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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
SiC production reactor comprising a process chamber, a gas inlet unit, and one or multiple SiC growth substrates coupled between at least one first and second metal electrodes
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 68 and 70 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendments to the specification.
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: the “separator unit” in claims 70-71, and the “further separator unit” and the “Si mass flux measurement unit” in claim 71.
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.
The claim limitations relating to the “separator unit” in claims 70-71, and the “further separator unit” and the “Si mass flux measurement unit” in claim 71 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “for separating the vent gas into a first fluid and into a second fluid,” “for separating the first fluid into at least two parts,” and “for measuring an amount of Si in the mixture of chlorosilanes,” respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 70-71 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The separator unit is disclosed in at least Fig. 15 and ¶¶[0483]-[0485] of the published application as the separator unit (602) for the vent gas (216) which is illustrated as a square in the drawings and is further described in ¶¶[00490]-[00491] as a first compressor (634).
The further separator unit is disclosed in at least Fig. 15 and ¶¶[0483]-[0485] of the published application as the further separator unit (612) for the first fluid (962) which is illustrated as a square in the drawings and is further described in ¶¶[00490]-[00491] as a further compressor (636).
The Si mass flux measurement unit is disclosed in at least Fig. 15 and ¶[0486] as the Si mass flux measurement unit (622) which is illustrated as a square in the drawings, but as explained infra, the actual structure of the Si mass flux measurement unit does not appear to be disclosed.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
The “Si mass flux measurement unit” in claim 71 is a limitation which 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 the claimed function. Figure 15 and ¶¶[0483]-[0485] of the published application appear to disclose the Si mass flux measurement unit as box (622). However, the actual structure of the Si mass flux measurement unit as claimed which achieves the functions of measuring an amount of Si in a mixture of chlorosilanes does not appear to be disclosed in the specification as originally filed.
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; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function 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 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 § 112
The preceding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 67-68 and 70 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ arguments and claim amendments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 71 recites a “Si mass flux measurement unit.” The Si mass flux measurement unit appears to be described in at least Fig. 15 and ¶¶[0483]-[0485] of the published application as box (622). However, neither the specification nor the claims as originally filed appear to teach or suggest the actual structure that is associated with the “Si mass flux measurement unit” as claimed. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 18, 2026, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. Nos. 18/266,176 and 18/266,227 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 62-63, 66, and 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0130333 to Young, et al. (hereinafter “Young”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0348274 to Genba, et al. (“Genba”).
Regarding claim 62, Young teaches a SiC production reactor (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and entire reference which teach a deposition reactor which is capable of depositing SiC), at least comprising
a process chamber, wherein the process chamber is at least surrounded by a base plate, a side wall section and a top wall section (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0065]-[0066] which teach a deposition reactor having an inner space Ri formed by a shell Rs which has side and top wall sections that rest on a base plate Rb),
a gas inlet unit for feeding one feed-medium or multiple feed-mediums into a reaction space of the process chamber for generating a source medium, wherein a Si feed medium source provides at least Si (see Fig. 1, ¶[0029], and ¶[0080] which teach a gas inlet Nf for supplying a reaction gas such as silane (SiH4) into the inner space Ri),
one or multiple SiC growth substrates are arranged inside the process chamber for depositing (see Fig. 1-2 and ¶¶[0071]-[0088] which teach providing a plurality of first (C1) and second (C2) core means within the inner space Ri for deposition thereupon; see specifically ¶[0043] which teaches that the first core means (C1) may be comprised of SiC),
wherein each SiC growth substrate comprises a first power connection and a second power connection, wherein the first power connections are first metal electrodes and wherein the second power connections are second metal electrodes, wherein each SiC growth substrate is coupled between at least one first metal electrode and at least one second metal electrode for heating the outer surface of the SiC growth substrates or the surface of the deposited SiC to temperatures between 1300°C and 1800°C (see Figs. 1-2, ¶[0026], ¶[0050], ¶[0067], and ¶¶[0071]-[0088] which teach that first and second electrode units (E1) and (E2) are coupled at each end of the first (C1) and second (C2) core means in order to heat the core means to a temperature in the range of 400 to 3,000 °C; moreover, in order to efficiently; see specifically ¶[0126] which teaches that the electrodes may be made of a metal material),
wherein the SiC growth substrate has an average perimeter of at least 5 cm around a cross-sectional area orthogonal to the length direction of the SiC growth substrate or multiple SiC growth substrates have an average perimeter per SiC growth substrate of at least 5 cm around a cross-sectional area orthogonal to the length direction of the respective SiC growth substrate (See Figs 1 & 8-12, ¶¶[0006]-[0007], ¶[0009], and ¶[0148] which teach that the core element (C1) and/or (C2) may be in the form of a circle, a square, or a ribbon with a diameter or width of up to 100 mm (i.e., 10 cm) which, in the case of a square would produce a perimeter of 100 mm × 4 sides = 400 mm (i.e., 40 cm)).
Young does not teach that the gas inlet unit is coupled with at least two feed-medium sources, wherein a C feed medium source provides at least C, wherein a carrier gas medium source provides a carrier gas, or that the SiC growth substrates are for depositing SiC. However, in at least Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0038]-[0049] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Genba teaches an analogous CVD apparatus (1) for the epitaxial deposition of SiC onto a substrate (10) from a plurality of gas sources (71a)-(71e) which includes, inter alia, a hydrogen (H2) carrier gas (71a), a silicon source (71b), a carbon source (71c). In Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0050]-[0059] Genba further teaches that a high quality SiC epitaxial layer may be deposited onto the SiC substrate (10) by flowing the desired precursor gases, including Si- and C-containing precursor gases. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Genba and would be motivated to include at least Si and C feed-medium sources as well as H2 as a carrier gas in order to deposit SiC onto the core elements (C1) and/or (C2) in the apparatus of Young in order to, for example, produce high quality epitaxial SiC substrates and/or source material for use in the production of semiconductor devices. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 63, Young teaches that
the SiC growth substrate comprises or consists of SiC or C, or wherein ratio
multiple SiC growth substrates comprise or consist of SiC or C (see ¶[0043] which teaches that the first and/or second core means (C1) and (C2) may be made of graphite or SiC),
characterized in that the shape of the cross-sectional area orthogonal to the length direction of the SiC growth substrate differs at least in sections from a circular shape, wherein 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 (See Figs. 10 & 12, ¶[0006] and ¶[0040] which teach that the core means (C1) and (C2) may be in the shape of an oval, a square, or a ribbon as well as ¶[0009] and ¶[0148] which teach that the diameter may be up to 100 mm. Young does not explicitly teach the thickness of the core means when it is in the shape of a ribbon such that the ratio U/A may be calculated, but in ¶[0199] Young teaches that problems arise when the thickness of the barrier layer C1b is less than 1 mm and greater than 10 mm which therefore suggests an analogous thickness range for the core means (C1a). Since the dimensions of the ribbon determine the final shape of the deposited crystal (D1) it is therefore 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 ribbon thickness and diameter and, consequently, the optimal ratio U/A necessary to produce a deposited crystal (D1) with the desired shape and dimensions. As an example, a ribbon thickness of 1 mm, which is between 1 mm and 10 mm, together with a diameter of 100 mm yields a perimeter U of (1 mm × 2) + (100 mm × 2) = 202 mm while the cross-sectional area A of the ribbon is then (1 mm × 100 mm) = 100 mm2 which therefore yields a ratio U/A of 202/100 = 2.02 which falls within the claimed range.),
wherein the SiC growth substrate is formed by at least one carbon ribbon, wherein the at least one carbon ribbon comprises a first ribbon end and a second ribbon end, wherein the first ribbon end is coupled with the first metal electrode and wherein the second ribbon end is coupled with the second metal electrode or wherein each of multiple the SiC growth substrates is formed by at least one carbon ribbon, 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 (see Figs. 10 & 12, ¶[0006] and ¶[0040] which teach that the core means (C1) and (C2) may be in the shape of a ribbon which extends from one metal electrode unit (E1) to the other; see also ¶[0043] which teaches that the first and/or second core means (C1) and (C2) may be made of graphite).
Regarding claim 66, Young teaches that the base plate comprises at least one cooling element for preventing heating of the base plate above a defined temperature and/or wherein the side wall section comprises at least one cooling element for preventing heating of the side wall section above a defined temperature and/or wherein the top wall section comprises at least one cooling element for preventing heating of the top wall section above a defined temperature (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0126] which teach that it is preferable to cool some area or the entire area of the base unit Rb in order to prevent it from being heated above a defined temperature by using a circulated cooling medium).
Regarding claim 83, Young and Genba teach a system configured for carrying out the method according to claim 72 (see supra with respect to the rejection of claim 62 in which at least Figs. 1-2, ¶¶[0065]-[0066], and ¶¶[0071]-[0088] of Young combined with at least Figs. 1-2, ¶¶[0038]-[0049], and ¶¶[0050]-[0059] of Genba teach a system capable of performing the method as claimed by adjusting the electrical current through the core elements (C1) and (C2) to obtain the desired temperature (see specifically ¶[0026] of Young which teaches a temperature of 400 to 3,000 °C) and by adjusting the flow rate through the gas supply means Nf to the desired value until the desired deposition rate is achieved).
Claim 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Genba and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,315,895 to Miyazawa, et al. (“Miyazawa”).
Regarding claim 69, Young teaches that
the base plate comprises at least one active cooling element for preventing heating the base plate above a defined temperature and/or the side wall section comprises at least one active cooling element for preventing heating the side wall section above a defined temperature and/or the top wall section comprises at least one active cooling element for preventing heating the top wall section above a defined temperature (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0126] which teach that it is preferable to cool some area or the entire area of the base unit Rb in order to prevent it from being heated above a defined temperature by using a circulated cooling medium as an active cooling element),
wherein the side wall section and the top wall section are formed by a bell jar wherein more than 50% [mass] of the side wall section and/or more than 50% [mass] of the top wall section and/or more than 50% [mass] of the base plate is made of metal (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0066] which teach that the shell Rs form a bell jar while ¶[0125] teaches that the shell Rs and base unit Rb are metal-based which necessarily means it is comprised of at least 50% metal; alternatively, see supra with respect to the rejection of claim 68 where col. 4, ll. 4-50 and col. 7, ll. 55-67 of Miyazawa are relied upon to teach the use of an inner wall (8A) comprised entirely of carbon steel).
Young does not teach that the base plate, side wall section, and/or the top wall section comprise a passive cooling element. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 68, in at least Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 24-37, and col. 7, l. 55 to col. 9, l. 59 Miyagawa teaches the use of a carbon steel as the circumferential wall (8A) of the bell jar (3) along with a passive cooling element in the form of a covering layer (8B) on an interior surface thereof. Then in col. 7, ll. 55-67 and col. 12, ll. 53-63 Miyagawa further teaches that the covering layer (8B) may be comprised of a nickel layer or a stainless layer containing 16-24% Cr, 8-15% Ni, and 0-5% Mo that is formed by plating or thermal spraying. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to form the shell Rs and base Rb of Young with a passive cooling element in the form of a coating (8B) comprised of nickel or stainless steel in order to reduce the thermal gradient across the thickness of the wall and minimize the propensity for contamination of the core means (C1)-(C2) and deposited output (C1)-(D2).
Claim 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Genba and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0123038 to Mark William Dassel (“Dassel”).
Regarding claim 70, Young teaches a gas outlet unit for outputting vent gas (see Fig. 1, ¶[0111], and ¶[0118] which teach that the system includes a gas outlet means No for discharging off-gas Go from the inner space Ri), but does not teach a vent gas recycling unit as claimed. However, in at least the Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and the entire reference Dassel teaches an embodiment of a system for vent gas recovery (VGR) which includes:
a vent gas recycling unit, wherein the vent gas recycling unit is connected to the gas outlet unit (see Fig. 1A, ¶[0008], ¶[0163], and ¶¶[0270]-[0278] which teach an embodiment of a vent gas recovery (VGR) unit which is connected to the exit conduit (10.1) from a CVD reactor (10))
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 (see Fig. 1A, ¶[0008], ¶[0163], and ¶¶[0270]-[0278] which teach that the vent gas from the CVD reactor (10) is sent to an absorber column (18) which separates the vent gas into at least a first and second fluid which may be in the form of a liquid and/or gas which are vented through exits (18.1) and (18.2)),
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 (see Fig. 1A, ¶[0008], ¶[0163], and ¶¶[0270]-[0278] which further teach that the liquid and/or gas flows through a first conducting element in the form of exit (18.1) and a second conducting element in the form of exit (18.2)).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Dassel and would be motivated to utilize a vent gas recover (VGR) system analogous to that disclosed in Fig. 1A of Dassel which includes a vent gas recycling unit comprised of, inter alia, a separator in the form of absorber column (18) for separating the vent gas into a liquid and a gas along with first and second conducting elements (18.1) and (18.2) for conducting the liquid and gas away from the absorber column (18) in order to recycle and reuse waste gases that are emitted from the inner space Ri of the reactor in the system of Williams and Genba and thereby minimize waste and increase the efficiency of the reactor.
Claim 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Genba and further in view of Dassel and still further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,491,604 to Lesk, et al. (“Lesk”).
Regarding claim 71, Young and Genba do not teach that the vent gas recycling unit comprises a further separator as claimed. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 70, in at least the Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and the entire reference Dassel teaches that the VGR system further includes:
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 (See Fig. 1A, ¶[0008], ¶[0163], and ¶¶[0270]-[0278] which teach that the exits from the absorber column (18.2) and/or (18.1) are connected to a further separator unit in the form of recycle gas compressor (24) and a distillation unit (20), respectively, where the gas may be further separated into liquid and gas byproducts through exits (24.1) and (24.2) or (20.1) and (20.2). As explained specifically in ¶[0008] and ¶[0163] Dassel teaches that exit conduit (24.2) provides for a hydrogen bleed whereas exit conduit (24.1) provides for fluid deliver of trichlorosilane (TCS) to a silica gel bed (26) while exit conduit (20.1) provides for delivery of STC and other gases and exit conduit (20.2) provides for delivery of TCS/DCS to a storage tank (22).),
wherein the first storage and/or conducting element connects the separator unit with the further separator unit (see Fig. 1A and ¶[0163] which teach that the exit (18.2) connects the absorber column (18) with the recycle gas compressor (24) and, subsequently, to the silica gel bed (26) via another exit (24.1) while exit (18.1) connects the absorber column (18) with the distillation unit (20)),
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 (see Fig. 1A, ¶[0008], and ¶[0163] which teach that the outputs from exits (24.2) and (20.2) may be sent to, for example, different storage tanks (22) and (28)),
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 (see Fig. 1A, ¶[0008], and ¶[0163] which teach that the output from exit (26.1) and the output (28.1) from storage tank (28) may be returned to the CVD reactor (10) to be used in subsequent deposition processes).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to incorporate a further separator unit which is further capable of separating out components such as chlorosilanes, HCl, H2, and C-bearing molecules in the apparatus of Young and Genba and sends these to separate storage tanks such with the motivation for doing so being to reduce waste and increase the efficiency of the process by recovering, storing, and reusing gaseous precursors from the exhaust gases.
Young, Genba, and Dassel do not teach 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, in Figs. 3-5 and col. 2, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 26 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Lesk teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for the deposition of a Group-IV semiconductor such as Si in a CVD reactor (40) from, for example, precursor gases comprised of chlorosilanes and H2. In col. 3, l. 50 to col. 4, l. 44 Lesk specifically teaches that the effluent (41) from the deposition reactor (40) passes through a compressor (42) and condenser (44) to separate and recycle the chlorosilanes and hydrogen precursor gases such that they may be reintroduced into the reactor (40). The Si to Cl ratio of the effluent (41) is determined by measuring the concentrations of different molecular species that exit the chamber (40) using, for example, gas chromatography. The measured Si/Cl ratio and the known quantity of input reactants are used to determine the Si deposition efficiency such that the additional amount of make-up chlorosilane and hydrogen may be determined and added upstream from the reactor (40) such that a constant flow of Si is maintained through the reactor (40). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a Si mass flux measurement unit such as a gas chromatograph in order to measure the amount of Si that is being recovered and then returned to the reactor so that the amount of recovered chlorosilane that is added may be adjusted to maintain a constant flow of Si throughout the deposition process.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed March 18, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ proposed title has been reviewed, but does not sufficiently describe the elected and claimed invention since, for one, it refers to a method when the method claims are withdrawn. A proposed replacement title has been provided by the Examiner.
It appears applicants have not responded to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 71 and, consequently, the rejection is maintained.
Applicants initially argue against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 62 by contending that Young discloses the deposition of poly-Si rather than SiC. See applicants’ 3/18/2026 reply, pp. 22-24. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. For one it is pointed out that the pending claims are apparatus claims and since the deposition reactor of Young is capable of being used to deposit SiC it therefore meets the claim. Second, applicants’ arguments appear to amount to arguing against the references individually since it is Genba rather than Young that is relied upon to teach the inclusion of a C source for the deposition of SiC. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants then argue that Young does not teach a carbon feed-medium source. See applicants’ March 18, 2026, reply, pp. 24-25. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it again is based on arguing against the references individually. In this case it is Genba rather than Young that is relied upon to teach the inclusion of a carbon feed medium source to deposit SiC.
Applicants argue that Young’s 400 to 3,000 °C temperature range is for the first core means (C1) during a preheating step which occurs before Si deposition and is not for a Si deposition surface. Id. at pp. 25-26. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. First, it is again noted that claim 62 is an apparatus claim and only requires that the SiC growth substrate is capable of being heated to a temperature of between 1,300 and 1,800 °C. In this case, ¶[0043] of Young clearly teaches that the first core means (C1) may be comprised of SiC while at least ¶[0026] and ¶[0050] teach that the first core means may be heated to a temperature of 400 to 3,000 °C and Fig. 1 shows that deposition output (D1) forms on the first core means (C1). Thus, Young clearly teaches a SiC growth substrate in the form of at least the first core means (C1) with an outer surface that can be heated to a temperature of between 1,300 and 1,800 °C.
Applicants further argue that Young’s actual Si deposition temperature is in the range of 650 to 1,300 °C and that Young teaches away from temperatures above 1,300 °C because core temperatures above 1,400 °C cause the Si rod to collapse. Id. at pp. 26-27. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. It is again noted that claim 62 is an apparatus claim and applicants’ argument is base don the deposition of poly-Si onto a Si core rather than SiC. As discussed supra, at least Fig. 1, ¶[0026], and ¶[0043] of Young clearly teach a SiC core (C1) which is capable of being heated to a temperature of 400 to 3,000 °C. Since the core is comprised of SiC rather than Si it therefore has a higher melting temperature (i.e., 2,830 °C for SiC compared to 1,414 °C for Si) and can be heated to temperatures in the 1,300 to 1,800 °C range as claimed. Then the teachings of Genba are introduced to specifically teach the inclusion of a carbon-containing source material in order to deposit SiC.
Applicants then argue that since Young is highly sensitive to purity and contamination of the Si deposition output, the introduction of C to the reactor is contrary to Young’s teaching. Id. at pp. 27-28. This argument also is found unpersuasive since, as repeatedly explained supra, the pending claims are apparatus claims and the apparatus of Young is clearly capable of being used to deposit SiC upon being modified based on the teachings of Genba. When depositing a compound semiconductor such as SiC it clearly is desirable that C be incorporated and there are no contamination concerns associated with its use.
Applicants then contend that Genba confirms the complexity of controlled SiC chemistry in ¶[0018] and that the chemistry for SiC is not simply substitutable into any existing reactor. Id. at pp. 28. This argument is not found persuasive because, for one, it is based on arguments of counsel rather than factually supported objective evidence. In ¶[0018] Genba is merely discussing the difficulties in using both ammonia and hydrogen chloride during SiC growth and is not specifically stating that SiC growth is inherently difficult or that it cannot be performed in different types of reactors. In this case ammonia would be used only if it were desirable to include a dopant gas in order to produce doped SiC.
Applicants then allege that there are fundamental structural incompatibilities between Young and Genba which prevent their combination because Young relates to the deposition of poly-Si on heated rod-shaped core means in a bell jar while Genba discloses a horizontal CVD reactor for the epitaxial growth of SiC wafers. Id. at pp. 29-30. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive since, for one, it is again based on arguments of counsel rather than factually supported objective evidence. Since both Young and Genba relate to the use of gaseous precursors to deposit a crystalline semiconductor onto a heated substrate, they are considered both analogous art and relevant to the problem to be solved which, in this case, is the deposition of crystalline Group-IV semiconductors for use in electronic applications. Simply changing the shape of the substrate from that of a wafer to a rod and changing its manner of heating from induction heating to direct resistive heating does not then mean that the teachings of Genba cannot or would not be utilized in the reactor of Young. In fact, the only modification being made to Young is that a source of carbon is included as a gaseous precursor in order to perform the same process, namely that of depositing a crystalline SiC layer onto a heated substrate. It therefore is the Examiner’s position that there is no fundamental structural incompatibility arising from applying the teachings of Genba to the apparatus of Young as described in the present Office Action.
Finally, applicants allege that there is no adequate motivation to combine Young and Genba and that the combination would not yield predictable results because it replaces the chemistry, exceeds Young’s temperature limit, converts the process function, and requires adopting Genba’s full process architecture. Id. at pp. 30-31. This argument is not found persuasive as it appears to reiterate a number of arguments presented supra which are not persuasive for the reasons noted. In particular, modifying Young to meet the apparatus of independent claim 62 only requires the addition of a gaseous carbon-containing precursor in order to permit the deposition of an analogous crystalline Group IV semiconductor material in the form of SiC. In this case C is not a contaminant, but instead is a component of the deposited compound that is deliberately added to produce SiC. In at least ¶[0043] Young clearly teaches that the first core means (C1) may be comprised of SiC which meets the recitation of a SiC growth substrate in claim 62. When depositing SiC onto a SiC substrate it is possible to use temperatures in the claimed range of 1,300 to 1,800 °C because the melting point of SiC is significantly higher than that of Si alone. Finally, incorporating a C-containing precursor gas as taught by Genba into the apparatus of Young to deposit intrinsic SiC would not require the inclusion of a pre-heater or gas sources such as ammonia or hydrogen chloride as contended by applicants as those precursors are only necessary if it is desirable to dope and/or etch the deposited crystalline SiC layer. The specific motivation for adding a C-containing source in the apparatus of Young is to, for example, produce high quality crystalline SiC source material that may be used in the production of semiconductor devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 at (571) 272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights