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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ushijima et al (WO 2021/060516 A1), where US 2022/0341054 (‘054) is used as an accurate translation.
Ushijima et al teaches a polycrystalline SiC formed body, wherein a resistivity is 0.050 Wcm or less (‘054 [0030]). Ushijima et al also teaches adjusting resistivity by adding a predetermined amount of nitrogen, and a nitrogen content of 200 ppm or more (‘054 [0031]-[0034]). Ushijima et al also teaches a Raman spectrum peak within a range of 790 to 800 cm-1 is a peak indicating b-SiC and does not teach any peak at 950-970 cm-1. Also, Ushijima et al also teaches a substantially similar method of growth as taught by applicant. Ushijima et al teaches a graphite substrate having a diameter of 160 mm and a thickness of 5 mm was set in a CVD furnace. Trimethylchlorosilane (raw material gas), hydrogen (carrier gas), and nitrogen gas were introduced into the CVD furnace and a polycrystalline SiC film was formed on the graphite substrate at 1500° C. for 10 hours and the film formation condition in table 1 ([0071]-[0079]) are substantially similar to the method of Example 1 and conditions taught in applicant’s Table 1. The conditions of Table 1 of ‘054 and applicant’s table 1 recite similar raw material gas flow rates (10.50 L/min) , carrier gas flow rate (129.50 L/min), gas residence times (32.7 sec vs 33.1 sec), concentration of raw material gas (7.5%), nitrogen content (205-960 ppm vs 340-1150 ppm). Therefore, the SiC body is expected to have an average of peak intensity ratios (A/B) is 0.040 or less because Ushijima et al teaches a Raman spectrum peak within a range of 790 to 800 cm-1 is a peak indicating b-SiC and does not teach any peak at 950-970 cm-1 thus the ratio is 0; and a similar method would be expected to produce a product with similar properties. In the alternative, any difference would be minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing.
Referring to claim 2, Ushijima et al teaches explicit examples with nitrogen content ranging from 205 to 960 ppm (table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the TO and LO peaks are always present therefore Ushijima et al cannot teach a ratio of 0 is not correct is noted but is not found persuasive. First, applicant’s paragraph [0011] merely teaches “the peak intensity “A” is an intensity (maximum value) of a peak within a range of wavenumber of 950 to 970 cm-1 in Raman spectrum. This peak is known as the LO (longitudinal optical phonon) peak of a polycrystalline SiC material, and decreases with an increase in the stacking fault (the same applies to N2 content) to be shifted to a broad band, from which it is thus said to be possible to evaluate the concentration of the carrier.” Paragraph [0011] does not teach the peak is always present. Second, applicant’s Table 2 teaches Raman peak intensity ratios having values of 0.000 (see examples 2-7); therefore, the examiner maintains that ratios of 0.000 are possible and supported by applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant’s argument that the method of Ushijima et al is different from the claimed invention is noted but not found persuasive. Applicant teaches a method of obtain the claimed properties by increasing the nitrogen concentration. Likewise, Ushijima et al teaches increasing the nitrogen concentration by decreasing the concentration of other gases. Ushijima et al teaches flowing raw material gases at an initial step and decreasing the raw material flow in a final step, and keeping the nitrogen flow constant; therefore, the nitrogen concentration in the gas flow mixture is increasing from the initial to the final step (see table 1); therefore, is substantially similar to the method taught by applicant.
The examiner maintains that the Ushijima et al teaches a similar product and method of manufacturing; therefore, would meet the claimed limitations. It is also noted that the Ushijima et al prior art reference has a common invention/assignee; therefore, the complete Raman spectrum should be available for the SiC taught by prior art to determine whether the product meets the claimed limitation. There is no persuasive evidence to show that the SiC taught by Ushijima et al does not meet the claimed properties or that the properties would have been unobvious from the similar method of manufacturing; therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 2017/0018139A teaches a SiC having raman peaks at 797 cm-1 and 900 cm-1 wherein the peak at 797 cm-1 is much larger than the peak at 900 cm-1 however no explicit value are taught in Fig 3.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights