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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on November 3, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 3, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶[0014] the specification refers to “Figure 2A.” However, there is no Fig. 2A in the instant application. It is assumed applicants intended to refer to Fig. 1A.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus for “high-temperature” crystal growth in l. 1 and l. 9 while claim 9 recites a “high-temperature” crystal growth process in ll. 3-4. The term “high-temperature” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high-temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since neither the specification nor the claims as originally filed provide an explicit definition for the range of temperatures encompassed by the recitation of a “high-temperature,” its recitation in claims 1 and 9 is therefore considered to be indefinite. Dependent claims 2-17 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites that the sleeve comprises a “superalloy.” However, this does not appear to be a well-known term in the art that sufficiently conveys to an ordinary artisan what, exactly, constitutes a superalloy. Moreover, the specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition for a superalloy. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought by the recitation of a “superalloy” cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes a superalloy is defined using the Merriam-Webster online dictionary which defines a superalloy as “any of various high-strength often complex alloys resistant to high temperature” with a “high temperature” being broadly considered as any temperature higher than room temperature.
Claim 14 recites that the manifold comprises “a pressure transducer” and “a pressure gauge.” It is unclear as to what, exactly, is the difference between a pressure transducer and a pressure gauge as both are understood as being used to measure the pressure. Thus, it is unclear whether there are two types of pressure gauges or if there is some difference between a pressure transducer and a pressure gauge. For examination purposes it is assumed that a pressure transducer and a pressure gauge refer to the same thing.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2010/0031876 to Mark P. D’Evelyn (hereinafter “D’Evelyn”).
Regarding claim 1, D’Evelyn teaches an apparatus for high-temperature crystal growth (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and entire reference which teach an embodiment of an autoclave for high temperature crystal growth), comprising:
a pressure vessel comprising a capsule that has an interior surface that defines an internal capsule volume (see Figs. 1 & 3, ¶¶[0050]-[0068] and ¶¶[0095]-[0102] which teach an embodiment of an autoclave (1) that has an interior surface that defines an internal volume);
a fill tube that comprises an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein an interior fill tube volume defined by the inner surface is in fluid communication with the internal capsule volume of the capsule (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0095]-[0102] which teach a removable inner purge tube that comprises an outer and inner surface defining a volume which is in fluid communication with an internal volume of the autoclave (1));
a sleeve axially surrounding the outer surface of the fill tube, wherein the sleeve is configured to support the outer surface of the fill tube, along a length of the fill tube, during a high-temperature crystal growth process (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0095]-[0102] which teach an outer purge tube which axially surrounds and supports the outer surface of the inner purge tube along a length of the fill tube during a high temperature growth process); and
a manifold comprising an interior manifold volume that is in fluid communication with the interior fill tube volume of the fill tube (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0095]-[0102] which teach a manifold comprised of, inter alia, a gate valve, a purge gas inlet, and a tee for a purge gas outlet which are in fluid communication with the interior volume of the inner purge tube).
Regarding claim 2, D’Evelyn teaches that the fill tube comprises a corrosion-resistant material that is selected from a group consisting of rhenium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, osmium, iridium, platinum, and gold, or alloy thereof (see Fig. 3 and ¶[0096] which teach that the inner purge tube may be fabricated from a metal such as gold, silver, palladium, platinum, and the like).
Regarding claim 4, D’Evelyn teaches that the sleeve comprises one or more cylinders, and a radial gap between an inner surface of the sleeve and the outer surface of the fill tube is less than or equal to 0.005 inches (see Fig. 3 and ¶[0096] which teach that the outer purge tube is comprised of a single cylinder with a radial gap present between the inner and outer purge tubes; moreover, the outer diameter of the inner purge tube is less than the inner diameter of the outer purge tube by 0.010 inch which translates to a radial gap of 0.005 inches).
Regarding claim 6, D’Evelyn teaches that the sleeve comprises a superalloy and the fill tube comprises a material that is selected from a group consisting of rhenium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, osmium, iridium, platinum, and gold, or alloy thereof (see Fig. 3 and ¶[0096] which teach that the outer purge tube may be comprised of an iron- or nickel-based alloy such as stainless steel, Inconel, or Hastelloy that necessarily is capable of withstanding high temperatures while the inner purge tube may be comprised of a metal such as palladium, platinum, gold, or the like).
Regarding claim 7, D’Evelyn teaches that the fill tube comprises a first end and a second end that is opposite to the first end (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0095]-[0102] which teach that the inner purge tube comprises a first and second end at opposite ends), and a temperature difference formed between the first end and the second end is greater than 400 °C during a high-temperature crystal growth process (see Figs. 1 & 3, ¶¶[0050]-[0052] which teach that the autoclave (1) includes heaters (4), (5), and (6) which are capable of heating the autoclave (1) into at least two zones having different temperatures with ¶[0048] specifically teaching that the temperature is in the range of 100 to 800 °C which therefore means that the apparatus is capable of producing a temperature difference of greater than 400 °C between the top and bottom ends of the inner fill tube).
Regarding claim 9, D’Evelyn teaches a heater that is positioned over an outer surface of the sleeve, and is configured to maintain a temperature difference of no greater than 20 °C along the length of the sleeve during a high-temperature crystal growth process (see Figs. 1 & 3, ¶¶[0050]-[0052] which teach that the autoclave (1) includes heaters (4), (5), and (6) which are positioned such that they overlap with and, hence, they cover at least a portion of an outer surface of the outer purge tube and are capable of heating the autoclave (1) into at least two zones having different temperatures; see also ¶[0048] and ¶[0093] which specifically teach that the temperature is in the range of 100 to 800 °C with an internal temperature of between about 25 and 500 °C which therefore means that the apparatus is capable of maintaining a uniform temperature (i.e., a temperature difference of near zero) along at least portions of an outer surface of the outer purge tube where the temperature difference would be no greater than 20 °C as claimed).
Regarding claim 15, D’Evelyn teaches a selective membrane, which is disposed between the manifold and an exhaust assembly or the fill tube and the manifold, wherein the selective membrane is configured to allow a first gas of a plurality gases disposed on a first side of the selective membrane to pass to an opposing side of the membrane while preventing one or more of the other plurality of gases disposed on the first side of the selective membrane from passing to the opposing side of the membrane (see Fig. 3, ¶[0011], ¶[0100], and claim 12 which teach the use of a heated palladium membrane placed where exhaust gases are removed through the gate valve/gas exhaust port in order to selectively bleed off excess H2 gas formed by the reaction of Ga metal with NH3 within the autoclave).
Regarding claim 16, D’Evelyn teaches that the selective membrane comprises palladium, and the first gas comprises hydrogen (see ¶[0100] which teaches the use of a palladium membrane to facilitate the removal of excess hydrogen gas).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn.
Regarding claim 3, D’Evelyn teaches that the fill tube comprises Inconel (see Fig. 3 and ¶[0096] which teach that the inner purge tube may be comprised of Inconel), but does not explicitly teach that the inner surface of the fill tube is lined with a material that comprises silver. However, in ¶[0053] D’Evelyn specifically teaches that it is desirable to incorporate a liner comprised of a material such as silver within the autoclave (1) in order to inhibit corrosion of the walls of the autoclave and/or to avoid contamination of the growing crystals. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to incorporate a liner comprised of a material such a silver which coats the inner surfaces of the fill tube in Fig. 3 as well in order to inhibit corrosion of the fill tube and to avoid potential contamination of the contents of the autoclave.
Regarding claim 8, D’Evelyn teaches that the fill tube is hermetically sealed at the first end directly to the manifold and at the second end to a portion of the capsule (see Fig. 3, ¶[0039], ¶[0092], and ¶[0096] which teach that the autoclave is sealed except for connections to the purge gas inlet and exhaust using, for example, Teflon seals or o-rings such that the interior volume is gas tight which necessarily means that the inner purge tube is directly or indirectly sealed to the purge gas manifold at a first end and a portion of the autoclave (1) at a second end; alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to seal the inner purge tube to a purge gas manifold at a top end and to the autoclave (1) at a bottom end in order to facilitate efficient transmission of the desired gases and avoid having potential contaminants from the ambient leaking into the autoclave (1)).
Regarding claim 10, D’Evelyn teaches that a hermetic seal is formed between the fill tube and the manifold (see Fig. 3, ¶[0039], ¶[0092], and ¶[0096] which teach that the autoclave is sealed except for connections to the purge gas inlet and exhaust using, for example, Teflon seals or o-rings such that the interior volume is gas tight which necessarily means that the inner purge tube is directly or indirectly sealed to the purge gas manifold), but does not explicitly teach welding a portion of the fill tube to a portion of the manifold. However, in at least ¶[0076] D’Evelyn teaches that portions of the frame for seed crystals and its components may be attached by means of welding, arc welding, resistance welding, and the like. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that a hermetic seal may be formed between the inner purge tube and, for example, connections to the purge gas inlet, purge gas outlet, and the gate valve by welding with the motivation for doing so being to form a strong and impermeable attachment point that is capable of withstanding higher temperatures and pressures.
Regarding claim 11, D’Evelyn teaches that the fill tube is hermetically sealed to the sleeve and the sleeve is hermetically sealed to the manifold (see Fig. 3, ¶[0039], ¶[0092], and ¶[0096] which teach that the autoclave is sealed except for connections to the purge gas inlet and exhaust using, for example, Teflon seals or o-rings such that the interior volume is gas tight with Fig. 3 specifically showing that the inner purge tube is sealed to the outer purge tube using a sliding seal while the outer purge tube is necessarily directly or indirectly sealed to the autoclave (1); alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to hermetically seal the outer purge tube to the autoclave (1) in order to facilitate efficient transmission of the desired gases and avoid having potential contaminants from the ambient leaking into the autoclave (1)).
Regarding claim 12, D’Evelyn teaches an O-ring seal configured to form a hermetic seal between the outer surface of the fill tube and a portion of the sleeve (see Fig. 3 and ¶[0096] which teach that a sliding seal in the form of an o-ring which forms a hearmetic seal between an outer surface of the inner purge tube and a portion of the outer purge tube).
Regarding claim 13, D’Evelyn teaches that the sleeve is hermetically sealed to the manifold using an O-ring seal, a face seal, or a compression seal (see Fig. 3, ¶[0039], ¶[0092], and ¶[0096] which teach that the autoclave is sealed except for connections to the purge gas inlet and exhaust using, for example, Teflon seals or o-rings such that the interior volume is gas tight with Fig. 3 specifically showing that the outer purge tube is sealed to the gate valve and the tee constituting the purge gas exhaust; alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to hermetically seal the outer purge tube to one or more components of the gas manifold in order to facilitate efficient transmission of the desired gases and avoid having potential contaminants from the ambient leaking into the autoclave (1)).
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2006/0177362 to D’Evelyn, et al. (“D’Evelyn II”).
Regarding claim 5, D’Evelyn teaches that a radial gap between an inner surface of the sleeve and an outer surface of the fill tube is less than or equal to 0.005 inches (see Fig. 3 and ¶[0096] which teach that a radial gap present between the inner and outer purge tubes; moreover, the outer diameter of the inner purge tube is less than the inner diameter of the outer purge tube by 0.010 inch which translates to a radial gap of 0.005 inches), but does not teach that the sleeve comprises one or more half cylinders that are connected to one another over the fill tube. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0023]-[0048] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference D’Evelyn II teaches an analogous embodiment of a capsule (12) for the growth of Group III-nitride materials under high pressure and high temperature conditions. In Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0045]-[0046] D’Evelyn II specifically teaches the use of a plurality of radial wedge-shaped segments (80) which surround the capsule (12). The radial segments (80) are comprised of a hard material that undergoes little or no deformation under operating conditions and function to reduce the pressure transferred from the capsule (12) to an outer casing (78) during operation by spreading the load applied by the capsule (12) over the area on an inner diameter (84) of the segments (80) over a larger area (86) on the inner diameter of the outer casing (78). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of D’Evelyn II and would recognize that the outer purge tube in Fig. 3 of D’Evelyn may be surrounded by a plurality of radial segments (80) which together form one or more half cylinders which are connected to one another and are secured in place by some type of outer casing (78) with the motivation for doing so being to provide a means for efficiently reinforcing the outer periphery of the outer purge tube without adding undesired stress(es) to the autoclave itself.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2014/0205840 to Aoki, et al. (“Aoki”).
Regarding claim 14, D’Evelyn teaches that the manifold comprises a vent valve (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0099]-[0101] which teach that a gate valve is connected to the outer purge tube and is used to vent the autoclave), but does not explicitly teach a pressure transducer, a fill valve, and a pressure gauge. However, in at least Figs. 3-5 and ¶¶[0138]-[0143] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Aoki teaches an analogous embodiment of an autoclave for the growth of Group III-nitride crystals which includes, inter alia, a main body (301) whose interior is connected, via a conduit (310), to a manifold comprised of, inter alia, an inlet valve (503) for the addition of a solvent such as ammonia, a pressure sensor (508) to measure the pressure, and a vent valve (510) which opens when the pressure exceeds a specified value. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to incorporate at least one or more pressure transducers or gauges as well as a fill valve with the inner and outer purge tubes in the system of D’Evelyn with the motivation for doing so being to control the amount of fluid such as a solvent that is added to and removed from the autoclave and to facilitate accurate measurements of the pressure within the autoclave after addition of the desired amount of solvent.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0368668 to Applegarth, et al. (“Applegarth”).
Regarding claim 17, D’Evelyn does not teach a mechanical actuator, wherein the mechanical actuator being located on an exterior of the sleeve or manifold and is configured to generate vibrations in the sleeve or manifold. However, in Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0068]-[0069] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Applegarth teaches an analogous embodiment of a gas manifold for exhausting and treating exhaust gases such as ammonia by transmitting said gas through, inter alia, a heat exchanger (400), a particle removal filter (500), and an organometallic vapor removal filter (600). In ¶[0069] Applegarth specifically teaches the use of an oscillator or vibrator (410) which is attached to a wall of the heat exchanger (400) in order to cause continuous oscillating or vibrating movements which are effective to prevent particulate buildup at interior surfaces. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Applegarth and would be motivated to incorporate a mechanical vibrator on an external surface of the outer purge tube and/or the purge gas inlet/outlet in order to facilitate more efficient flow of gases therethrough and to avoid particulate buildup on interior surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714