wherein the metal rod (C1/C2) has a first metal rod end (first metal rod end of C1/C2) and a second metal rod end (second metal rod end of C1/C2),
wherein the first metal rod end (first metal rod end of C1/C2) is coupled with the first metal electrode (one E1/E2) and wherein the second metal rod end (second metal rod end of C1/C2) is coupled with the second metal electrode (another E1/E2)
or
wherein each of multiple SiC growth substrates is formed by at least one metal rod, wherein each metal rod has a first metal rod end and a second metal rod end, wherein the first metal rod end is coupled with the first metal electrode of the respective SiC growth substrate and wherein the second metal rod end is coupled with the second metal electrode of the respective SiC growth substrate.
Claim(s) 63-65 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Genba as applied to claims 61-62, 66-71 above, and further in view of US 20110274851 to Miyazawa, US 20040178176 to Dunn.
Claim 63: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba does not disclose the base plate (862) and/or side wall section (864a) and/or top wall section (864b) comprises a cooling fluid guide unit- (872, 874, 876) for guiding a cooling fluid, wherein the cooling fluid guide unit (872, 874, 876) is configured to limit heating of the base plate (862) and/or side wall section (864a) and/or top wall section (864b) to a temperature below 1000°C, wherein a base plate and/or side wall section and/or top wall section sensor unit (890) is provided to detect temperature of the base plate (862) and/or side wall section (864a) and/or top wall section (864b) and to output a temperature signal or temperature data and/or a cooling fluid temperature sensor is provided to detect the temperature of the cooling fluid, and
a fluid forwarding unit is provided for forwarding the cooling fluid through the fluid guide unit, wherein the fluid forwarding unit is preferably configured to be operated in dependency of the temperature signal or temperature data provided by the base plate and/or side wall section and/or top wall section sensor unit and/or cooling fluid temperature sensor, wherein the cooling fluid is water or oil.
However Miyazawa discloses the base plate (2 [base], Fig. 2) and/or side wall section (3 [bell jar]) and/or top wall section (3) comprises a cooling fluid guide unit (31/32 [wall]/[jacket] or 22/21) for guiding a cooling fluid (para. [0046]), wherein the cooling fluid guide unit (31/32) is configured to limit heating of the base plate (2) and/or side wall section (3) and/or top wall section (3) to a temperature below 1000°C (para. [0058-0059], and
a fluid forwarding unit (51 [pump], Fig. 1) is provided for forwarding the cooling fluid through the fluid guide unit (31/32 or 22/21), wherein the fluid forwarding unit (31/32 or 22/21, para. [0049]) is preferably configured to be operated in dependency of the temperature signal or temperature data (para. [0059]), wherein the cooling fluid is water or oil (para. [0058]); for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the reactor so that the impurity in produced in the product can be decreased (para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyazawa with motivation to control the temperature of the reactor so that the impurity in produced in the product can be decreased.
Dunn discloses wherein a base plate and/or side wall section (sidewalls of 17 [bell jar], Fig. 1-2) and/or top wall section sensor unit (890) is provided to detect temperature of the base plate and/or side wall section (17) and/or top wall section (17) and to output a temperature signal or temperature data (70 [signals] from sensors) and/or a cooling fluid temperature sensor is provided to detect the temperature of the cooling fluid (para. [0045]), for the purpose of delivering cooling air from the blower to the reactor (abstract) to extend the number of deposition-etch sequences via monitoring wall temperatures to remove/reduce contamination (para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dunn with motivation to deliver cooling air from the blower to the reactor (abstract) to extend the number of deposition-etch sequences via monitoring wall temperatures to remove/reduce contamination.
Claims 64-65: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba, Miyazawa, Dunn does not disclose (claim 64) the cooling element is a passive cooling element; (claim 65) the cooling element is at least partially formed by a polished steel surface of the base plate, the side wall section and/or the top wall section, wherein the cooling element is a coating, wherein the coating is formed on top of the polished steel surface and wherein the coating is configured to reflect heat, wherein the coating is a metal coating or a comprises metal, in particular silver or gold or chrome, or alloy coating, in particular a CuNi alloy, wherein the emissivity of the polished steel surface and/or of the coating is below 0.3, in particular below 0.1 or below 0.03.
Miyazawa teaches (claim 64) the cooling element (8 [circumferential wall], Fig. 2) is a passive cooling element (8A [carbon steel]), para. [0056]); (claim 65) the cooling element (8A) is at least partially formed by a polished steel surface (8A) of the base plate, the side wall section (31 [circumferential wall]) and/or the top wall section (31), wherein the cooling element (8A) is a coating (8B), wherein the coating is (8B) formed on top of the polished steel surface (8A) and wherein the coating (8B) is configured to reflect heat,
wherein the coating (8B) is a metal coating or a comprises metal, in particular silver or gold or chrome, or alloy coating (para. [0056]), in particular a CuNi alloy, wherein the emissivity of the polished steel surface (8A) and/or of the coating (8B) is below 0.3, in particular below 0.1 or below 0.03 (intrinsically these values). Miyazawa discloses this for the purpose of having high thermal conductivity (para. [0056]), thereby recovering heat at a lower temperature, thus decreasing the temperature difference more efficiently (para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyazawa with motivation to have high thermal conductivity, thereby recovering heat at a lower temperature, thus decreasing the temperature difference more efficiently.
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Genba as applied to claims 61-62, 66-71 above, and further in view of US 20150123038 to Dassel.
Claim 72: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba discloses a gas outlet unit (No [gas outlet means], Fig. 1) for outputting vent gas (para. [0118]).
However the apparatus of Kim in view of Genba does not disclose wherein the vent gas recycling unit is connected to the gas outlet unit, wherein the vent gas recycling unit comprises at least a separator unit for separating the vent gas into a first fluid and into a second fluid, wherein the first fluid is a liquid and wherein the second fluid is a gas,
wherein a first storage and/or conducting element for storing or conducting the first fluid is part of the separator unit or coupled with the separator unit and wherein a second storage and/or conducting element for storing or conducting the second fluid is part of the separator unit or coupled with the separator unit.
Dassel discloses disclose a gas outlet unit (10. 1 [exit conduit], Fig. 1A) for outputting vent gas a vent gas recycling unit (“VGR system,” para. [0162]), wherein the vent gas recycling unit (“VGR system”) is connected to the gas outlet unit (10.1),
wherein the vent gas recycling unit (VGR system) comprises at least a separator unit (18 [absorber column]) for separating the vent gas into a first fluid and into a second fluid, wherein the first fluid is a liquid (18.1) and wherein the second fluid is a gas (18.2, para. [0163]),
wherein a first storage and/or conducting element (20 [distillation unit]) for storing or conducting the first fluid is part of the separator unit or coupled with the separator unit (para. [0163]) and wherein a second storage and/or conducting element (24 [tank]) for storing or conducting the second fluid is part of the separator unit or coupled with the separator unit (para. [0163]). Dassel disclose this for the purpose of providing a replacement for the current, complex vent gas recovery (VGR) system used in polysilicon and related manufacturing processes with a greatly simplified system and process, thereby reducing both capital investment and operating cost by as much as 80% (para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dassel with motivation to provide a replacement for the current, complex vent gas recovery (VGR) system used in polysilicon and related manufacturing processes with a greatly simplified system and process, thereby reducing both capital investment and operating cost by as much as 80%.
Claim(s) 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Genba, Dassel as applied to claim 72 above, and further in view of US 4491604 to Lesk.
Claim 73: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba, Dassel does not disclose the vent gas recycling unit comprises a further separator unit for separating the first fluid into at least two parts, wherein the two parts are
a mixture of chlorosilanes and
- a mixture of HCI, H2 and at least one C-bearing molecule,
and preferably into at least three parts, wherein the three parts are
- a mixture of chlorosilanes and HCI and
- a mixture of H2 and at least one C-bearing molecule,
wherein the first storage and/or conducting element connects the separator unit with the further separator unit, wherein the further separator unit is coupled with a mixture or chlorosilanes storage and/or conducting element and with a HCI storage and/or conducting element and with a H2 and C storage and/or conducting element,
wherein the mixture of chlorosilanes storage and/or conducting element forms a section of a mixture of chlorosilanes mass flux path for conducting the mixture of chlorosilanes into the process chamber,
wherein a Si mass flux measurement unit for measuring an amount of Si of the mixture of chlorosilanes is provided as part of the mass flux path prior to the process chamber, in particular prior to a mixing device (854), and preferably as further Si feed-medium source providing a further Si feed medium.
However Dassel discloses the vent gas recycling unit (VGR system, Fig. 1A) comprises a further separator unit (24 [gas compressor]) for separating the first fluid into at least two parts (24.1 and 24.2), wherein the two parts are
a mixture of chlorosilanes (24.1) and
- a mixture of HCI, H2 (24.2) and at least one C-bearing molecule (24.2),
wherein the first storage and/or conducting element connects the separator unit (20) with the further separator unit, wherein the further separator unit (24) is coupled with a mixture or chlorosilanes storage and/or conducting element and with a HCI storage and/or conducting element and with a H2 and C storage and/or conducting element (para. [0163]), for the purpose of providing a replacement for the current, complex vent gas recovery (VGR) system used in polysilicon and related manufacturing processes with a greatly simplified system and process, thereby reducing both capital investment and operating cost by as much as 80% (para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dassel with motivation to provide a replacement for the current, complex vent gas recovery (VGR) system used in polysilicon and related manufacturing processes with a greatly simplified system and process, thereby reducing both capital investment and operating cost by as much as 80%.
Lesk discloses wherein the mixture of chlorosilanes storage and/or conducting element forms a section of a mixture of chlorosilanes mass flux path (38/39, Fig. 4) for conducting the mixture of chlorosilanes into the process chamber (40 [deposition reactor]), wherein a Si mass flux measurement unit (42/44/50) for measuring an amount of Si of the mixture of chlorosilanes is provided as part of the mass flux path prior to the process chamber, in particular prior to a mixing device (c. 3, l. 55-67 and c 4, l. 1-25), and preferably as further Si feed-medium source providing a further Si feed medium (38/54/56). Lesk discloses these teachings for the purpose of providing an improved silicon growth process in which equilibrium is achieved between reaction input and effluent (c. 1, l. 40-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teachings with motivation to provide an improved silicon growth process in which equilibrium is achieved between reaction input and effluent.
Claims 74-84: (Withdrawn).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 61, 62-65, 69-73 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 62-68, 70-71 of copending Application No. 18/266,205 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application render the claims of the instant application obvious. More specifically, although the language of the claims of the instant application and the copending application are not identical, the subject matter in the disclosure represented by the language of the aforementioned claims is the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 61-65, 67-68, 70-73 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 88-90, 96-97, 100-103, of copending Application No. 18/266,227 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application render the claims of the instant application obvious. More specifically, although the language of the claims of the instant application and the copending application are not identical, the subject matter in the disclosure represented by the language of the aforementioned claims is the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718