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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Evelyn et al (US 2015/0132926).
D’Evelyn et al teaches an apparatus for crystal growth, comprising: an enclosure configured to contain a supercritical fluid at a pressure above about 5 megapascals (50 bar) and a temperature above about 200° C ([0012] teaches sealable container containing a supercritical fluid at temperature higher than 400°C and a pressure higher than 2kbar), wherein the enclosure (autoclave or capsule) comprises an interior region and a central axis that extends in a first direction (Figs 3B, 12; [0046], [0073]); and a plurality of seed mounts disposed within the interior region, wherein a surface of each of the seed mounts is configured to receive a seed crystal ([0042] teaches seed racks 102 for suspending seed crystal plates), wherein each of the plurality of seed mounts are disposed in an array that extends in the first direction, at least a portion of a seed mount region is disposed between the surface of each of the seed mounts and an inner surface of the enclosure (Figs 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B; [0052]-[0073] teaches vertically arranged tiers with spacing between adjacent seeds in a row) wherein the seed mount region comprises a heat transfer medium (supercritical fluid between the seed rack bars reads on a heat transfer medium), and wherein the seed mount regions are in direct contact with the inner surface of the enclosure or are disposed proximate to the inner surface of the enclosure (Figs 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B depicts the seed rack adjacent the inner surface of the enclosure).
Referring to claim 2, D’Evelyn et al teaches the heat transfer medium comprises the supercritical fluid (Figs 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B depicts the seed rack adjacent the inner surface of the enclosure with supercritical fluid within the enclosure between the seed rack).
Referring to claim 4-5, D’Evelyn et al teaches a heater 1207 that at least partially surrounds an outer surface of the enclosure (capsule 1210) (Fig 12), wherein each of the plurality of seed mounts are positioned a distance from the inner surface of the enclosure (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B depicts the seed rack adjacent the inner surface of the enclosure with supercritical fluid within the enclosure between the seed rack). In regards to the plurality of seed mounts are positioned a distance from the inner surface of the enclosure so that an average temperature formed across the surface of the seed mount is between zero and about 10° C below the maximum value of a temperature of the inner surface of the enclosure at the same height as the seed mount; this merely recites a purpose of the position of the seed mount. D’Evelyn et al teaches an apparatus with a seed rack support spaced seeds within an enclosure heated by a heater; therefore, is capable of a 0°C temperature difference, i.e. equilibrium temperature, within the enclosure.
Referring to claim 6, D’Evelyn et al teaches the heat transfer medium comprises the supercritical fluid that is used for crystal processing (Figs 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B depicts the seed rack adjacent the inner surface of the enclosure with supercritical fluid within the enclosure between the seed rack).
Referring to claim 11, D’Evelyn et al teaches the plurality of seed mounts (seed rack) comprise at least two vertical channels, the at least two vertical channels being substantially parallel (Fig 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C).
Referring to claim 12, D’Evelyn et al teaches a supercritical ammonia ([0007], [0079], [0094]).
Referring to claim 14, D’Evelyn et al teaches at least two seed mounts of the plurality of seed mounts are disposed symmetrically around an axis of the enclosure (See Fig 1A1 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C shows the seed rack with mounts disposed symmetrically with the central axis).
Referring to claim 15, D’Evelyn et al teaches a surface of a first seed mount of the plurality of seed mounts and a surface of a second seed mount of the plurality of seed mounts are aligned in the first direction. (See Fig 1A1 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C shows the mounts of the seed rack with mounts aligned symmetrically with the central axis).
Referring to claim 16, D’Evelyn et al teaches the first seed mount and the second mount are oriented to face each other (See Fig 1A1 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C shows the mounts of the seed rack with mounts aligned symmetrically with the central axis; therefore, adjacent mounts face each other).
Referring to claim 18, D’Evelyn et al teaches an autoclave with a liner as the high pressure apparatus ([0072]), which reads on a primary liner comprises an inner surface of the enclosure and surrounds an interior region.
Referring to claim 19, D’Evelyn et al teaches at least one nutrient zone (nutrient region 121) and at least one growth zone (crystal growing region 122), wherein at least a portion of the at least one nutrient zone is disposed at the same height as at least a portion of the growth zone (Fig 1B, 3A, 3B, 12; [0042] teaches the ratio of volumes of the crystal growing region and nutrient region may be 1, which reads on same height).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 7-10, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn et al (US 2015/0132926), as applied to claim 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 19 above.
Referring to claim 3, D’Evelyn et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, except D’Evelyn et al does not explicitly teach a seed gap is formed between a back side of the seed crystal and the seed mount, wherein the seed crystsal gap is between about 25 micrometers and about 5 mm. D’Evelyn et al teaches the frame and its components may comprise foil, plate, sheet, and may be attached by means of fasteners such as one of screws, bolts, springs, threaded rod, and nuts and the like ([0041]-[0052]). The claim is for an apparatus and the seeds are not part of the apparatus. D’Evelyn et al teaches seed mounts for seeds; therefore, is capable of mounting seeds sized to fit in the frame (thinner or thicker seeds), and the frame fasteners can be tightened such that a gap is formed between a back side of the seed and the seed mount, wherein the gap is between 25 micrometers and 5 mm. Furthermore, D’Evelyn et al teaches a seed rack with a slot for the seed with a foil between the seed rack and the seed; therefore, a gap having a thickness of the foil is present; and the thickness of the foil may be between 25 micrometers and 5 mm because changes in size are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 7, D’Evelyn et al teaches seed rack has a frame and its components may comprise foil, plate, sheet, and may be attached by means of fasteners such as one of screws, bolts, springs, threaded rod, and nuts and the like ([0041]-[0052]). The walls of the seed rack (frame) have holes for screws. D’Evelyn et al does not explicitly teach the opening is less than 1% of the cross-sectional area of the interior region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify D’Evelyn et al by making the screw holes less than 1% of the interior region because changes in size are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and the screw holes are depicted as small relative to the entire interior of the apparatus (Fig 2A, 2B, 2C).
Referring to claim 8, D’Evelyn et al teaches a baffle provides a means for dividing the sealable container into two separate regions (e.g., nutrient region 121, and a crystal growing region 122); and the baffle has a fractional open area of between about 0.5% and about 30% ([0043]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 9, D’Evelyn et al teaches at least one nutrient zone (nutrient region 121) and at least one growth zone (crystal growing region 122) separated by a baffle (Fig 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, and 12). D’Evelyn et al teaches a baffle provides a means for dividing the sealable container into two separate regions (e.g., nutrient region 121, and a crystal growing region 122); and the baffle has a fractional open area of between about 0.5% and about 30% ([0043]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). D’Evelyn et al teaches seed rack has a frame and its components may comprise foil, plate, sheet, and may be attached by means of fasteners such as one of screws, bolts, springs, threaded rod, and nuts and the like ([0041]-[0052]). The walls of the seed rack (frame) have holes for screws. D’Evelyn et al does not explicitly teach the opening is less than 1% of the cross-sectional area of the interior region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify D’Evelyn et al by making the screw holes less than 1% of the interior region because changes in size are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and the screw holes are depicted as small relative to the entire interior of the apparatus (Fig 2A, 2B, 2C).
Referring to claim 10, D’Evelyn et al does not explicitly teach the seed mount regions having an overall open area expressed with respect to the cross-sectional area of the interior region below 0.5%. D’Evelyn et al teaches the baffle has a fractional open area of between about 0.5% and about 30% ([0043]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to produce products having the same properties. Titanium metal Corp. Am v Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Referring to claim 13, D’Evelyn et al does not explicitly teach a gap present between a seed mount, a seed mount region, or an outer surface of a wall defining the seed mount region and the inner surface is less than about 5 mm. D’Evelyn et al teaches the seed rack within the capsule with a gap (Fig 3B). D’Evelyn et al teaches spacing between adjacent rows, the spacing between adjacent seeds in a given row, and the spacing from the inner diameter of the sealable container (autoclave, liner, or capsule) may be chosen to be large enough so that, after growth of the seed crystals into boules, the crystals do not grow into one another and sufficient gaps remain so as to allow unimpeded fluid flow ([0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify D’Evelyn et al to have a gap of less than 5 mm to maximize the usable space within the capsule without impeding flow.
Referring to claim 17, D’Evelyn et al does not explicitly teach the at least one seed bracket being configured to hold at least one seed at a separation of one millimeter or less with respect to a second mount. D’Evelyn et al teaches spacing between adjacent rows, the spacing between adjacent seeds in a given row, and the spacing from the inner diameter of the sealable container (autoclave, liner, or capsule) may be chosen to be large enough so that, after growth of the seed crystals into boules, the crystals do not grow into one another and sufficient gaps remain so as to allow unimpeded fluid flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify D’Evelyn et al to a separation of 1 mm or less to maximize the number of seed that be formed within the capsule without growing into each other.
Referring to claim 20, D’Evelyn et al does not teach a seed mount is configured to receive a seed crystal having a maximum dimension that is within at 75% of an inner diameter of the interior region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify D’Evelyn et al to having seed crystal having a maximum dimension that is within at 75% of an inner diameter of the interior region because changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05) and the rack can be changed in size to accommodate any desired size crystal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0376727 teaches a crystal growth apparatus with seed mount near or on the wall of the reactor (Abstract; Fig 1).
US 4,373,988 teaches a liquid phase epitaxial apparatus with substrates fastened to a chamber body (Fig 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714