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 1-11, in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 use the term “preferably” or “in particular” or both which leads to confusion over the intended scope of each claim. It is not clear whether the narrower range is a limitation to the claims or merely suggestive of a preferred embodiment. For purposes of examination, the broadest interpretation will be applied.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the surface of the deposition element” which lacks antecedent basis. There is no prior recitation of a “deposition element” and, therefore, it is not clear what the quoted phrase referencing. The quoted phrase will be interpreted as “a surface of the separator element”.
Claim 6 recites “the source gases” which lack antecedent basis. It is not clear if “the source gases” are in reference to the first source gas and the second source recited in claim 1 or entirely different source of gases which may or may include a first source gas and a second source gas. The claim will be interpreted as “wherein the first source gas and the second source gas are introduced into the process chamber”.
Claim 7 recites “the carrier gas comprises H” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 depends from claim 6; claim 6 depends from claim 1. Neither claim 6 nor claim 1 recites “carrier gas”. The first instance of “carrier gas” is in claim 2 which recites “at least one carrier gas”. Perhaps, claim 7 should depend from claim 2?
Claim 9 and 10 recite the temperature measuring device outputting “a temperature signal and/or temperature data”. A temperature signal is different from a temperature data. Therefore, it is not clear how a temperature signal and a temperature data can be shown at the same time.
Claim 10 recites “a target temperature is defined” but it is not clear if said “target temperature refers to (a) the “surface temperature”, (b) the “threshold temperature”, or (c) the “set temperature”.
Claim 11 contains a recitation “preferably” and multiple recitations “in particular” which, as noted above, are indefinite terms. Additionally, the claim recites “more of the source gas” in line 3. First, it is not clear what is meant by “more of”. Second, “the source gas” lacks antecedent basis and is not clear if it is in reference to the first source gas or the second source gas. The claim will be interpreted as follow: The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the first source gas and/or the second source gas is introduced into the process chamber continuously or stepwise.
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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB1128757 (hereinafter “GB ‘757”) in view of GB 988097 (hereinafter “GB ‘097).
With respect to claims 1-5 and 8, GB ‘757 discloses a process for producing silicon carbide (SiC) comprising:
a gaseous stream comprising a mixture of hydrogen (equivalent to claimed carrier gas, claim 2), a carbon-containing compound, and silicon-containing compound (page 1, lines 33-44);
the gaseous stream passes to the surface of a heated substrate (equivalent to claimed electrically energizing … to heat the separator element”) wherein the surface temperature is approximately in the rage of 900 oC to 1470 oC (also reads on claim 5) (page 1, lines 45-57; and page 2, lines 86-89).
Addition, Table 1, specifically Run No. 1, illustrates a deposition rate of 400 µm/h ((63 milsx25.4 µm)/4hrs) which overlaps with claimed “more than 200 µm/h” (also, reads on claim 8).
GB ‘757 is silent with respect to claimed pressure of more than 1 bar (claims 1 and 4).
GB ’097 is directed to a similar process for producing silicon carbide comprising a halogenosilane and a halogenohydrocarbon in presence of a diluent gas. The silicon carbide is deposited on a highly heated solid bodies. See page 1, lines 27-40. The process pressure can be to 1 atm (1.013 bar). See pate 2, lines 34-43.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant application to have recognized that pressure is a result effective process parameter and, therefore, could have determined optimum/effective reaction pressure through routine experimentation. Moreover, GB .097 which discloses a similar process of making SiC as GB ‘757 discloses, “The pressure also has a substantial influence on the nature of the deposit obtained … under a pressure to 1 atmosphere.” See page 2, lines 34-43.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, GB ‘757 generally discloses hydrogen favors formation of Si atoms and, therefore, “this fact can be employed to control the proportion of silicon and atoms formed” (page 1, lines 67-70, page 3, lines 57-59 and lines 71-76). Table 1 additionally has a molar ratio of H2:methyltrichlorosilane= which demonstrates atomic ratio of Si:C:H=1:1:4.3 (see specifically Run 12).
With respect to claim 9, GB ‘757 discloses to maintain temperature control, a suitable temperature control unit is employed (page 3, lines 3-5 and 68-70).
With respect to claim 10, GB ‘757 is silent with respect to measuring temperature at intervals of less than 5 minutes and to maintain within a defined set temperatures. However, GB ‘757 discloses a desire to maintain a reaction temperature by using “any suitable heater and instrumentation as is well known to those skilled in the art” (see specifically page 3, lines 3-24 and 68-70).
With respect to claim 11, GB ‘757 discloses, the flow rate of the process stream is controlled (see specifically page 4, lines 112-117).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights