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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on February 16, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim (s) 1-4, 6, 8-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0372328 A1 (hereinafter “Kawada”) in view of US 2011/0268993 A1 (hereinafter “ Hellwig ”) and US 4,524,106 (hereinafter “ Flasck ”). Regarding claim 1 , Kawada discloses in Figs. 1A-1B and related text a method of forming a capping layer (4; [0027]) on a silicon carbide ( SiC ) substrate (1; [0025]) , comprising: depositing an interfacial layer (2; [0028]) on the SiC substrate, wherein the interfacial layer is silicon; and depositing a carbon capping layer (3; [0029]) on the interfacial layer on the SiC substrate. Kawada does not explicitly disclose the silicon is amorphous silicon, and the carbon is amorphous carbon. Kawada does disclose that both the silicon film and the carbon film may be deposited by magnetron sputtering with the substrate at room temperature ([0028] -[ 0029]). Hellwig teaches “magnetron sputtered Si forms an amorphous structure when deposited on a substrate at room temperature” ([0022]). Flasck teaches magnetron sputtered carbon forms an amorphous coating when deposited on a substrate at room temperature (col. 4, lines 54-68 ). Kawada, Hellwig and Flasck are analogous art because they each are directed to deposition processes for silicon and/or carbon thin films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kawada with the specified features of Hellwig and Flasck because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the silicon layer as an amorphous silicon layer, as taught by Hellwig , and to provide the carbon layer as an amorphous carbon layer, as taught by Flasck , in order to permit room-temperature deposition of the silicon layer and the carbon layer on the SiC substrate , thereby avoiding thermally induced redistribution and/or outdiffusion of dopants in the SiC substrate. Regarding claim 2 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the SiC substrate has undergone ion implantation prior to depositing of the interfacial layer (Kawada: [0026]). Regarding claim 3 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose X is greater than zero to approximately 2 ( note : this limitation is moot because Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck teach the interfacial layer is amorphous silicon (a-Si) and need not further teach the two alternatives recited in claim 1, namely amorphous SiC x and amorphous SiC x N y ). Regarding claim 4 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the method is performed in a single process chamber (Kawada: [0029]) . Regarding claim 6 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the method of claim 1. Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck do not disclose the interfacial layer has a thickness of approximately 5 nanometers to approximately 100 nanometers. Kawada discloses the interfacial layer has a thickness of about 1 nm or greater and 3 nm or less ([0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the interfacial layer to ha ve a thickness of approximately 5 nanometers to approximately 100 nanometers because it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I) . Furthermore, it should be noted that Applicant’s specification does not contain evidence showing that the claimed range of 5-100 nm is critical. Regarding claim 8 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the interfacial layer is deposited on a three-dimensional structure (Kawada’s SiC substrate 1 may be a bulk silicon carbide substrate having three dimensions of length, width and thickness). Regarding claim 9 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose annealing the SiC substrate at a temperature of 1750 degrees Celsius or higher after depositing the a-C capping layer (Kawada: [0030]). Regarding claim 10 , Kawada discloses in Figs. 1A-1B and related text a method of processing a silicon carbide ( SiC ) substrate (1; [0025]) , comprising: performing an ion implantation process on the SiC substrate ([0026]) ; depositing an interfacial layer (2; [0028]) on the SiC substrate after performing the ion implantation process, wherein the interfacial layer is silicon; depositing a carbon capping layer (3; [0029]) on the interfacial layer on the SiC substrate; and annealing the SiC substrate at a temperature of approximately 1500 degrees Celsius or higher ([0030]) . Kawada does not explicitly disclose the silicon is amorphous silicon, and the carbon is amorphous carbon. Kawada does disclose that both the silicon film and the carbon film may be deposited by magnetron sputtering with the substrate at room temperature ([0028] -[ 0029]). Hellwig teaches “magnetron sputtered Si forms an amorphous structure when deposited on a substrate at room temperature” ([0022]). Flasck teaches magnetron sputtered carbon forms an amorphous coating when deposited on a substrate at room temperature (col. 4, lines 54-68). Kawada, Hellwig and Flasck are analogous art because they each are directed to deposition processes for silicon and/or carbon thin films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kawada with the specified features of Hellwig and Flasck because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the silicon layer as an amorphous silicon layer, as taught by Hellwig , and to provide the carbon layer as an amorphous carbon layer, as taught by Flasck , in order to permit room-temperature deposition of the silicon layer and the carbon layer on the SiC substrate, thereby avoiding thermally induced redistribution and/or outdiffusion of dopants in the SiC substrate. Regarding claim 11 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the method of claim 10. Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck do not disclose the interfacial layer has a thickness of approximately 5 nanometers to approximately 100 nanometers. Kawada discloses the interfacial layer has a thickness of about 1 nm or greater and 3 nm or less ([0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the interfacial layer to ha ve a thickness of approximately 5 nanometers to approximately 100 nanometers because it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Furthermore, it should be noted that Applicant’s specification does not contain evidence showing that the claimed range of 5-100 nm is critical. Regarding claim 12 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose X is greater than zero to approximately 2 ( note : this limitation is moot because Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck teach the interfacial layer is amorphous silicon (a-Si) and need not further teach the two alternatives recited in claim 10, namely amorphous SiC x and amorphous SiC x N y ). Regarding claim 13 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose depositing the interfacial layer and depositing the a-C capping layer is performed in a single process chamber (Kawada: [0029]). Regarding claim 16 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the interfacial layer is deposited on a three-dimensional structure (Kawada’s SiC substrate 1 may be a bulk silicon carbide substrate having three dimensions of length, width and thickness). Claim(s) 5, 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck as applied to claim s 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 5,380,566 (hereinafter “Robertson”). Regarding claim 5 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the method of claim 1. Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck do not disclose the interfacial layer is formed using a precursor of SiH 4 or SiC x H y . Robertson teaches: “To deposit a layer of amorphous silicon, a deposition gas comprising a mixture of silane (SiH 4 ) and hydrogen (H 2 ) is used” (col. 4, lines 14-16). Kawada, Hellwig , Flasck and Robertson are analogous art because they each are directed to deposition processes for silicon and/or carbon thin films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck with the specified features of Robertson because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the amorphous silicon layer (i.e., the interfacial layer as claimed) using a precursor of SiH 4 or SiC x H y , as taught by Robertson, in order to realize one or more advantages of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) over sputtering such as superior conformal coating on complex shapes . Regarding claim 7 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the method of claim 1. Kawada discloses the deposition of the carbon film may be performed by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) instead of sputtering ( [0004]). Kawada does not disclose the deposition of the silicon film may be performed by CVD instead of sputtering. Robertson teaches the deposition of the silicon film is performed by CVD (Abstract and col. 4, lines 14-16 ). Kawada, Hellwig , Flasck and Robertson are analogous art because they each are directed to deposition processes for silicon and/or carbon thin films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck with the specified features of Robertson because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to deposit the amorphous silicon layer by chemical vapor deposition (CVD), as taught by Robertson, in order to realize one or more advantages of CVD over sputtering such as superior conformal coating on complex shapes. Regarding claim 14 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the method of claim 10. Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck do not disclose the interfacial layer is formed using a precursor of SiH 4 or SiC x H y . Robertson teaches: “To deposit a layer of amorphous silicon, a deposition gas comprising a mixture of silane (SiH 4 ) and hydrogen (H 2 ) is used” (col. 4, lines 14-16). Kawada, Hellwig , Flasck and Robertson are analogous art because they each are directed to deposition processes for silicon and/or carbon thin films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck with the specified features of Robertson because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the amorphous silicon layer (i.e., the interfacial layer as claimed) using a precursor of SiH 4 or SiC x H y , as taught by Robertson, in order to realize one or more advantages of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) over sputtering such as superior conformal coating on complex shapes. Regarding claim 15 , Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck disclose the method of claim 10. Kawada discloses the deposition of the carbon film may be performed by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) instead of sputtering ([0004]). Kawada does not disclose the deposition of the silicon film may be performed by CVD instead of sputtering. Robertson teaches the deposition of the silicon film is performed by CVD (Abstract and col. 4, lines 14-16). Kawada, Hellwig , Flasck and Robertson are analogous art because they each are directed to deposition processes for silicon and/or carbon thin films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kawada in view of Hellwig and Flasck with the specified features of Robertson because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to deposit the amorphous silicon layer by chemical vapor deposition (CVD), as taught by Robertson, in order to realize one or more advantages of CVD over sputtering such as superior conformal coating on complex shapes. Claim (s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada in view of Hellwig , Flasck and US 2023/0041963 A1 (hereinafter “Prasad”) . Regarding claim 1 7 , Kawada discloses in Figs. 1A-1B and related text a method of forming a capping layer (4; [0027]) on a silicon carbide ( SiC ) substrate (1; [0025]) , the method comprising: depositing an interfacial layer (2; [0028]) on the SiC substrate, wherein the interfacial layer is silicon; and depositing a carbon capping layer (3; [0029]) on the interfacial layer on the SiC substrate. Kawada does not explicitly disclose the silicon is amorphous silicon, and the carbon is amorphous carbon. Kawada does disclose that both the silicon film and the carbon film may be deposited by magnetron sputtering with the substrate at room temperature ([0028] -[ 0029]). Moreover, Kawada does not disclose a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method to be performed. Hellwig teaches “magnetron sputtered Si forms an amorphous structure when deposited on a substrate at room temperature” ([0022]). Flasck teaches magnetron sputtered carbon forms an amorphous coating when deposited on a substrate at room temperature (col. 4, lines 54-68). Prasad teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a method (e.g., a method of forming an amorphous carbon film) to be performed ([0016]). Kawada, Hellwig , Flasck and Prasad are analogous art because they each are directed to deposition processes for silicon and/or carbon thin films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kawada with the specified features of Hellwig , Flasck and Prasad because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the silicon layer as an amorphous silicon layer, as taught by Hellwig , to provide the carbon layer as an amorphous carbon layer, as taught by Flasck , and to provide a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method to be performed, as taught by Prasad, in order to permit room-temperature deposition of the silicon layer and the carbon layer on the SiC substrate, thereby avoiding thermally induced redistribution and/or outdiffusion of dopants in the SiC substrate , and in order to enable the method to be automated by a computer , thereby improving the efficiency of the fabrication process, respectively. Regarding claim 18 , Kawada in view of Hellwig , Flasck and Prasad disclose the SiC substrate has undergone ion implantation prior to depositing of the interfacial layer (Kawada: [0026]). Regarding claim 19 , Kawada in view of Hellwig , Flasck and Prasad disclose the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 17. Kawada in view of Hellwig , Flasck and Prasad do not disclose depositing the interfacial layer to a thickness of approximately 5 nanometers to approximately 100 nanometers. Kawada discloses depositing the interfacial layer to a thickness of about 1 nm or greater and 3 nm or less ([0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to deposit the interfacial layer to a thickness of approximately 5 nanometers to approximately 100 nanometers because it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Furthermore, it should be noted that Applicant’s specification does not contain evidence showing that the claimed range of 5-100 nm is critical. Regarding claim 20 , Kawada in view of Hellwig , Flasck and Prasad disclose at least one of (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e): (a) annealing the SiC substrate at a temperature of approximately 1650 degrees Celsius or higher (Kawada: [0030]) ; (b) wherein the method is performed in a single process chamber (Kawada: [0029]) ; (c) wherein the interfacial layer is formed using a precursor of SiH 4 or SiC x H y ; (d) wherein deposition is performed by chemical vapor deposition (CVD); or (e) wherein the interfacial layer is deposited on a three-dimensional structure (Kawada’s SiC substrate 1 may be a bulk silicon carbide substrate having three dimensions of length, width and thickness) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7813 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lynne Gurley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1670 . 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. /PETER M ALBRECHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811