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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 11 is cancelled. Claim 9 is amended. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn. Claims 19-28 are newly added. Claims 1, 9 and 20 are independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 20-28 directed to an invention/species that is independent or distinct from the invention/species originally claimed for the following reasons: if originally presented, claims 20-28 would have been restricted from claims 9, 10 and 12-19 as follows: Species of vapor phase growth methods: Species I. A vapor phase growth method …comprising… supplying the purge gas including … silicon ... an annular clearance defined between an inner wall of a through-hole of the partition plate and an outer circumferential wall of the source gas conduit, the annular clearance extending through a thickness of the partition plate to fluidly connect the source gas region and the purge gas region, and a gap remains between a flange of said conduit and an upper surface of the partition plate without sealings, as exemplified by claims 9, 10 and 12-18; Species of vapor phase growth methods: Species II. A vapor phase growth method …comprising… supplying a purge gas … not containing the source gas from a purge gas introduction port…a region between an outer wall of a gas conduit and the partition plate, and a contact surface between a flange of the gas conduit and the partition plate, the gas conduit is removable from the partition plate, the outer wall of the gas conduit is spaced apart from the partition plate, and the gas conduit is one of the source gas conduit or the purge gas conduit, as exemplified by newly added claims 20-28. Species I and Species II are therefore considered as being distinct species because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species as indicated above. Thus, it would require searching different classes and subclasses and/or utilizing different search queries and strategies which would therefore produce an undue search burden. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented species, this species has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, newly added claims 20-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected species. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Claims 9, 10 and 12-19 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites "...annular clearance... through-hole… the annular clearance extending through a thickness of the partition plate to fluidly connect… a gap remains between a flange of said conduit and an upper surface of the partition plate without sealing…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Also, the reciting "... without sealing …" in claim 9 is a negative limitation. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, see MPEP 2173.05(i). Claims 10 and 12-18 are rejected because they depend on claim 9.
Claim 19 recites "...annular clearance... through-hole… gap remains between the flange of said conduit and an upper surface of the partition plate without sealing…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Also, the reciting "... without sealing …" in claim 19 is a negative limitation. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, see MPEP 2173.05(i).
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 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 of this title, 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 9, 10, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US 20180374721 A1, “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches a vapor phase growth method comprising supplying a source gas containing silicon and chlorine to a source region provide above a reactor (figs 1 and 6, 0037); supplying a purge gas to a purge gas region provided above the reactor through a purge gas flow path (0038, 0040, 0041, 0047, 0072, 0073, 0076, 0089), a separation (partition) plate being provided between the source gas region and the purge gas region (figs 1 and 6, 0035, 0036, 0069), supplying the source gas to the reactor through a source gas pipe (conduit) (figs 1 and 6, 0005-0006, 0035); and forming a silicon carbide film on a surface of a substrate in the reactor (figs 1 and 6, 0028, 0032, 0070, 0074), a gap G (annular clearance) between an inner wall of a through-hole of the partition plate and an outer circumferential wall of the source gas conduit (figs 1 and 4-6, 0055, 0057, 0065, 0067, 0077, 0083, 0084, 0096), the annular clearance (gap G) extending through a thickness of the partition plate fluidly connect the source gas region and the purge gas region (figs 1 and 6), wherein a flange (for example 411a/412a) is provided on top of the gas pipe/conduit and extended to the gas pipe/conduit inside through holes of the separating/portion plate, the gas conduit/pipe is one of the source gas conduit/pipe or the purge gas conduit, the flange is caused to abut on an inner circumferential portion of the through holes of the partition/ separating plates (figs 1 and 6, 0042, 0043, 0045, 0046), and according to online dictionary https://www.thefreedictionary.com/abut, “abut” is defined as “to be adjacent”. Therefore, a gap remains between the flange of said conduit and the upper surface of the partition plate, a gas leak path is inexplicitly/unavoidable provided in a region between an outer wall of the gas conduit/pipe and the partition/separating plates in a contact surface between a flange of the gas conduit and the partition plate since the flange abuts to the through holes of the partition/separating plates and the gas leak path is provided the source gas region and the purge gas region; the gas conduit/pipe is easily inserted and aligned with outer pipe/conduit positioned at the through hole of the separating/partition plates (figs 1 and 6, 0049, 0050, 0054, 0057, 0059, 0064, 0067, 0077), e.g. the gas conduit is removable from the partition plate, the outer wall of the gas conduit is inexplicitly/ unavoidable spaced apart from the partition plate since the gas pipe/conduit is easily inserted/moved/movable.
Suzuki teaches the gas leak path provided between the source gas region and the purge gas region as addressed above; even if Suzuki does not explicitly teach mixing the source gas into the purge gas through the gas leak path provided between the source gas region and the purge gas region, thereby causing the purge gas to include silicon, and supplying the purge gas including chlorine and silicon to the reactor through a purge gas conduit, an atomic concentration of silicon in the purge gas being lower than an atomic concentration of silicon in the source gas. it would still have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the purge gas contains a small amount of source gas containing silicon leaked through the gas leak path from the first source gas flow path to the purge gas flow path because of gas diffuse property, e.g., mixing the source gas into the purge gas through the gas leak path provided between the source gas region and the purge gas region, thereby causing the purge gas to include silicon, an atomic concentration of silicon in the purge gas being lower than an atomic concentration of silicon in the source gas because the source gas containing silicon leaked into the purge gas flow path would have been diluted by the purge gas, e.g., supplying the purge gas including chlorine and silicon to the reactor through a purge gas conduit. Furthermore, it is noted that the instant claims recite a process and are depleted with apparatus limitations. Regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 10, as addressed above, Suzuki teaches the gas leak path formed between the first source gas flow path and the purge gas flow path, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that purge gas contains a small amount of source gas containing chlorine leaked through the gas leak path from the first source gas flow path to the purge gas flow path because of gas diffuse property, and an atomic concentration of chlorine in the purge gas being lower than an atomic concentration of chlorine in the source gas because the source gas containing chlorine leaked into the purge gas flow path would have been diluted by the purge gas.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches that the purge gas contains a hydrogen gas (0038).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki teaches the gap between the flange of said conduit and the upper surface of the partition plate without sealing and the annular clearance defined between the inner wall of the through-hole of the partition plate and the outer circumferential wall of the source gas conduit as addressed above, it is reasonably expect that the gas leak path is formed in series by (i) the gap between the flange of said conduit and the upper surface of the partition plate without sealing and (ii) the annular clearance defined between the inner wall of the through-hole of the partition plate and the outer circumferential wall of the source gas conduit. Furthermore, regarding the gap, the flange, said conduit, the upper surface of the partition plate without sealing, the annular clearance, the inner wall, the through-hole of the partition plate, the outer circumferential wall of the source gas conduit imitation, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tsuyoshi Nishizawa (US 20100282170 A1, “Nishizawa”).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki teaches the purge gas and the source gas as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach an internal pressure of the purge gas region is set to be equal to or higher than an internal pressure of the source gas region. However, Nishizawa teaches a method of forming film, wherein a purge gas is supplied with a pressure higher than that of a raw/source material (0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Suzuki per teachings of Nishizawa in order to provide suitable conditions for obtaining high-purity product (Nishizawa 0011-0022 and 0048). Furthermore, it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki/Nishizawa teaches the source gas, the purge gas and the internal pressure formed by the source gas and/or purge gas being adjusted as addressed above, and further teaches the source gas hydrogen gas (Nishizawa 0040), the purge gas contains hydrogen gas (Suzuki 0038; Nishizawa 0040), and the hydrogen gas introduced into the purge gas region is adjusted (Suzuki 0038 and 0040).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki/Nishizawa teaches the purge gas region, the source gas region, and the internal pressure of the purge gas region or the internal pressure of the source gas region is adjusted as addressed above, and further teaches that the source gas and/or the purge gas are introduced through the source gas conduit and/or the purge gas conduit (Suzuki figs 1 and 6, 0005, 0006, 0035, 0042-0069, 0072-0097), e.g., the internal pressure of the purge gas region or the internal pressure of the source gas region is adjusted by adjusting a conductance of the source gas conduit or the purge gas conduit. Regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Daigo et al (EP 3678164 A1, “Daigo”).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki teaches the purge gas and the source gas as addressed above, and further teaches that the purge gas contains hydrogen gas (0038), and the hydrogen gas introduced into the purge gas region is adjusted (0038 and 0040), but does not explicitly teach the source gas containing a hydrogen gas. However, Daigo teaches a method of forming films, wherein the source gas contains a hydrogen gas (0033, 0034, 0069, 0070, 0123, 0124, 0139, 0140). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Suzuki per teachings of Daigo in order to provide suitable conditions for forming a high-quality film (Daigo 0001, 0002 and 0016). Suzuki/Daigo further teaches that a source particle (for example Si source) deteriorates the film quality (0003, 0006, 0007, 0019 and 0076), the flow rate of hydrogen (amount of hydrogen gas) is adjustable (0038 and 0040), and the vapor phase growth introducing process gas with hydrogen is capable of improving quality of the film for example uniformity of a concentration distribution in the film (Daigo 0016, 0033, 0034, 0069, 0070, 0085-0090, 0094, 0096, 0097, 0107, 0123, 0124, 0139, 0140). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified/optimized Suzuki/Daigo, and obtained amount of a hydrogen gas including the instantly claimed “a supply amount of a hydrogen gas introduced into the source gas region or a hydrogen gas introduced into the purge gas region being adjusted such that a density of silicon-containing particles supplied to the surface of the substrate is 100/cm2 or less” in order to control the quality of the film, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki teaches the purge gas and the source gas as addressed above, and further teaches that the purge gas contains hydrogen gas (0038), and the hydrogen gas introduced into the purge gas region is adjusted (0038 and 0040), but does not explicitly teach the source gas containing a hydrogen gas. However, Daigo teaches a method of forming films, wherein the source gas contains a hydrogen gas (0033, 0034, 0069, 0070, 0123, 0124, 0139, 0140). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Suzuki per teachings of Daigo in order to provide suitable conditions for forming a high-quality film (Daigo 0001, 0002 and 0016). Suzuki/Daigo further teaches that a source particle (for example Si source) deteriorates the film quality (0003, 0006, 0007, 0019 and 0076), the flow rate of hydrogen (amount of hydrogen gas) is adjustable (0038 and 0040), and the vapor phase growth introducing process gas with hydrogen is capable of improving quality of the film for example uniformity of a concentration distribution in the film (Daigo 0016, 0033, 0034, 0069, 0070, 0085-0090, 0094, 0096, 0097, 0107, 0123, 0124, 0139, 0140). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified/optimized Suzuki/Daigo, and obtained amount of a hydrogen gas including the instantly claimed “a supply amount of a hydrogen gas introduced into the source gas region or a hydrogen gas introduced into the purge gas region being adjusted such that a density of silicon-containing particles supplied to the surface of the substrate is 10/cm2 or less” in order to control the quality of the film, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki teaches the purge gas and the source gas as addressed above, and further teaches that the purge gas contains hydrogen gas (0038), and the hydrogen gas introduced into the purge gas region is adjusted (0038 and 0040), but does not explicitly teach the source gas containing a hydrogen gas. However, Daigo teaches a method of forming films, wherein the source gas contains a hydrogen gas (0033, 0034, 0069, 0070, 0123, 0124, 0139, 0140). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Suzuki per teachings of Daigo in order to provide suitable conditions for forming a high-quality film (Daigo 0001, 0002 and 0016). Suzuki/Daigo further teaches that a source particle (for example Si source) deteriorates the film quality (0003, 0006, 0007, 0019 and 0076), the flow rate of hydrogen (amount of hydrogen gas) is adjustable (0038 and 0040), and the vapor phase growth introducing process gas with hydrogen is capable of improving quality of the film for example uniformity of a concentration distribution in the film (Daigo 0016, 0033, 0034, 0069, 0070, 0085-0090, 0094, 0096, 0097, 0107, 0123, 0124, 0139, 0140). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified/optimized Suzuki/Daigo, and obtained amount of a hydrogen gas including the instantly claimed “a supply amount of a hydrogen gas introduced into the source gas region or a hydrogen gas introduced into the purge gas region being adjusted such that a density of silicon-containing particles supplied to the surface of the substrate is 1.0/cm2 or less” in order to control the quality of the film, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B). Further it is well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights