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 .
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).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0042: “System 210” should read “System [[210]]200”.
Paragraph 0050: “overflow capillary 190” should read “overflow capillary [[190]]490”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 7 be found allowable, claims 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being respective substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: “an element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube” in claims 5 and 15.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for maintaining the source material above the sampling tube is disclosed in the specification at paragraph 0045 as “element 24”, referring to FIG. 2B. Accordingly, the “element to maintain a source material above the sampling tube” is interpreted as a barrier between the interior of the sampling tube and the source material, and equivalents thereof.
The phrases “the skimmer…does not extend into the crucible retort and form a molecular jet of gas to be analyzed” in claim 11, and “the skimmer…[is] not extending into the crucible retort and form a molecular jet of gas to be analyzed” in claim 17, are unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted these phrases to mean “the skimmer…does not extend into the crucible retort; and wherein the skimmer with the skimmer divergent nozzle forms; and wherein the skimmer with the skimmer divergent nozzle forms
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaisersberger et al. (“Practical aspects for the coupling of gas analytical methods with thermal-analysis instruments”, 1997), hereinafter Kaisersberger.
Regarding claim 1, Kaisersberger discloses a system for providing a gas sample from a physical vapor transport system (FIG. 16), the system comprising:
a sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) with a first end connected to a crucible retort (page 79, column 2, paragraph beginning “The distance between…”, line 2; FIG. 16, Sample) of the physical vapor transport system to sample a gas phase (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”); and
a heater around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube (FIG. 16: the heater is around the lower portion of the sampling tube),
wherein the sampling tube 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).
Regarding claim 3, 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).
Regarding claim 9, 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).
Regarding claim 10, 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 Simmer is arranged…”).
Regarding claim 13, Kaisersberger discloses a device for providing a gas sample from a physical vapor transport system (FIG. 16), the device comprising:
a sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) 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); and
a heater around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube (FIG. 16: the heater is around the lower portion of the sampling tube),
wherein a first end of the sampling tube is connected to a crucible retort (page 79, column 2, paragraph beginning “The distance between…”, line 2; FIG. 16, Sample) of the physical vapor transport system to sample a gas phase (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”), 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).
Regarding claim 16, Kaisersberger 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 Simmer is arranged…”).
Regarding claim 20, Kaisersberger discloses a method for providing a gas sample from a physical vapor transport system (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”), the method comprising:
sampling gas from a gas phase (page 83, column 2, paragraph beginning “The Skimmer is arranged…”) of a crucible retort (page 79, column 2, paragraph beginning “The distance between…”, line 2; FIG. 16, Sample) of the physical vapor transport system by a sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) 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 a first end of the sampling tube (FIG. 16, tube surrounding vertical dotted line) is connected to the crucible retort of the physical vapor transport system (FIG. 16, Sample), 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);
heating the sampling tube by a heater around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube (FIG. 16: the heater is around the lower portion of the sampling tube); and
providing the sampled gas to the gas analyzer (page 83, paragraph spanning column 1 to column 2).
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 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisersberger.
Regarding claim 11, 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 Simmer 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, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
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 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 Simmer 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Morokuma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0112061 A1), hereinafter Morokuma.
Regarding claim 2, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
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 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).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisersberger as respectively applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Olson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0047779 A1), hereinafter Olson.
Regarding claim 4, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the sampling tube passes through a lid of the crucible retort.
However, Olson discloses that the sampling tube (FIG. 6B, element 60) passes through a lid (FIG. 6B, element 70) of the crucible retort (FIG. 6B, element 72).
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 Kaisersberger to include that the sampling tube passes through a lid of the crucible retort, based on the teachings of Olson that this configuration minimizes contamination and spilling risks (Olson, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 14, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the sampling tube passes through a lid of the crucible retort.
However, Olson discloses that the sampling tube (FIG. 6B, element 60) passes through a lid (FIG. 6B, element 70) of the crucible retort (FIG. 6B, element 72).
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 Kaisersberger to include that the sampling tube passes through a lid of the crucible retort, based on the teachings of Olson that this configuration minimizes contamination and spilling risks (Olson, paragraph 0037).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisersberger as respectively applied to claims 1 and 13 above, 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, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
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 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).
Kaisersberger in view of 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 above).
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 Kaisersberger in view of 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).
Regarding claim 15, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
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 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).
Kaisersberger in view of 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 above).
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 Kaisersberger in view of 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).
Claims 6-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisersberger as respectively applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Tairov et al. (“General Principles of Growing Large-Size Single Crystals of Various Silicon Carbide Polytypes”, 1981), hereinafter Tairov.
Regarding claim 6, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Kaisersberger fails to disclose that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline power, pieces of polycrystalline SiC, or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C.
However, Tairov discloses that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline power, pieces of polycrystalline SiC, or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C (page 147, column 2).
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 Kaisersberger to include that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline power, pieces of polycrystalline SiC, or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C, based on the teachings of Tairov that the presence of any other elements or compounds produce undesirable contamination, resulting in the formation of impure silicon carbide crystals (Tairov, page 148, column 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the gas phase includes Si, C, Si2C and SiC2.
However, Tairov discloses that the gas phase includes Si, C, Si2C and SiC2 (page 147, column 2).
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 Kaisersberger to include that the gas phase includes Si, C, Si2C and SiC2, based on the teachings of Tairov that the presence of any other elements or compounds in the gas phase produce undesirable contamination, resulting in the formation of impure silicon carbide crystals (Tairov, page 148, column 1).
Regarding claim 18, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
Kaisersberger fails to disclose that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline power or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C.
However, Tairov discloses that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline power or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C (page 147, column 2).
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 Kaisersberger to include that a source material within the crucible retort is SiC source material including a polycrystalline power or a mix of high purity elemental Si and C, based on the teachings of Tairov that the presence of any other elements or compounds produce undesirable contamination, resulting in the formation of impure silicon carbide crystals (Tairov, page 148, column 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the gas phase includes Si, C, Si2C and SiC2.
However, Tairov discloses that the gas phase includes Si, C, Si2C and SiC2 (page 147, column 2).
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 Kaisersberger to include that the gas phase includes Si, C, Si2C and SiC2, based on the teachings of Tairov that the presence of any other elements or compounds in the gas phase produce undesirable contamination, resulting in the formation of impure silicon carbide crystals (Tairov, page 148, column 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Straubinger.
Regarding claim 8, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Kaisersberger discloses that the heater heats the sampling tube to a temperature of above 1400°C (page 84, column 2, first paragraph).
Kaisersberger fails to disclose that the heater is an inductive heater, resistive heater, or infrared heater.
However, Straubinger discloses that the heater is an inductive heater, resistive heater, or infrared heater (page 118, section labeled ‘2. Experiments’, paragraph 1).
The disclosure of Straubinger demonstrates that the function of an inductive heater is known in the art of physical vapor transport systems. Straubinger also shows that substituting an inductive heater for another heater in a PVT system yields the predictable result of enabling heating to temperatures above 2000°C. “[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 Kaisersberger to include that the heater is an inductive heater, resistive heater, or infrared heater, 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 Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yoo et al. (“Growth of Single Crystal Beta Silicon Carbide”, 1992), hereinafter Yoo.
Regarding claim 12, Kaisersberger as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
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 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wellmann et al. (“Growth of SiC bulk crystals for application in power electronic devices – process design, 2D and 3D X-ray in situ visualization and advanced doping”, 2015), hereinafter Wellmann, teaches a crucible of a physical vapor transport system, wherein a source material within the crucible is SiC source material including a mix of high purity elemental Si and C.
Zhmakin (“Modelling of Heat Transfer in Single Crystal Growth”, 2014), hereinafter Zhmakin, teaches a SiC source material inside a crucible, wherein the source material is heated by an inductive heater.
Emmerich et al. (“Simultaneous Thermal Analysis – Mass Spectrometer Skimmer Coupling System”, 1997), hereinafter Emmerich, teaches a system for providing a gas sample, the system comprising a sampling tube with a first end connected to a sample to sample a gas phase; and a heater around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube, wherein the sampling tube is integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer nozzle, and an output of the skimmer is connected to a quadrupole mass spectrometer.
Kaisersberger et al. (“Polymer Characterization by an Advanced Simultaneous Thermogravimetric-Mass Spectrometric Skimmer Coupling System”, 1994), hereinafter Kaisersberger (1994), teaches a system for providing a gas sample from a physical vapor transport system, the system comprising: a sampling tube with a first end connected to a crucible retort of the physical vapor transport system to sample a gas phase; and a heater around at least a part of the sampling tube to maintain a temperature within the sampling tube, wherein 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 quadrupole mass spectrometer, and an output of the sampling tube is connected to a differential pumping port.
Saraji-Bozorgzad et al. (“Detection of organic products of polymer pyrolysis by thermogravimetry-supersonic jet-skimmer time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TG-Skimmer-SPI-TOFMS) using an electron beam pumped rare gas excimer VUV-light source (EBEL) for soft photo ionisation”, 2011), hereinafter Saraji-Bozorgzad, teaches a sampling tube integrated with an orifice and a skimmer with a skimmer divergent nozzle fabricated from electrically conductive high temperature ceramic.
Kaisersberger (“Gas Analysis Systems Coupled to NETZSCH Instruments: How it all started”, 2022), hereinafter Kaisersberger (2022), teaches a heater around at least a part of a sampling tube to maintain a temperature of above 1400°C in the sampling tube.
Goela (“CVD Growth and Characterization of β-SiC for IR Windows”, 1997), hereinafter Goela, teaches a sampling tube inserted through a bottom of the crucible retort; 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; and the heater is an inductive heater, resistive heater, or infrared heater, and heats the sampling tube to a temperature of above 1400°C.
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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights