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 with traverse of restriction in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not provided a reference to destroy the unity of the claimed invention, there is no serious burden and the ISR did not identify a lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because a reference is not required when there is clearly a lack of a common special technical feature, which is the difference in the relative densities for the first and second sintered layer. Also, a serious burden exists when the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), which is the case when examining Group I directed to a method and Group II directed to a product. Finally, the ISR and written opinion is not binding on the Examiner and as discussed above, the lack of unity is identified and proper because of the lack of a common special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant's election with traverse of restriction in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not provided a reference to destroy the unity of the claimed invention, there is no serious burden and the ISR did not identify a lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because a reference is not required when there is clearly a lack of a common special technical feature, which is the difference in the relative densities for the first and second sintered layer. Also, a serious burden exists when the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), which is the case when examining Group I directed to a method and Group II directed to a product. Finally, the ISR and written opinion is not binding on the Examiner and as discussed above, the lack of unity is identified and proper because of the lack of a common special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigefuji et al (JP 2020-011866), an English computer translation (CT1) is provided, in view of Kobayashi et al (JP 06-087655), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
Shigefuji et al teaches a coated substrate, comprising a substrate (base material 20 consisting of graphite), at least one first sintered layer (a dense first layer 32) arranged on the substrate and comprising at least one refractory metal carbide (TaC) and at least one sintering additive, and at least one second sintered layer (TaC porous second layer 34) arranged on the at least one first sintered layer 32 and comprising at least one refractory metal carbide (TaC) and optionally at least one sintering, wherein the at least one first sintered layer with a relative density of at least 70%, and the relative density of the at least one second sintered layer is at least 3% lower than the relative density of the at least one first sintered layer (Fig-4; CT1 [0009]-[0066] teaches a dense sinter TaC and a porous sinter TaC, and explicit examples of a dense TaC first layer of 95% with a thickness of 30 mm and porous second layers with a relative density of the second layer was set to 45%, 50%, 60%, 85%, 90%, or 95% and the film thickness was set to 5 μm, 10 μm, 30 μm, or 120 μm).
Shigefuji et al teaches the first and second layer may include a at least one sintering additive for forming a dense layer, and as a sintering aid, a transition metal or its carbide having a melting point below the sintering temperature of TaC is used, and example of sintering aids include (a) transition metals such as Ti, Cr, Fe, Co, and Ni, and (b) carbides of transition metals. Shigefuji et al does not teach the sintering aid for the first layer is selected from the group consisting of silicon, hafnium, zirconium, vanadium, tantalum pentoxide, boron carbide, silicon carbide, tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, boron nitride, tantalum nitride, zirconium nitride, niobium nitride, tantalum diboride, tungsten diboride, zirconium boride, and a refractory metal silicide and the optional sintering aid for the second layer is selected from the group consisting of silicon, hafnium, zirconium, vanadium, tantalum pentoxide, boron carbide, silicon carbide, tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, boron nitride, tantalum nitride, zirconium nitride, niobium nitride, tantalum diboride, tungsten diboride, zirconium boride, and a refractory metal silicide.
In a method of sintering TaC, Kobayashi et al teaches a tantalum carbide-based sintered body consisting of 2 to 50 volume percent of one or more dispersed phases from carbon, graphite, or borides, silicides and mutual solid solutions thereof of group 4a, 5a, and 6a metals of the periodic table, boron carbides, nitrides, or Re, with the remainder being tantalum carbide and unavoidable impurities; and the dispersed phase in the sintered body can specifically include, for example, various types of carbon, graphite, TiB2, ZrB2, HfB2, TaB2, NbB2, VB2, CrB2, MoB, WB, W2B5, TiSi2, ZrSi2, HfSi2, VSi2, NbSi2, TaSi2, CrSi2, MoSi2, WSi2, B4C, BN, Re, (Ti,Mo)Si2, (Ti,W) Si2, and (Ti,Mo,W)Si2; and among these dispersed phases, carbon, graphite, TiB2, ZrB2, HfB2, and TaB2 are particularly preferred because they have high melting points, a high effect in suppressing grain growth of tantalum carbide, and they easily yield dense sintered bodies (CT2 [0009]-[0010]). Kobayashi et al also teaches compared to conventional sintered bodies made of 100% tantalum carbide and tantalum carbide sintered alloys containing Ni, the tantalum carbide-based sintered body of the present invention is a fine-grained and dense sintered body, and in terms of strength, it is improved by approximately 35 to 126% compared to the former and by 3 to 5 times compared to the latter, which is a remarkable effect (CT2 [0026]). Kobayashi et al also teaches explicit examples of TaC powder with an average particle size of 1.0 μm, graphite, TiB2, ZrB2, B4C, WB, BN, Re, and Ni powders with an average particle size of 1 to 2 μm, and HfB2 and TaSi2 powders with an average particle size of 2 to 5 μm were blended into the compositional components shown in Table 1 (Table 1; CT2 [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Shigefuji et al by using a sintering aid, comprising boron nitride and/or a refractory metal silicide, as taught by Kobayashi et al because tantalum carbide-based sintered body of Kobayashi et al is a fine-grained and dense sintered body with improved strength (Kobayashi CT2 [0019], [0026]); and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claim 26, the combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al teaches a first sintered layer with a relative density of 95% or more with a thickness of 10 μm or more, or 100 μm or more; and an explicit example of a dense first layer with a relative density of 95% and a thickness of 30 μm (Shigefuji CT1 [0066], [0075]).
Referring to claim 27, the combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al teaches a first sintered layer with a relative density of 95% or more with a thickness of 10 μm or more, or 100 μm or more; and a second porous layer second layer with a relative density set to 45%, 50%, 60%, 85%, 90%, or 95%, and the film thicknesses was set to 5 μm, 10 μm, 30 μm, or 120 μm; and the n-th layer 34 is preferably 10 μm or more (Shigefuji CT1 [0032],[0066]).
Referring to claim 28-29, the combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al teaches the TaC coating 30 may be a laminate of three or more layers with different relative densities; and if the TaC coating 30 has a multilayer structure of three or more layers, at least the first layer 32 in contact with the substrate 20 satisfies the conditions for a "dense layer", and the nth layer 34 in contact with the atmosphere satisfies the conditions for a "porous layer"; and it is preferable that the TaC coating 30 has a relative density that decreases stepwise or continuously from the interface between the substrate 20 and the TaC coating 30 toward the surface of the TaC coating 30; and the porous layer is preferably 45% or more, and the dense layer is 95% or more (CT1 [0016]-[0020], [0028], [0041]); therefore, step decreases from 95% to 45% for three or more layers of at least 5% it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing based on the teachings of the combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al. The combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al also teaches sintering aids may be added if necessary, and not always necessary when forming the porous layer (Shigefuji CT1 [0043]-[0045]); therefore, clearly suggests the sintering additive is optional and may not be added to the porous second layer.
Referring to claim 30, the combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al teaches a coated substrate, as discussed above (Shigefuji Fig 1; CT1 [0066]).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigefuji et al (JP 2020-011866), an English computer translation (CT1) is provided, in view of Kobayashi et al (JP 06-087655), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, as applied to claim 25-30 above, and further in view of Schlesser et al (US 2007/0257333).
Referring to claim 31, the combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 31, as discussed above, except growing a semiconductor crystal in a coated substrate according to claim 25, wherein the coated substrate is configured to be a coated crucible. The combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al teaches a coated substrate formed by sintering, and the TaC coated graphite member is used for various applications including a crucible for holding sublimable crystal such as AlN (i.e. semiconductor) (Shigefuji CT1 [0034]).
In a crystal growth method and apparatus, Schlesser et al teaches a seeded growth process for preparing aluminum nitride single crystal (i.e. a semiconductor) using a TaC crucible prepared by a sintering process (abstract; [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Shigefuji et al and Kobayashi et al by using the crucible for growing a semiconductor crystal, as taught by Schlesser et al, to produce a useful crystal for device manufacturing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0154976 teaches sintered WC layers formed an a graphite substrate 20, wherein a dense WC layer 32 having a porosity of less than 3% is formed using a sintering aid and a porous WC layer having porosity larger than the dense layer is formed (Fig 2; [0062]-[0146]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights