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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 62-71 and 83, and Species A1, B1, and C1 in the reply filed on November 6, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 64-65 and 72-82 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 6, 2025.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 68 and 70 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 68 recites that the coating “is a metal coating or a comprises metal or alloy coating” which is grammatically incorrect. It is assumed applicants intended to recite, for example, that the coating “is a metal coating or [[a]] comprises a metal or alloy coating.”
Claim 70 recites the SiC production reactor is “characterized in that a gas outlet for outputting vent gas a vent gas recycling unit” which appears to be grammatically incorrect. It is assumed applicants intended to recite that the reactor “comprises” a gas outlet unit and a vent gas recycling unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
The cooling fluid guide unit (872), (874), (876) in at least ¶[0453] of the published application is not shown in Figs. 7 and 7a.
The cooling fluid temperature sensor (820) in at least ¶[0453] of the published application is not shown in Figs. 7 and 7a.
The chlorosilanes storage element (628), the HCl storage element (630), and the H2 and C storage element (632) in ¶[0485] of the published application do not appear to be shown in Fig. 15.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 “cooling fluid guide unit” and the “fluid forwarding unit” in claim 67, 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 “cooling fluid guide unit” and the “fluid forwarding unit” in claim 67 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 guiding a heating fluid” and “for forwarding the cooling fluid,” respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Similarly, 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 67 and 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 cooling fluid guide unit is shown and described as the cooling channels (870) within the interior walls of the bell jar (864) in Figs. 7 & 7a and ¶[0453] of the published application.
The fluid forwarding unit is disclosed in at least Figs. 7 & 7a and ¶[0453] of the published application as component (873) which is illustrated as a square in the drawings, but as explained infra, the actual structure of the fluid forwarding unit does not appear to be disclosed.
The separator unit is disclosed in at least Fig. 15 and ¶¶[0483]-[0485] as the separator unit (602) for the vent gas (216) which is illustrated as a square in the drawings, but as explained infra, the actual structure of the separator unit does not appear to be disclosed.
The further separator unit is disclosed in at least Fig. 15 and ¶¶[0483]-[0485] as the further separator unit (612) for the first fluid (962) which is illustrated as a square in the drawings, but as explained infra, the actual structure of the further separator unit does not appear to be disclosed.
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 “fluid forwarding unit” in claim 67 which is “provided for forwarding the cooling fluid through the fluid guide unit” 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. Figures 7 & 7a and ¶[0453] of the published application disclose a “fluid forwarding unit” and this is illustrated by box (873) in the drawings. However, the actual structure of the fluid forwarding unit as claimed which achieves the function of forwarding the cooling fluid does not appear to be disclosed in the specification as originally filed.
Similarly, the “separator unit” in claims 70-71 and the “further separator unit” and the “Si mass flux measurement unit” in claim 71 are limitations which invoke 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 a separator unit and a further separator unit that are illustrated as boxes (602) and (612), respectively, in the drawings while the Si mass flux measurement unit is illustrated as box (622). However, the actual structure of the separator unit, the further separator unit, and the Si mass flux measurement unit as claimed which achieve the functions of separating the vent gas into a first and second fluid, separating the first fluid into at least two parts, and measuring an amount of Si in a mixture of chlorosilanes, respectively, 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 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 67-68 and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 67 recites, inter alia, that a “fluid forwarding unit is provided for forwarding the cooling fluid through the fluid guide unit.” The fluid forwarding unit appears to be described in ¶[0453] of the published application as component (873) in Figs. 7 & 7a which is illustrated as a box. However, neither the specification nor the claims as originally filed appear to teach or suggest the actual structure that is associated with the “fluid forwarding unit” as claimed. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim 68 recites the “polished or unpolished steel surface” in l. 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that there is antecedent basis for the recitation of “the polished steel surface,” but not for the “unpolished steel surface.” Claim 68 further recites that the cooling element is a “passive cooling element” in l. 3 and is at least partially formed “by a polished steel surface,” but then recites that the cooling element is “a coating” in l. 7. It is unclear whether the polished steel surface or the coating or both are considered to be the passive cooling element as claimed.
Claims 70-71 recite a “separator unit” while claim 71 also recites a “further separator unit” and a “Si mass flux measurement unit.” The separator unit and further separator unit appear to be described in at least Fig. 15 and ¶¶[0483]-[0485] of the published application as components (602) and (612), respectively, which are illustrated as a box. Similarly, the Si mass flux measurement unit is illustrated by 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 “separator unit,” the “further separator unit,” and 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.
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 62-63 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 61 and 67-68 of copending Application No. 18/266,176 (hereinafter “the ‘176 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 62, claims 61 and 67 of the ‘176 application appear to recite all of the limitations recited in claim 62 of the instant application. It is also noted that claim 62 appears to be a broader version of the invention as claim 62 does not include all of the limitations recited in claims 61 and 67 of the ‘176 application.
Regarding claim 63, claims 61, 67, and 68 of the ‘176 application appear to recite all of the limitations recited in claim 63 of the instant application. It is also noted that claim 63 appears to be a broader version of the invention as claim 63 does not include all of the limitations recited in claims 61 and 67-68 of the ‘176 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 62-63 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 88 and 100 of copending Application No. 18/266,227 (hereinafter “the ‘227 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 62, claims 88 and 100 of the ‘227 application appear to recite all of the limitations recited in claim 62 of the instant application. It is also noted that claim 62 appears to be a broader version of the invention as claim 62 does not include all of the limitations recited in claims 88 and 100 of the ‘227 application.
Regarding claim 63, claims 88 and 100 of the ‘227 application appear to recite all of the limitations recited in claim 63 of the instant application. It is also noted that claim 63 appears to be a broader version of the invention as claim 63 does not include all of the limitations recited in claims 88 and 100 of the ‘227 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 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).
Claims 67-69 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 67, Young teaches that that the cooling element is an active cooling element (see Fig. 1, ¶[0123], and ¶[0126] which teach that it is preferable to actively 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),
wherein a base plate and/or side wall section and/or top wall section sensor unit is provided to detect temperature of the base plate and/or side wall section and/or top wall section 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 (see ¶¶[0111]-[0112] which teach the use of a temperature sensor to output a temperature of the shell Rs and base unit Rb at predetermined locations).
Young and Genba do not teach that the base plate and/or side wall section and/or top wall section comprises a cooling fluid guide unit for guiding a cooling fluid, wherein the cooling fluid guide unit is configured to limit heating of the base plate and/or side wall section and/or top wall section to a temperature below 1000°C, and also do not teach that 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 and/or side wall section and/or top wall section sensor unit and/or cooling fluid temperature sensor. However, in Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, l. 40 to col. 9, l. 12 Miyazawa teaches an analogous reactor for the deposition of crystalline material onto a plurality of seed rods (4) supported by a base (2) and enclosed within a chamber formed by a bell jar (3). The bell jar (3) includes a cooling path (3a) formed between outer (32) and inner (31) walls which facilitates the flow of a cooling fluid from an inlet (9) to an outlet (10) through the use of a coolant feeding system (40) comprised of a flow rate control part (50) and a pressure control part (70). In this manner the temperature of the inner wall (31) is maintained at 300 °C or lower in order to avoid damaging the bell jar (3) and/or base (2) and to prevent the release of potential contaminants. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Miyazawa and would be motivated to provide a cooling path (3a) through the shell Rs and base Rb of the apparatus of Young along with a coolant feeding system (40) which supplies a predetermined amount of coolant in response to measurements of the temperature of the shell Rs and base Rb such that the temperature can be maintained as low as 300 °C in order to minimize the propensity for contamination of the deposition outputs (D1) and (D2).
Regarding claim 68, Young and Genba do not teach that the cooling element is a passive cooling element as claimed. However, in Figs. 2 & 4 and col. 7, l. 55 to col. 10, l. 27 Miyazawa teaches
a passive cooling element, wherein 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 or unpolished steel surface and wherein the coating is configured to reflect heat (see Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 24-37, and col. 7, l. 55 to col. 9, l. 59 which teach 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; see specifically col. 7, ll. 55-67 and col. 12, ll. 53-63 which teach 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 which necessarily produces a reflective surface that is configured to reflect heat; moreover, even if Young, Genba, and Miyazawa does not explicitly teach that one or more interior surfaces of the reactor are polished, some degree of polishing and/or grinding are necessarily performed as part of the process of forming the reactor into the desired shape and/or a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to polish the interior surfaces in order to specularly reflect heat back towards the interior such that the amount of heat absorbed by the walls is reduced),
wherein the coating is a metal coating or a comprises metal or alloy coating wherein the emissivity of the polished steel surface and/or of the coating is below 0.3 (see col. 7, ll. 55-67 and col. 12, ll. 53-63 which teach 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; moreover, at least the electroplated nickel coating necessarily has an emissivity coefficient in the vicinity of 0.03 which is less than the claimed value of 0.3).
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 from a polished carbon steel having a high thermal conductivity in order to more efficiently reflect heat and minimize thermal gradients across the thickness of the wall along with a coating (8B) comprised of nickel or stainless steel in order to minimize the propensity for contamination of the core means (C1)-(C2) and deposited output (C1)-(D2).
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