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 and Species A3 in the reply filed on April 23, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 3-4 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 23, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since claims 3-4 and 15 are withdrawn they should be properly identified using “(withdrawn)” as the status identifier.
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 5, 12, and 14 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 5 recites the limitation "the flow converter" in l. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the round-to-rectangular flow converter.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the flow converter" in l. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the round-to-rectangular flow converter.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the reaction tube" in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the horizontal reaction tube.”
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 1, 5-8, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0361549 to Karlheinz Strobl (hereinafter “Strobl”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,047,496 to McNeilly, et al. (“McNeilly”).
Regarding claim 1, Strobl teaches a chemical vapor processing reactor (see the Abstract, Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference which teach an analogous embodiment of a CVD reactor (10)) comprising:
a horizontal reaction tube enclosed within an external heater (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach a process tube (16) enclosed within a resistive oven (30));
a preheater positioned within the reaction tube, the preheater including a plurality of baffles that collectively define a tortuous gas transmission path through the preheater (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach that thermal baffles (48) are positioned within the process tube (16) and, at the very least, cause process gases to take a tortuous path around the baffles (48));
one or more substrates suitable for nanomaterial growth (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach a substrate (26) suitable for nanomaterial growth); and
an exhaust gas collector to remove gas exiting from the flow converter (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach an exhaust port (18) to remove gas exiting from the process tube (16) and, consequently, a flow converter situated therein).
Strobl does not teach a round-to-rectangular flow converter configured to convert gas flowing from the preheater into a rectangular flow with the substrate being positioned within the flow converter. However, in Figs. 1-3 and col. 5, l. 1 to col. 8, l. 32 McNeilly teaches an analogous embodiment of an epitaxial reactor which includes, inter alia, an elongated housing (2) which includes a flow converter in the form of reaction chamber (31) which is supported by a series of projecting supports (46). The reaction chamber (31) is defined by an elongated and generally enclosed structure which converts the gas flowing therein into a rectangular flow and forces gaseous reactants into a smaller reaction space that is in close proximity with the substrates (43). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to include a horizonal reaction chamber within the process tube (16) of Strobl in order to produce a smaller reaction space and cause process gases to come into closer proximity with the substrate(s) such that laminar flow is produced and a smaller volume of reactant gas is more efficiently utilized.
Regarding claim 5, Strobl does not teach that the flow converter includes a first converter baffle having a rectangular opening, a second converter baffle having a rectangular opening, and a pair of parallel walls connecting the first and second converter baffles. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Figs. 1-3 and col. 5, l. 1 to col. 8, l. 32 McNeilly teaches an analogous embodiment of an epitaxial reactor which includes, inter alia, an elongated housing (2) which includes a flow converter in the form of reaction chamber (31) which is supported by a series of projecting supports (46). The reaction chamber (31) is defined in Figs. 1-2 by a first converter baffle plate (37) having rectangular slotted passageway (41) at a left end thereof and a second converter baffle in the form of exhaust hood (26) which has a rectangular opening that connects to the reaction chamber (31). Moreover, the baffle plate (37) and exhaust hood (26) are connected by a pair of parallel walls which define the reaction chamber (31). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to include first and second converter baffles connected by a pair of parallel walls within the process tube (16) of Strobl in order to produce a smaller reaction space and cause process gases to come into closer proximity with the substrate(s) such that laminar flow is produced and a smaller volume of reactant gas is more efficiently utilized.
Regarding claim 6, Strobl teaches that the one or more substrates is suitable for SiNW growth (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach the inclusion of a substrate (26) with ¶¶[0018]-[0019] and ¶[0046] specifically teaching the use of the substrate (26) for silicon nanowire growth).
Regarding claim 7, Strobl teaches that the one or more substrates is suitable for carbon nanotube growth (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach the inclusion of a substrate (26) with ¶¶[0018]-[0019] and ¶[0045] specifically teaching the use of the substrate (26) for carbon nanotube growth).
Regarding claim 8, Strobl teaches that the one or more substrates includes at least one catalytically active substrate (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach the inclusion of a substrate (26) with ¶¶[0045]-[0047] specifically teaching the inclusion of a catalyst on the substrate (26)).
Regarding claim 11, Strobl teaches a chemical vapor processing reactor (see the Abstract, Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference which teach an analogous embodiment of a CVD reactor (10)) comprising:
a horizontal reaction tube enclosed within an external heater (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach a process tube (16) enclosed within a resistive oven (30));
one or more substrates suitable for nanomaterial growth (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach a substrate (26) suitable for nanomaterial growth); and
an exhaust gas collector to remove gas exiting from the flow converter (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach an exhaust port (18) to remove gas exiting from the process tube (16) and, consequently, a flow converter situated therein).
Strobl does not teach a round-to-rectangular flow converter configured to convert gas flowing from the preheater into a rectangular flow with the substrate being positioned within the flow converter. However, in Figs. 1-3 and col. 5, l. 1 to col. 8, l. 32 McNeilly teaches an analogous embodiment of an epitaxial reactor which includes, inter alia, an elongated housing (2) which includes a flow converter in the form of reaction chamber (31) which is supported by a series of projecting supports (46). The reaction chamber (31) is defined by an elongated and generally enclosed structure which converts the gas flowing therein into a rectangular flow and forces gaseous reactants into a smaller reaction space that is in close proximity with the substrates (43). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to include a horizonal reaction chamber within the process tube (16) of Strobl in order to produce a smaller reaction space and cause process gases to come into closer proximity with the substrate(s) such that laminar flow is produced and a smaller volume of reactant gas is more efficiently utilized.
Strobl also does not teach that the round-to-rectangular flow converter includes a vertically oriented opening which includes one or more vertically oriented substrates. However, absent a showing of unexpected results, rotating the reaction chamber (31) of McNeilly by 90° about its longitudinal axis such that the opening thereto and the substrates positioned therein are vertically oriented is considered a mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of the device and, hence, is prima facie obvious. It has previously been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). This is specifically exemplified by at least Figs. 6-7 and col. 9, l. 40 to col. 10, l. 22 of McNeilly which teaches an analogous embodiment of an epitaxial reactor which includes a plurality of vertically oriented substrates (96) supported by a susceptor (93) with precursor gases flowing through a narrow channel between the susceptor (93) and the walls of the reactor (98). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of McNeilly and would recognize that the reaction chamber (31) and substrates (43) in Figs. 1-3 may be rotated 90° within the process tube (16) of Strobl such that they are vertically aligned with the motivation for doing so being to, for example, provide an alternative configuration in which particulate matter does not settle on the substrate surface due to gravity.
Regarding claim 12, Strobl does not teach that the flow converter includes two baffles joined together by two planar walls. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Figs. 1-3 and col. 5, l. 1 to col. 8, l. 32 McNeilly teaches an analogous embodiment of an epitaxial reactor which includes, inter alia, an elongated housing (2) which includes a flow converter in the form of reaction chamber (31) which is supported by a series of projecting supports (46). The reaction chamber (31) is defined in Figs. 1-2 by a first converter baffle plate (37) having rectangular slotted passageway (41) at a left end thereof and a second converter baffle in the form of exhaust hood (26) which has a rectangular opening that connects to the reaction chamber (31). Moreover, the baffle plate (37) and exhaust hood (26) are connected by a pair of parallel walls which define the reaction chamber (31). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to include first and second converter baffles connected by a pair of parallel walls within the process tube (16) of Strobl in order to produce a smaller reaction space and cause process gases to come into closer proximity with the substrate(s) such that laminar flow is produced and a smaller volume of reactant gas is more efficiently utilized.
Regarding claim 13, Strobl teaches that the one or more vertically oriented substrates includes a plurality of catalytically active foils or mesh structures (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach the inclusion of a substrate (26) with ¶¶[0045]-[0047] specifically teaching the inclusion of a catalytically active film or foil on the substrate (26); see also supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11 in which Figs. 6-7 and col. 9, l. 40 to col. 10, l. 22 of McNeilly teach the use of a plurality of vertically oriented substrates (96) supported by a susceptor (93) with precursor gases flowing through a narrow channel between the susceptor (93) and the walls of the reactor (98); accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of McNeilly and would recognize that the reaction chamber (31) and substrates (43) in Figs. 1-3 may be vertically aligned within the process tube (16) of Strobl in order to, for example, provide an alternative configuration in which particulate matter does not settle on the substrate surface due to gravity).
Regarding claim 14, Strobl teaches a preheater positioned within the reaction tube, the preheater including a plurality of baffles that collectively define a tortuous gas transmission path through the preheater (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach that thermal baffles (48) are positioned within the process tube (16) and, at the very least, cause process gases to take a tortuous path around the baffles (48)).
Regarding claim 16, Strobl teaches that the external heater is configured to heat the plurality of baffles and the one or more substrates by convection and radiation absorption (see Fig. 1, ¶[0020], and ¶[0032] which teach the use of a resistive oven (30) to heat the substrates (26) and thermal baffles (48) which necessarily involves the use of one or more resistive heating elements; see also Fig. 9 and ¶[0061] which teach that hot gases heat the substrate and baffles by convection heating).
Regarding claim 17, Strobl teaches that the external heater includes resistive furnace elements (see Fig. 1, ¶[0020], and ¶[0032] which teach the use of a resistive oven (30) which is necessarily heated by one or more resistive heating elements).
Regarding claim 19, Strobl teaches that the external heater includes resistive furnace elements configured to heat the one or more vertically oriented substrates by convection and radiation absorption (see Fig. 1, ¶[0020], and ¶[0032] which teach the use of a resistive oven (30) to heat the substrates (26) which necessarily involves the use of one or more resistive heating elements; see also Fig. 9 and ¶[0061] which teach that hot gases heat the substrate and baffles by convection heating; see also supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11 in which Figs. 6-7 and col. 9, l. 40 to col. 10, l. 22 of McNeilly teach the use of a plurality of vertically oriented substrates (96) supported by a susceptor (93) with precursor gases flowing through a narrow channel between the susceptor (93) and the walls of the reactor (98); accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of McNeilly and would recognize that the reaction chamber (31) and substrates (43) in Figs. 1-3 may be vertically aligned within the process tube (16) of Strobl in order to, for example, provide an alternative configuration in which particulate matter does not settle on the substrate surface due to gravity).
Regarding claim 20, Strobl teaches that the one or more vertically oriented substrates includes a plurality of catalytically active foils configured for the growth of carbon nanotubes (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0035] which teach the inclusion of a substrate (26) with ¶¶[0045]-[0047] specifically teaching the inclusion of a catalytically active film or foil on the substrate (26); see also supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11 in which Figs. 6-7 and col. 9, l. 40 to col. 10, l. 22 of McNeilly teach the use of a plurality of vertically oriented substrates (96) supported by a susceptor (93) with precursor gases flowing through a narrow channel between the susceptor (93) and the walls of the reactor (98); accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of McNeilly and would recognize that the reaction chamber (31) and substrates (43) in Figs. 1-3 may be vertically aligned within the process tube (16) of Strobl in order to, for example, provide an alternative configuration in which particulate matter does not settle on the substrate surface due to gravity).
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strobl in view of McNeilly and further in view of International Patent Appl. Publ. No. WO 2020/092816 to Strobl, et al. (“Strobl II”). For ease of reference, U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0393864, which is the U.S. National stage entry of Strobl II, is used to formulate the present rejection(s).
Regarding claim 2, Strobl and McNeilly do not teach that each baffle of the plurality of baffles includes at least one internal cutout for gas transmission that allows process gas and heat radiation to pass between two adjacent baffles of the plurality of baffles, the internal cutouts collectively defining the tortuous gas transmission path through the preheater. However, in at least Fig. 9 and ¶¶[0234]-[0240] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Strobl II teaches an analogous embodiment of a horizontal reactor (230) which includes, inter alia, a fluid input (203) and a fluid output (204) with at least two reactor core subcomponents (250) contained therein. The input manifold (203) is provided with an internal flow redistribution baffle (234) which improves flow distribution by providing cutouts in adjacent baffles which produce a tortuous gas transmission path for process gases and radiant heat. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide individual thermal baffles (48) in the apparatus in Fig. 1 of Strobl with internal cutouts for gas transmission that produce a tortuous gas transmission path as taught by Strobl II in order to improve both gas and radiant heat distribution within and through the thermal baffles (48) during growth.
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strobl in view of McNeilly and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0244008 to Wardle, et al. (“Wardle”).
Regarding claim 9, Strobl and McNeilly do not explicitly teach that the at least one catalytically active substrate includes a Si wafer covered with spatially isolated catalytic nanoparticles. However, in Fig. 1(a) and ¶¶[0010]-[0012] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Wardle teaches an analogous system and method of producing carbon nanotubes (CNTs) onto a substrate by CVD. In one embodiment the catalyst used is in the form of spatially isolated nanoparticles of about 10 nm in diameter which are supported on a Si substrate and lead to the formation of multi-walled CNTs with a diameter of around 8 nm. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Wardle and would be motivated to utilize a Si wafer covered with spatially isolated nanoparticles as a substrate for the growth of a plurality of CNTs having the desired diameter and structure for use in a particular application such as, for example, to tailor the permeability of a porous material.
Regarding claim 10, Strobl teaches that the catalyst includes gold, copper, or copper oxide (see ¶¶[0045]-[0046] which teach the use of gold or copper as a catalyst), but does not explicitly teach that the catalyst is in the form of nanoparticles. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 9, in Fig. 1(a) and ¶¶[0010]-[0012] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Wardle teaches an analogous system and method of producing carbon nanotubes (CNTs) onto a substrate by CVD. In one embodiment the catalyst used is in the form of spatially isolated nanoparticles of about 10 nm in diameter which are supported on a Si substrate and lead to the formation of multi-walled CNTs with a diameter of around 8 nm. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Wardle and would be motivated to utilize a Si wafer covered with spatially isolated gold or copper nanoparticles as a substrate for the growth of a plurality of CNTs having the desired diameter and structure for use in a particular application such as, for example, to tailor the permeability of a porous material.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strobl in view of McNeilly and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0055764 to Wen-Yuan Chang (“Chang”).
Regarding claim 18, Strobl and McNeilly do not teach that the external heater is a rolling furnace. However, in Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0022]-[0026] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Chang teaches an embodiment of a crystal growth system (1) which includes a top cover (102), a body (104), and a bottom portion (106). As shown specifically in Figs. 3A-C the top cover (102) and body (104) are capable of being raised while at least the top cover (102) is also shifted to a maintain zone (110) via a shifting mechanism (108) which includes, inter alia, a plurality of wheels (1086) which travel along a first transporting element (1082). In this manner it is possible to easily remove the ingot generated within the crucible (1062) once crystal growth has completed. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Chang and would be motivated to affix the resistive oven (30) which surrounds the process tube (16) in Fig. 1 of Strobl to a transport device such as the shifting mechanism (108) of Chang in order to facilitate rolling the resistive oven (30) onto and off of the process tube (16) such that it may be more readily accessed for routine maintenance.
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
Prosecution Insights