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.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 65 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 74-84 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 61, 63, 66, 68-69, 72-73 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Chen in addition to previously relied on references below.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that regarding the 112 (f) interpretations (and corresponding 112 (b) rejections), that “fluid forwarding unit,” “Storage or Conducting element,” “Cooling fluid guide unit” have sufficient written description in the specification.
While Examiner agrees there is some description of the about limitations, the descriptions are not modified by any structure in the specification or drawings (shown as boxes in the instances). Therefore the limitations are still maintained as rejected under 112 (b), and can either be cancelled, replaced with functional language, or replaced with corresponding structure (if applicable, with disclosed support).
Applicant argues that regarding claim 61, Kim nor Genba teaches internal resistive heating of SiC growth substrates, that Kim only teaches Si Rods, and that Genba does not teach resistive heating.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Kim explicitly teaches that the growth substrate (core means) can be a resistive material (para. [0072]), and that resistive material can be Silicon Carbide (SiC, para. [0043], para. [0139-0140]) or other materials are considered. Additionally, Kim already teaches internal resistive heating as rejected below in claim 61, and acknowledged in Applicant’s arguments. Regarding Genba, it is relied upon to teach depositing SiC (which is intended use of the apparatus also, as it is obvious to switch deposition materials—Applicant is mistaken that the wrong material is being deposited), and not to reteach the remainer of claim 61’s limitations already taught by Kim. Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding deposition temperature, Applicant argues that it is wrong and doesn’t reach above 1300 degrees Celsius.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that at least para. [0026], [0050], [0085] teaches temperatures above 1300 in multiple aspects of the disclosure of Kim, and additionally, touching an endpoint of the range (1300 degrees celsius) renders the limitation as obvious.
Applicant’s argument for a “functional role” is not understood. The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba teaches all the structure and is capable to perform as necessary.
Applicant argues that Kim does not teach a feed-medium source providing carbon.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that the Kim (teaches Si containing gases) in view of Genba (teaches Si and C gases para. [0053], [0048]).
Regarding Applicant’s remaining arguments, the remaining arguments are repeated in pages 12-17 thus are already responded to as unpersuasive.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 03/06/2026. US Patent 1212770 issued 10/24/2024 has an incorrect number (missing a character) and thus is NOT being considered by the examiner. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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 (or Separation) unit (cold distillation column, para. [0092]) 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.
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.
Claim limitation “fluid forwarding 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 Si 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 one feed-medium source (Nf), wherein a Si feed-medium source (Nf) provides at least Si, and wherein a carrier gas feed-medium source (Nf) provides a carrier gas (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, and wherein a carrier gas medium source provides a carrier gas, in particular H2,
at least one SiC growth substrate (C1/C2 [core means], Fig. 1) is 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 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]), by internal resistive heating (para. [0033], [0072-0075]),
wherein the base plate (Rb) comprises at least one base cooling element (“cooling means,” para. [0120], [0126], where cooling means is equipped on Rb for preventing heating of the base plate (Rb) above a defined temperature (para. [0120]).
However Kim does not disclose the apparatus for depositing SiC, providing a C feed medium source;
Genba teaches manufacturing SiC and providing a Si and C medium feed source (para. [0053], [0048]) 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 more than 50% of the side wall section (sidewall of Rs) 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 SiC or C (para. [0043]), or wherein multiple SiC growth substrates comprise SiC or C;
However the modified apparatus does not explicitly disclose and the shape of the cross-sectional area orthogonal to the length direction of the SiC growth substrate differs at least in sections of the length of the SiC growth substrate (C1/C2) 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.
Yet Kim teaches that the shape and dimension of the corresponding electrode units may be determined be considering a diameter of the Si rod to be manufactured, the number and installation arrangement of the core units, and a space available and their corresponding electric power transmitting means (para. [0124], [0150]), for the purpose of enhancing reliability in terms of safety (para. [0130]).
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 various dimension and/or shape options as taught by Kim with motivation to enhance reliability in terms of safety.
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]), 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, 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) 63-64 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 20090321019 to Chen.
Claim 63: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba does not disclose the base plate (862) 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) to a temperature below 1000°C, wherein a base plate sensor unit (890) is provided to detect temperature of the base plate (862) and to output a temperature signal or temperature data, and
a fluid forwarding unit is provided for forwarding the cooling fluid through the fluid guide unit, wherein the fluid forwarding unit is configured to be operated in dependency of the temperature signal or temperature data provided by the base plate, wherein the cooling fluid is water or oil.
However Miyazawa discloses the base plate (2 [base], Fig. 2) 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) 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 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.
Chen discloses wherein a base plate sensor unit (392 [sensors], Fig. 3) is provided to detect temperature of the base plate (364 [base plate]) and to output a temperature signal or temperature data (350 [controller]), for the purpose of monitoring the temperature of the base plate in different regions and adjust a temperature of the regulating fluid flowing therethrough (para. [0034]).
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 Chen with motivation to monitor the temperature of the base plate in different regions and adjust a temperature of the regulating fluid flowing therethrough.
Claims 64: The apparatus of Kim in view of Genba, Miyazawa, Dunn does not disclose (claim 64) the cooling element is a passive cooling element.
Miyazawa teaches (claim 64) the cooling element (8 [circumferential wall], Fig. 2) is a passive cooling element (8A [carbon steel]), para. [0056]); 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 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 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 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 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 at least two parts are
a mixture of chlorosilanes and
- a mixture of HCI, 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 or conducting element and with a HCI storage or conducting element and with a H2 and C storage and/or conducting element,
wherein the mixture of chlorosilanes storage 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.
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 at least 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 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 or conducting element and with a HCI storage and/or conducting element and with a H2 and C storage 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 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 (c. 3, l. 55-67 and c 4, l. 1-25). 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250305140 discloses a similar disclosed invention aspects by same assignee and a few common inventors filed after the instant application (abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights