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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 09 July 2026, with respect to the specification and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification and the claims have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09 July 2026, that Kaisersberger fails to disclose sublimating a source material and depositing a crystal material on a crystal seed have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Kaisersberger to teach sublimating a source material and depositing a crystal material on a crystal seed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 29 April 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the Non-Patent Literature Document citations do not include a publication date as required by 37 CFR 1.98(b). If the publication date of the Non-Patent Literature Document(s) are not known, “the applicant must, at a minimum, provide a date of retrieval (e.g., the date a webpage was retrieved) or a time frame…when the document was available as a publication” (See MPEP 609.04(a) I and MPEP 707.05(e)). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetkov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0283880 A1), hereinafter Tsvetkov, in view of Kaisersberger et al. (“Practical aspects for the coupling of gas analytical methods with thermal-analysis instruments”, 1997), hereinafter Kaisersberger.
Regarding claim 1, Tsvetkov discloses a system for providing a gas sample from a physical vapor transport system (paragraph 0023), the system comprising:
a sampling tube (FIG. 1, elements 40, 40’) with a first end (FIG. 1, element 40) connected to a crucible retort (FIG. 1, element 12) of the physical vapor transport system to sample a gas phase (paragraph 0038); and
a heater (FIG. 1, element 22) around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube (paragraph 0042 discloses that sampling tube 40 may be located in a side wall of the crucible 12, which is shown in FIG. 1 to be surrounded by heater 22),
wherein the physical vapor transport system is configured to sublimate (paragraph 0032) a source material (FIG. 1, element 26) within the crucible retort and deposit a crystal material (FIG. 1, element 30) on a crystal seed (FIG. 1, element 28).
Tsvetkov fails to disclose that the sampling tube is integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle, an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer, and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port.
However, Kaisersberger discloses that the sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) is integrated with an orifice (FIG. 16, orifice) and a skimmer (FIG. 16, skimmer) with a skimmer divergent nozzle (page 84, column 2, first paragraph, lines 1-2), an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer (FIG. 16, quadrupole analyzer), and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port (FIG. 14, turbo pump).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov to include that the sampling tube is integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle, an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer, and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port, based on the teachings of Kaisersberger that the combination of skimmer coupling and a quadrupole mass spectrometer results in ideal gas-flow conditions (Kaisersberger, page 83, section 6.2 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Kaisersberger discloses that the gas analyzer is a quadrupole mass spectrometer (FIG. 16 and associated caption, quadrupole analyzer/QMS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger to include that the gas analyzer is a quadrupole mass spectrometer, based on the additional teachings of Kaisersberger that the combination of skimmer coupling and a quadrupole mass spectrometer results in ideal gas-flow conditions (Kaisersberger, page 83, section 6.2 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 4, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tsvetkov discloses that the sampling tube passes through a lid of the crucible retort (FIG. 1: the sampling tube passes through the lid 16 of the crucible retort 12 at the end 40 of the sampling tube).
Regarding claim 6, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tsvetkov discloses that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline powder, pieces of polycrystalline SiC, or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C (paragraph 0047, lines 11-12; paragraph 0056, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 7, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tsvetkov discloses that the gas phase includes Si, C (paragraph 0016),
S
i
2
C
and
S
i
C
2
(paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 8, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tsvetkov discloses that the heater is an inductive heater or a resistive heater (paragraph 0025), and heats the sampling tube to a temperature of above 1400°C (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 9, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Kaisersberger discloses that the differential pumping port is connected to differential pumping apparatus including a turbomolecular and/or rotary vacuum pump (FIG. 14, turbo pump).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger to include that the differential pumping port is connected to differential pumping apparatus including a turbomolecular and/or rotary vacuum pump, based on the additional teachings of Kaisersberger that a turbomolecular pump produces the necessary vacuum for the gas analyzer without undesirable effects of oil back-streaming (Kaisersberger, page 77, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 10, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Kaisersberger discloses that the skimmer with the skimmer divergent nozzle is integrated along about a full length of the sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) and form a molecular jet of gas to be analyzed (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”).
Optimizing the length of the skimmer as compared to the sampling tube is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kaisersberger teaches that “[t]he geometrical arrangement of the first and second pressure-reduction steps has to ensure an optimum transfer of the gases” (page 79, column 2, paragraph 2; the “second pressure-reduction step” is the skimmer, as disclosed at page 79, column 1, last paragraph). As such, Kaisersberger identifies the length of the skimmer as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., achieving optimum gas transfer. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the length of the skimmer and identifies said length as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the length of the skimmer to meet the claimed length since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Kaisersberger discloses that the skimmer with the skimmer divergent nozzle is below the differential pumping port (FIG. 14 shows that, when viewed in the orientation of FIG. 16, the skimmer extends below the turbo pump) but does not extend into the crucible retort (FIG. 16: the skimmer is located above the crucible holding the sample) and forms a molecular jet of gas to be analyzed (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”).
Optimizing the length of the skimmer as compared to the sampling tube is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kaisersberger teaches that “[t]he geometrical arrangement of the first and second pressure-reduction steps has to ensure an optimum transfer of the gases” (page 79, column 2, paragraph 2; the “second pressure-reduction step” is the skimmer, as disclosed at page 79, column 1, last paragraph). As such, Kaisersberger identifies the length of the skimmer as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., achieving optimum gas transfer. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the length of the skimmer and identifies said length as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the length of the skimmer to meet the claimed length since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, Tsvetkov discloses a method for providing a gas sample from a physical vapor transport system (paragraph 0023), the method comprising:
sublimating (paragraph 0032) a source material (FIG. 1, element 26) within a crucible retort (FIG. 1, element 12) of the physical vapor transport system to produce a gas phase (paragraph 0038) for depositing a crystal material (FIG. 1, element 30) on a crystal seed (FIG. 1, element 28);
sampling gas from the gas phase of the crucible retort of the physical vapor transport system (paragraph 0038) by a sampling tube (FIG. 1, elements 40, 40’), wherein a first end of the sampling tube (FIG. 1, element 40) is connected to the crucible retort of the physical vapor transport system (FIG. 1, crucible retort 12); and
heating the sampling tube by a heater (FIG. 1, element 22) around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube (paragraph 0042 discloses that sampling tube 40 may be located in a side wall of the crucible 12, which is shown in FIG. 1 to be surrounded by heater 22).
Tsvetkov fails to disclose that the sampling tube is integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle, wherein an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer, and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port; and providing the sampled gas to the gas analyzer.
However, Kaisersberger discloses that the sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) is integrated with an orifice (FIG. 16, orifice) and a skimmer (FIG. 16, skimmer) with a skimmer divergent nozzle (page 84, column 2, first paragraph, lines 1-2), wherein an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer (FIG. 16, quadrupole analyzer), and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port (FIG. 14, turbo pump); and
providing the sampled gas to the gas analyzer (page 83, section 6.2 paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov to include that the sampling tube is integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle, wherein an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer, and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port; and providing the sampled gas to the gas analyzer, based on the teachings of Kaisersberger that the combination of skimmer coupling and a quadrupole mass spectrometer results in ideal gas-flow conditions (Kaisersberger, page 83, section 6.2 paragraph 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morokuma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0112061 A1), hereinafter Morokuma.
Regarding claim 2, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the sampling tube is a capillary tube.
However, Morokuma discloses that the sampling tube is a capillary tube (paragraph 0034).
The disclosure of Morokuma demonstrates that the function of capillary tubes is known in the art of gas analysis. Morokuma also shows that substituting a capillary tube for another gas communication device (e.g., another sampling tube or an orifice) in a gas analysis system yields the predictable result of controlling the flow rate of fluid in the capillary or sampling tube (Morokuma, paragraph 0038). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger to include that the sampling tube is a capillary tube because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0066058 A1), hereinafter Gonin, and Straubinger et al. (“Aluminum p-type doping of silicon carbide crystals using a modified physical vapor transport growth method”, 2002), hereinafter Straubinger.
Regarding claim 5, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the sampling tube is inserted through a bottom of the crucible retort and the crucible retort includes an element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube.
However, Gonin discloses that the sampling tube is inserted through a bottom of the crucible retort (FIG. 2: the sampling tube formed by elements 4.2 and 5 is inserted through a bottom of container 15.2) and the crucible retort includes an element (FIG. 2, element 14) to maintain a source material (FIG. 2, element 3.2) above the sampling tube (FIG. 2, elements 4.2, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger to include that the sampling tube is inserted through a bottom of the crucible retort and the crucible retort includes an element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube, based on the teachings of Gonin that this configuration provides easy access between the source material and the gas analyzer (Gonin, paragraph 0060).
Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Gonin fails to disclose that the element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube has the structure of element 24 in FIG. 2B of the present application (see Claim Interpretation in the prior Office action).
However, Straubinger discloses an element to maintain a source material above a tube having the structure disclosed in the present application (FIG. 1: the tube inserted through the bottom of the crucible has walls which maintain the powder outside the tube, and the gas outlet arrows show that the gas phase is removed from the growth cell above the tube).
The disclosure of Straubinger demonstrates that the function of an element to maintain a source material above a tube having the structure disclosed in the present application is known in the art of physical vapor transport systems. Straubinger also shows that substituting an element to maintain a source material above a tube having the structure disclosed in the present application into a conventional PVT setup results in a predictable effect on gas flux and temperature distribution (Straubinger, page 118, column 2, last paragraph). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Gonin to include that the element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube has the structure disclosed in the present application because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (“Growth of Single Crystal Beta Silicon Carbide”, 1992), hereinafter Yoo.
Regarding claim 12, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1, including the sampling tube integrated with an orifice.
Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the sampling tube integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle are fabricated from graphite, electrically conductive high temperature ceramic, or graphite or metal coated with a high temperature ceramic layer including TaC, HfC, ZrC, TiC, WC, and/or NbC.
However, Yoo discloses SiC crystal system components fabricated from graphite, electrically conductive high temperature ceramic, or graphite or metal coated with a high temperature ceramic layer including TaC, HfC, ZrC, TiC, WC, and/or NbC (page 22, paragraph following FIG. 20).
The disclosure of Yoo demonstrates that the function of graphite coated with ZrC or TaC is known in the art of SiC crystal formation. Yoo also shows that substituting graphite coated with ZrC or TaC for another material in the fabrication of SiC crystal system components yields the predictable result of preventing undesirable interactions between the graphite and molten silicon. “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger to include that the sampling tube integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle are fabricated from graphite coated with a high temperature ceramic layer including TaC or ZrC because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0330739 A1), hereinafter Hosaka.
Regarding claim 13, Tsvetkov discloses a device for providing a gas sample from a physical vapor transport system (paragraph 0023), the device comprising:
a sampling tube (FIG. 1, elements 40, 40’); and
a heater (FIG. 1, element 22) around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube (paragraph 0042 discloses that sampling tube 40 may be located in a side wall of the crucible 12, which is shown in FIG. 1 to be surrounded by heater 22),
wherein a first end of the sampling tube (FIG. 1, element 40) is connected to a crucible retort of the physical vapor transport system (FIG. 1, element 12) to sample a gas phase (paragraph 0038), and
wherein the physical vapor transport system is configured to sublimate (paragraph 0032) a source material (FIG. 1, element 26) within the crucible retort and deposit a crystal material (FIG. 1, element 30) on a crystal seed (FIG. 1, element 28).
Tsvetkov fails to disclose that the sampling tube is integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle; wherein the heater is located inside a vacuum chamber of the physical vapor transport system and is connected to water-cooled feedthroughs located outside the vacuum chamber, an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer, and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port.
However, Kaisersberger discloses that the sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) is integrated with an orifice (FIG. 16, orifice) and a skimmer (FIG. 16, skimmer) with a skimmer divergent nozzle (page 84, column 2, first paragraph, lines 1-2);
an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer (FIG. 16, quadrupole analyzer), and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port (FIG. 14, turbo pump).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov to include that the sampling tube is integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle; an output of the skimmer is connected to a gas analyzer, and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port, based on the teachings of Kaisersberger that the combination of skimmer coupling and a quadrupole mass spectrometer results in ideal gas-flow conditions (Kaisersberger, page 83, section 6.2 paragraph 1).
Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the heater is located inside a vacuum chamber of the physical vapor transport system and is connected to water-cooled feedthroughs located outside the vacuum chamber.
However, Hosaka discloses that the heater (FIG. 36, elements 506, 509) is located inside a vacuum chamber of the system (FIG. 36, element 504-1; paragraph 0343) and is connected to water-cooled feedthroughs located outside the vacuum chamber (FIG. 36, elements 519).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger to include that the heater is located inside a vacuum chamber of the physical vapor transport system and is connected to water-cooled feedthroughs located outside the vacuum chamber, based on the teachings of Hosaka that this arrangement prevents heat from leaking outside of the device (Hosaka, paragraph 0348).
Regarding claim 14, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Tsvetkov discloses that the sampling tube passes through a lid of the crucible retort (FIG. 1: the sampling tube passes through the lid 16 of the crucible retort 12 at the end 40 of the sampling tube).
Regarding claim 16, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Kaisersberger discloses that the skimmer with the skimmer divergent nozzle is integrated along about a full length of the sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) and form a molecular jet of gas to be analyzed (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”).
Optimizing the length of the skimmer as compared to the sampling tube is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kaisersberger teaches that “[t]he geometrical arrangement of the first and second pressure-reduction steps has to ensure an optimum transfer of the gases” (page 79, column 2, paragraph 2; the “second pressure-reduction step” is the skimmer, as disclosed at page 79, column 1, last paragraph). As such, Kaisersberger identifies the length of the skimmer as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., achieving optimum gas transfer. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the length of the skimmer and identifies said length as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the length of the skimmer to meet the claimed length since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Kaisersberger discloses that the skimmer divergent nozzle is below the differential pumping port (FIG. 14 shows that, when viewed in the orientation of FIG. 16, the nozzle extends below the turbo pump) but not extending into the crucible retort (FIG. 16: the skimmer is located above the crucible holding the sample) and forms a molecular jet of gas to be analyzed (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”).
Optimizing the length of the skimmer as compared to the sampling tube is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kaisersberger teaches that “[t]he geometrical arrangement of the first and second pressure-reduction steps has to ensure an optimum transfer of the gases” (page 79, column 2, paragraph 2; the “second pressure-reduction step” is the skimmer, as disclosed at page 79, column 1, last paragraph). As such, Kaisersberger identifies the length of the skimmer as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., achieving optimum gas transfer. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the length of the skimmer and identifies said length as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the length of the skimmer to meet the claimed length since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 18, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Tsvetkov discloses that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline powder or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C (paragraph 0047, lines 11-12; paragraph 0056, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 19, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Tsvetkov discloses that the gas phase includes Si, C (paragraph 0016),
S
i
2
C
and
S
i
C
2
(paragraph 0033).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gonin and Straubinger.
Regarding claim 15, Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka fails to disclose that the sampling tube is inserted through a bottom of the crucible retort and the crucible retort includes an element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube.
However, Gonin discloses that the sampling tube is inserted through a bottom of the crucible retort (FIG. 2: the sampling tube formed by elements 4.2 and 5 is inserted through a bottom of container 15.2) and the crucible retort includes an element (FIG. 2, element 14) to maintain a source material (FIG. 2, element 3.2) above the sampling tube (FIG. 2, elements 4.2, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger and Hosaka to include that the sampling tube is inserted through a bottom of the crucible retort and the crucible retort includes an element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube, based on the teachings of Gonin that this configuration provides easy access between the source material and the gas analyzer (Gonin, paragraph 0060).
Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger, Hosaka, and Gonin fails to disclose that the element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube has the structure of element 24 in FIG. 2B of the present application (see Claim Interpretation in the prior office action).
However, Straubinger discloses an element to maintain a source material above a tube having the structure disclosed in the present application (FIG. 1: the tube inserted through the bottom of the crucible has walls which maintain the powder outside the tube, and the gas outlet arrows show that the gas phase is removed from the growth cell above the tube).
The disclosure of Straubinger demonstrates that the function of an element to maintain a source material above a tube having the structure disclosed in the present application is known in the art of physical vapor transport systems. Straubinger also shows that substituting an element to maintain a source material above a tube having the structure disclosed in the present application into a conventional PVT setup results in a predictable effect on gas flux and temperature distribution (Straubinger, page 118, column 2, last paragraph). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsvetkov in view of Kaisersberger, Hosaka, and Gonin to include that the element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube has the structure disclosed in the present application because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights