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 Status
A preliminary amendment, filed 1/17/2024, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-19 are amended; Claim 20 is newly added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in view of the instant specification. (see, para. 29-44 of PG Pub. discussing partial pressure of oxygen-containing compounds).
Drawings
The replacement drawings, filed 7/30/2026, are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiritani (JP 2002-093800)(machine translation provided on IDS).
With respect to Claims 1 and 3, Kiritani teaches a method of decomposing a surface layer of a SiC substrate, the method comprising providing an SiC substrate into a processing chamber, subjecting the SiC substrate to high temperature and low oxygen partial pressure, in order to decompose SiC preferentially to SiO to remove defect-containing surface layer portions of SiC in an atmosphere comprising up to 100% H2O (oxygen-containing additive). (para. 5-8, 16, 20-24). Specifically, the reference teaches:
“An object of the present invention is to make the SiC surface before forming an oxide film a clean surface with few defects. As described above, since a crystal defect is inherent in the surface of the SiC substrate, the Si—C bond is broken, and a large number of dangling atoms are present. Such an unbonded bond is considered to have a lower bond energy than the Si—C bond constituting the crystal. However, under the 100% H 2 O atmosphere, (1) the incomplete bond on the SiC crystal surface is removed. A phenomenon in which Si atoms are formed in SiO by O atoms and SiO is desorbed from the substrate surface. (2) A phenomenon in which residual C is oxidized by O atoms and desorbed from the substrate surface as CO 2 or CO. (3) H 2 A phenomenon in which Si and residual C are reduced by molecules and desorbed from the substrate surface. Since these proceed simultaneously, incomplete crystal parts and impurities on the substrate surface are effectively removed, and an ideal surface can be obtained. As described above, (1) an oxide film serving as a sacrificial layer is formed on the SiC surface, and when this is removed, impurities (carbon) on the surface are reduced.” (para. 20).
Thus, Kiritani is deemed to teach a method comprising decomposing SiC by an oxidation reaction of the SiC to SiO, comprising feeding the SiC material and an oxygen-containing additive into a chamber/reactor, wherein the additive is not molecular oxygen, adjusting the temperature and pressure in the reactor such that an equilibrium partial pressure of oxygen in the reactor is lower than a partial pressure of oxygen in the oxygen-containing compound SO that an equilibrium reaction of the oxygen-containing compound to the oxygen-containing compound in a lower oxidation state and oxygen is shifted towards a formation of the oxygen-containing compound in a lower oxidation state and oxygen, and lower than a partial pressure of oxygen in SiO₂ which is formed from the SiC by oxidation with the oxygen of the additive so that a formation of condensed SiO₂ on a surface of the SiC is avoided, and wherein no elementary oxygen is added in the form of a gas into the reactor.
Finally, the reference does not specifically teach feeding the SiC into a reactor with an additive under reduced pressure and silent as to a specific pressure as in claim 3. Kiritani does teach a method drawn to the elimination of oxygen from the reactor atmosphere and replacing it with a H2O atmosphere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use reduced pressure (i.e. vacuum) to remove the oxygen from the reactor prior to providing the H2O, in order to be able to closely control the composition of the atmosphere, with a predictable result of success. Moreover, the reference is drawn to precisely tailoring the conditions within the reactor including composition, temperature, and teaches using a reduced pressure in a subsequent oxidation step (see pg. of translation) in order to more closely control the reactions occurring with respect to the SiC material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosed technique of reducing and adjusting the pressure of the reactor of Kiritani, during the SiC-decomposing step, in order to more precisely control the SiC to SiO reaction.
With respect to Claim 2, Kiritani teaches an oxygen partial pressure of zero and the atmosphere consists of H2O. (para. 5-7).
With respect to Claim 4, Kiritani teaches wherein the additive is H2O. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claims 5-6, the claims are drawn to further limiting properties of a metal oxide or metalloid oxide, however, the claims do not require that the additive is a metal oxide or metalloid oxide. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04. As Kiritani teaches an additive meeting claim 1, from which the claims each depend, it is deemed to meet the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 9, Kiritani teaches performing the reaction for several tens of minutes, deemed to overlap the instantly claimed range. (para. 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 10, Kiritani teaches heating the SiC material to a temperature of 1100-1200°C. (para. 22, 26). Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 11-12 and 20, Kiritani teaches heating the reactor to temperatures exceeding 1000°C (see, e.g., para. 22, 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a conventional means of heating, including one or more of thermal radiation means, microwave h eating, graphite heaters, SiC heaters, metallic heaters, or a plasma burner, in order to achieve the desired temperature, with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 16, Kiritani teaches wherein the SiC material is in the form a substrate, deemed to constitute a “not treated form.” (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiritani (JP 2002-093800)(machine translation provided on IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Garnier et al. (US 8940391).
With respect to Claims 7-8, Kiritani is silent as to whether the reaction is conducted in a continuously working reactor (claim 7) or one of the specifically listed reactors of Claim 8.
Garnier teaches a method of forming SiC in a very low oxygen pressure atmosphere comprising an oxygen-containing additive that is not molecular/elementary oxygen, wherein the method is conducted in a continuously working furnace reactor. (col. 2, ln. 56 to col. 3, ln. 7; col. 7, ln. 18-33; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kiritani to conduct the method of treating SiC material in a low oxygen partial pressure atmosphere, in a continuously working reactor comprising a furnace, as taught by Garnier, in order to carry out the method with enhanced volume and/or efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach a method of decomposing SiC or SiC-containing materials meeting claims 1 or 1 and 12, and further meeting the respective limitations of claims 13-15 and 17-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. over Crauwels in view of Chen, claims 7-8 and 11-14 over Crauwels in view of Chen and Saville, and Claims 11 and 20 over Crauwels in view of Chen and Sugimori have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kiritani and Kiritani in view of Garnier, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Additionally or alternatively, Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 6/17/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a) and § 609.04(b). 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 JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights