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 .
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.
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) 1 to 11,13, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt et al (DE 10335460) in view of Watanabe et al (JP 06020961) , JP 2004075493 and JP 3647176.
The Bernhardt et al reference teaches a method and apparatus for chemical vapor deposition, note entire translation. The apparatus consists of a growth furnace note fig 1. There is a gas inlet means with a regulator, fig 1, no 3. There is a wafer boat with a plurality of wafers or substrates, note fig 1, no 10. The wafers are set in a back to back manner and have equal intervales between them with a gap. There is a heating unit, fig 1, no 2. The difference between the prior art and the instant claim is the premixing chamber, back to back placement of the substrate and silicon carbide deposition. However, the Watanabe et al reference teaches a premixing chamber for chemical vapor deposition apparatus. The mixing chamber controlling the flows, temperature, amounts and pressures, note fig1 and translation. The JP 2004075493 reference teaches deposition of silicon carbide on SiC substrates in a CVD apparatus, note reference. The JP 3647176 reference teaches a vapor deposition with the substrates placed in the chamber back to back note para 090 of translation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Bernhardt reference by the teachings of the Watanabe et al, JP 3647176 and JP 2004075493 references to deposit SiC and use a premix chamber with back to back substrates in order to grow a uniform layer or layers of silicon carbide.
With regards to claims 2 and 11, the Bernhardt et al reference teaches a gas flow which starts at the bottom of the chamber, flows to the top and then back down to exit the chamber at the bottom, note fig 1.
With regards to claims 3 and 4, the Bernhardt et al reference teaches parallel gas flow to the surface of the substrates, note, fig 1.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, the Watanabe et al reference teaches perpendicular gas flow with the respect to wafer surface, note fig1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Bernhardt et al reference to have a different wafer/gas flow pattern in order to insure proper contact with the substrate.
With regards to claims 7 and 8, the Bernhardt et al reference teaches vertical furnace, note, fig 1.
With regards to claim 9, the Bernhardt et al reference teaches using heating coils or lamps, note translation para 0019.
With regards to claim 13, the Watanabe et al reference teaches the premixing of gases setting the pressure and then introducing into the furnace, note, translation.
With regards to claims 14 and 19, the JP 2004075493 reference teaches flowing nitrogen and hydrocarbon gases into the chamber.
With regards to claim 20, the JP 2004075493 reference teaches a nitrogen doped silicon carbide.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt et al (DE 10335460) in view of Watanabe et al (JP 06020961) and JP 2004075493.
The Bernhardt et al, Watanabe et al and JP2004075493 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the flowing of an inert gas during heating of the chamber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to preheat the chamber with an inert gas in it in order to obtain a uniformly heated chamber and lower impurities by having a gas flow in the chamber.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt et al (DE 10335460) in view of Watanabe et al (JP 06020961) JP 3647176 and JP 2004075493.
The Bernhardt et al, Watanabe et al, JP 3647176 and JP2004075493 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the gas source of silicon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to use a silicon fluoride gas in order to have a silicon source gas that will fully decompose creating a more uniform layer.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt et al (DE 10335460) in view of Watanabe et al (JP 06020961), JP 3647176 and JP 2004075493.
The Bernhardt et al, Watanabe et al and JP2004075493 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the gas source of carbon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to use a carbon fluoride gases in order to have a carbon source gas that will fully decompose creating a more uniform layer.
Claims 15and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach nor render obvious the growth of a graphene layer with the silicon carbide layers.
Response to Applicants Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning the temperature range that was added to the claims is noted. However, for the apparatus claims, the prior art need not teach a process limitation only that the apparatus is capable of preforming such. In the instant case, the JP 2004075493 does in face teach an overlap of the temperature range. Therefore, the prior art does still teach an apparatus capable of preforming such a step. As far as the process claims, the JP 2004075493 reference as shown above does teach an overlap of the range. Further, the reference is not merely coating with silicon carbide. The reference does teach chemical vapor deposition of a film of silicon carbide on a material. This is a deposition process and not merely a coating one. The combine prior art does teach the claimed invention as amended.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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.
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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714