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 43-48 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please change “1.6g/cm3” to “1.6 g/cm3 ”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please change “substrate/s” to “substrate” in lines 32 and 36.
Please change “Electrically” to “electrically” in line 30.
Please change “Setting “to “setting” in line 34. Appropriate correction is required.
Please change ” Disaggregating” to “disaggregating” in line 39.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 43-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 43:
The sentence is not completed. It is not clear “less than 1000 ppb” of what substance.
The term in the parenthesis is indefinite. It is not clear that the limitations in the parathesis is meant to be a part of the claim or not.
Regarding claim 44, the term in the parenthesis is indefinite. It is not clear that the limitations in the parathesis is meant to be a part of the claim or not.
Regarding claim 46:
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term in the parenthesis is indefinite. It is not clear that the limitations in the parathesis is meant to be a part of the claim or not.
The second “a source medium inside a process chamber” should be “the source medium inside a process chamber”.
Please change “said first medium” to “said first-medium” in line 8.
Please delete” and” from line 13 and insert “and” in front of “introducing” in line 19.
Please change “a process chamber” to “the process chamber” in lines 23-24.
Please change “saic feed medium” to “said one feed-medium” in line 24.
Please change “the feed medium” in line 25 to “the feed-medium”.
Regarding claims 43-48, please change “PVT” to “physical vapor transport”. Acronyms should always be defined in the claim as their broadest reasonable interpretation can change with time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 43-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious US20160207783A1(US’783).
Regarding claim 43, US’783 discloses a friable mass of high purity polymer derived ceramic SiC. The friable SiC volumetric shapes can thus be easily and quickly broken down into much smaller particles of SiC, having the typical strength characteristics of SiC. The smaller particles can be less than about 10 mm in diameter, less than about 1 mm in diameter, less than about 0.01 mm in diameter. See [0147].
Nitrogen is viewed as a contaminate, embodiments of polysilocarb derived SiC and SiOC can have less than about 1000 ppm, less than about 100 ppm, less than about 10 ppm, less than about 1 ppm and less than about 0.1 ppm nitrogen, and lower. See [0117].
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In the alternative, the reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “encompassing” ranges, and overlapping or compassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 44, US’783 discloses that polysilocarb derived high purity SiC, e.g., having a purity of at least about 99.9%, at least about 99.99%, at least about 99.999%, and least about 99.9999% and at least about 99.99999% or greater, can have many different polytypes. See [0144]. The impurities are selected from the group consisting of Al, Fe, B, P, Pt, Ca, Mg, Li, Na, Ni, V, Ti, Ce, Cr, S and As. See [0039]. Thus, the sum of the metals TI, V, AL and Ni is in the claimed rage.
US’783 disclose a friable mass wherein the impurities are less than about 1 ppm; a friable mass wherein the SiC4 configuration is selected from the group consisting of cube structures and tetrahedral structures; a friable mass wherein the SiC4 configuration is selected from the group consisting of hexagonal, rhombohedral, and trigonal structures; a friable mass wherein the SiC4 can be 3C—SiC. See [0037].
In the alternative, the reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “encompassing” ranges, and overlapping or compassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 45, US’783 discloses that the the mass of SiC (e.g., volumetric shape of the granular SiC particles, friable mass) preferably, and typically, has an apparent density that is considerably lower, than its actual density, e.g., actual density of an SiC granule should be about 3.1 g/cc to 3.3 g/cc. In general, and typically, the apparent and actual density of the granular SiC that is obtained from crushing the friable mass are essentially identical. The apparent density for the friable mass (e.g. a puck, pellet, disk or plate) can be less than about 3 g/cc. See [0146]. It is known in the art that tap density is larger than apparent density. Thus, the prior art teaches the at least overlapping range. The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 46, US’783 discloses that a friable mass wherein the impurities are less than about 1 ppm; a friable mass wherein the SiC4 configuration is selected from the group consisting of cube structures and tetrahedral structures; a friable mass wherein the SiC4 configuration is selected from the group consisting of hexagonal, rhombohedral, and trigonal structures; a friable mass wherein the SiC4 can be 3C—SiC. See [0037]. US’783 discloses a friable mass of high purity polymer derived ceramic SiC. The friable SiC volumetric shapes can thus be easily and quickly broken down into much smaller particles of SiC, having the typical strength characteristics of SiC. The smaller particles can be less than about 10 mm in diameter, less than about 1 mm in diameter, less than about 0.01 mm in diameter. See [0147]. In the alternative, the reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “encompassing” ranges, and overlapping or compassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
It is noted that claims are product-by-process claims. Eventhough product-by- process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 77F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Regarding claim 47, In some applications excess carbon may have little to no effect on the application or product, and thus, would not be considered an impurity. In other applications excess carbon may be beneficial, e.g., carbon can act as a sintering aid; excess carbon can be used to address and compensate for irregularities in vapor deposition apparatus and processes. See [0116]. t is theorized that excess or added carbon in the polysicocarb derived SiC material functions as a sintering aid. Polysilocarb derived SiC, having a purity of at least about 7-nines, having at about 0.05% to 0.5% excess carbon. See [0369]. In the alternative, the reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges.
Regarding claim 48, US’783 discloses that in larger scale, and commercial operations, batch, continuous, and combinations of these may be used. See [0242]. Thus, it is reasonable to expect to produce 1 kg SIC material as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731