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 in the reply filed on March 16, 2026, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of Species A2 in the reply filed on March 16, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-10 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 16, 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.
In ¶[0006] of the published application reference is made to a PVT system (800) in Fig. 9. It is assumed applicants intended to refer to Fig. 10.
Drawings
Figure 10 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn as directed to a non-elected species and, hence, should be properly identified using the status identifier “(Withdrawn).”
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 12-13 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.
Claims 12-13 recite, inter alia, a “volume of the source material compartment.” It is unclear whether this is intended to be the volume of the raw material that fills the bottom of the crucible or if it is an arbitrary volume given to some fraction of the interior of the crucible that is considered as the “source material compartment” as claimed. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily determined the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes it is assumed applicants intended to refer to a volume of the raw material present within the crucible.
Claim 13 recites that the heat radiation cavity has an inner volume “which equals at least 1 % and at most 18%, preferably at most 16 %.” The recitation of “preferably at most 16 %” makes it unclear whether the upper limit is 16 % or 18 % of the volume of the source material compartment. For examination purposes it is assumed the upper limit is intended to be 18 %.
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 and 11 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. 2010/0139552 to Rengarajan, e al. (hereinafter “Rengarajan”).
Regarding claim 1, Rengarajan teaches a sublimation system for growing at least one single crystal of a semiconductor material by means of a sublimation growing process (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and entire reference which teach an embodiment of a sublimation system for the growth of SiC single crystals), the sublimation system (100) comprising:
a crucible (102) having a longitudinal axis (120) and a sidewall (116) extending along the longitudinal axis (120) (see Figs. 5 & 6A-B and ¶¶[0058]-[0081] which teach a growth crucible (51) having a longitudinal axis and a sidewall extending along the longitudinal axis),
wherein the crucible comprises a fixing means for at least one seed crystal (110) and at least one source material compartment (104) for containing a source material (108) (see Figs. 5 & 6A-B and ¶¶[0058]-[0081] which teach that a SiC seed (53) is affixed to a lid of the crucible while SiC source material is provided in the bottom of the crucible), and
a heating system being formed to generate a temperature field around a circumference of the crucible along the longitudinal axis of the crucible (see Figs. 5 & 6A-B and ¶¶[0058]-[0060] which teach that top (50a) and bottom (50b) heaters generate a temperature field around a circumference of the crucible along its longitudinal axis),
wherein the crucible (102) comprises at least one first heat radiation cavity (118), which is arranged opposite to the fixing means and adjacent to the source material compartment (104), the first heat radiation cavity (118) being closed on all of its sides see Figs. 5 & 6A-B and ¶¶[0061]-[0070] which teach that an enclosed cavity (54) is disposed between the source material (52) and the bottom of the crucible (51).
Regarding claim 2, Rengarajan teaches that the at least one first heat radiation cavity (118) is delimited against the source material compartment (104) by a first separation wall (122) which is formed from the same material as the sidewall (116) of the crucible (102) (see Figs. 5 & 6A-B and ¶[0061] which teaches that the raw material (52) is supported by a structure (63) which separates it from the cavity (54); moreover, at least ¶[0095] teaches that the entirety of the crucible (51) and structure (63) are made of the same material, namely graphite).
Regarding claim 11, Rengarajan teaches that the heating system comprises an induction coil operable to generate an electro-magnetic field and/or a resistive heater, at least partly surrounding the crucible (102) (see Figs. 5 & 6A-B and ¶¶[0058]-[0060] which teach that top (50a) and bottom (50b) heaters are resistive heaters which at least partially surround the crucible (51)).
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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rengarajan in view of Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP 2012-171832 A to Kono, et al. (“Kondo”).
Regarding claim 3, Rengarajan does not teach that the first heat radiation cavity (118) has an inner diameter across the longitudinal axis (120) which is larger than an inner diameter of the source material compartment. However, in Figs. 1, 3, & 6(a)-(c) and pp. 2-3 of the Description of Embodiments section Kondo teaches an analogous embodiment of a sublimation growth system which includes, inter alia, a crucible body (30) with side portions (30b) and a bottom portion (30a) which has a diameter larger than the inner diameter of the crucible (30). The bottom portion (30a) also has an electrical conductivity which is 2 to 10x higher than the electrical conductivity of the side part (30b) in order to facilitate efficient heating across the entire width of the raw material (20). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kondo and would be motivated to provide the cavity (54) in the apparatus of Rengarajan with a diameter that is larger than the diameter of the raw material contained within the crucible in order to more efficiently and uniformly heat the raw material and crucible across its entire width.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rengarajan in view of Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP 2021-066638A to Yohei Fujikawa (“Fujikawa”).
Regarding claim 4, Rengarajan teaches that the at least one first heat radiation cavity (118) is delimited against the source material compartment (104) by a first separation wall (122) (see Figs. 5 & 6A-B and ¶[0061] which teaches that the raw material (52) is supported by a structure (63) which separates it from the cavity (54)), but does not teach that the separation wall is thinner than the sidewall (116) of the crucible(102) and thinner than walls (124, 114) that delimit the remaining sides of the first heat radiation cavity (118). However, in Fig. 1 and the description of the Crystal Growth Device at pp. 2-3 Fujikawa teaches an analogous embodiment of a sublimation growth system in which raw material (G) contained within a crucible (10) is sublimed in order to deposit a crystal (C) onto a seed (S). The sidewalls (13) of the crucible include an annular-shaped space (Sp) which surrounds the raw material (G) and is radially sandwiched between first (13a) and second (13b) portions of the sidewall (13). Fujikawa specifically teaches that the width of the second portion (13b) adjacent to the raw material (G) is preferably as think as possible in order to efficiently regulate and transfer heat from the space (Sp). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to make the separation wall (63) thinner than the sidewalls of the crucible (51) in the sublimation growth system of Rengarajan in order ensure efficient transfer of heat to the SiC source material (52).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rengarajan in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0255568 to Inoue, et al. (“Inoue”).
Regarding claim 5, Rengarajan does not teach that the first heat radiation cavity (118) has at least one protruding compartment (126), which extends along the longitudinal axis (120) into the source material compartment (104). However, in Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Inoue teaches an analogous embodiment of a sublimation growth system which includes, inter alia, a hollow member (5) provided within the SiC raw material (7) which extends along the longitudinal axis of the crucible (20). The inclusion of the hollow member allows the surface of the SiC raw material (7) around the central region to be more efficiently heated by radiation and thereby produce a more uniform temperature distribution. Thus a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide a protruding compartment which extends along the longitudinal axis within the source material in the sublimation growth apparatus of Rengarajan in order to promote more efficient and uniform heating within the interior of the source material during crystal growth.
Claims 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rengarajan in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2007/0000432 to Naoki Oyanagi (“Oyanagi”).
Regarding claim 12, Rengarajan does not explicitly teach that the at least one first heat radiation cavity (118) has an inner volume which equals at least 1 % and at most 20 % of a volume of the source material compartment. However, in Fig. 5, ¶[0035], ¶[0061], and ¶[0069] Rengarajan teaches that the cavity (54) preferably has a height-to-diameter aspect ratio of between 0.2 and 1 and is adjusted to produce a spatially uniform temperature distribution within the cavity (54). In this regard, an aspect ratio of 0.2 means that the height of the cavity (54) is only 20% of the inner diameter of the crucible (51) while Fig. 1 shows that the raw material occupies well over half the internal volume of the crucible (51). Since the aspect ratio and, consequently, the volume of the cavity (54) influences the heating characteristics and uniformity of the temperature distribution produced within a given volume of raw material (52), it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal volume of the cavity (54) for a given volume of raw material (52), including within the claimed range of 1 to 20 %, that is necessary to efficiently heat and produce the desired temperature distribution within the raw material (52) during crystal growth.
Alternatively in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0023]-[0035] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Oyanagi teaches an analogous system for the growth of SiC single crystals by sublimation of a source material (5) contained within a crucible (6). In ¶[0032] Oyanagi specifically teaches an example in which a graphite crucible with a 50 mm inside diameter with a depth of 95 mm is filled with SiC raw material to a height of 60 mm. In this regard the raw material space occupies a volume of
V
=
π
r
2
×
h
= π(25 mm)2 × (60 mm) = 117,750 mm3. Then for a cavity (54) having an height-to-diameter ratio of 0.2, for a diameter of 50 mm the height of the cavity will be 10 mm which equates a volume of V = π(25 mm)2 × (10 mm) = 19,625 mm3. Thus, for a SiC sublimation system with crucible dimensions and a volume of source material conventionally used during crystal growth the cavity (54) of Rengarajan occupies (19,625 / 117,750) × 100% = 16.7% of the volume of the source material compartment which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Rengarajan does not explicitly teach that the at least one first heat radiation cavity (118) has an inner volume which equals at least 1 % and at most 18 %, preferably at most 16 %, of the volume of the source material compartment. However, in Fig. 5, ¶[0035], ¶[0061], and ¶[0069] Rengarajan teaches that the cavity (54) preferably has a height-to-diameter aspect ratio of between 0.2 and 1 and is adjusted to produce a spatially uniform temperature distribution within the cavity (54). In this regard, an aspect ratio of 0.2 means that the height of the cavity (54) is only 20% of the inner diameter of the crucible (51) while Fig. 1 shows that the raw material occupies well over half the internal volume of the crucible (51). Since the aspect ratio and, consequently, the volume of the cavity (54) influences the heating characteristics and uniformity of the temperature distribution produced within a given volume of raw material (52), it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal volume of the cavity (54) for a given volume of raw material (52), including within the claimed range of 1 to18 %, that is necessary to efficiently heat and produce the desired temperature distribution within the raw material (52) during crystal growth.
Alternatively in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0023]-[0035] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Oyanagi teaches an analogous system for the growth of SiC single crystals by sublimation of a source material (5) contained within a crucible (6). In ¶[0032] Oyanagi specifically teaches an example in which a graphite crucible with a 50 mm inside diameter with a depth of 95 mm is filled with SiC raw material to a height of 60 mm. In this regard the raw material space occupies a volume of
V
=
π
r
2
×
h
= π(25 mm)2 × (60 mm) = 117,750 mm3. Then for a cavity (54) having an height-to-diameter ratio of 0.2, for a diameter of 50 mm the height of the cavity will be 10 mm which equates a volume of V = π(25 mm)2 × (10 mm) = 19,625 mm3. Thus, for a SiC sublimation system with crucible dimensions and a volume of source material conventionally used during crystal growth the cavity (54) of Rengarajan occupies (19,625 / 117,750) × 100% = 16.7% of the volume of the source material compartment which falls within the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0032487 to Ueta, et al. teaches an analogous embodiment of a sublimation growth system which includes a space (61) beneath the crucible (1).
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