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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/24/2024, 08/01/2024, 09/03/2024, 07/01/2025, 12/19/2025, and 12/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Drawings
Figure 1 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
The examiner suggests removing all references numerals in the claims.
Claims 1, 6, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1: “Sublimation system for growing…” should read--- A sublimination system for growing ---
Claim 6, line 3: “the sidewall (218)s of the…” should read --- the sidewall of the ---
Claim 15, line 1: “Method of growing…” should read --- A method of growing ---
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 8, 9, and 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the porosity of the thermally insulating unit", “the porosity of the source material”, and “the porosity of a material of the outer insulation unit” in lines 1-3. There is no prior recitation of “a porosity” for these respective components in claim 8 or claim 1 on which claim 8 depends, hence there is insufficient antecedent basis for this/these limitation(s) in the claim. Therefore, for Examination purposes, "the porosity of the thermally insulating unit", “the porosity of the source material”, and “the porosity of a material of the outer insulation unit” have been interpreted as --- "a porosity of the thermally insulating unit", “a porosity of the source material”, and “a porosity of a material of the outer insulation unit” ---
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the porosity of the thermally insulating unit” in lines 1-2. There is no prior recitation of “a porosity of the thermally insulating unit” in claim 11 or claim 1 on which claim 11 depends, hence there is insufficient antecedent basis for this/these limitation(s) in the claim. Therefore, for Examination purposes, "the porosity of the thermally insulating unit” has been interpreted as --- a porosity of the thermally insulating unit ---
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, for Examination purposes, claim 9 “wherein a volume of the thermally insulating unit is between 10% and 50% of a volume of the crucible, preferably the volume of the thermally insulating unit is 35% of the volume of the crucible” has been interpreted as --- wherein a volume of the thermally insulating unit is between 10% and 50% of a volume of the crucible” ---
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, for Examination purposes, claim 11 “wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit is between 50% and 90% of a porosity of graphite used to construct the crucible, preferably the porosity of the thermally insulating unit is 70% of the porosity of the graphite used to construct the crucible” has been interpreted as --- wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit is between 50% and 90% of a porosity of graphite used to construct the crucible ---
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.
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 1-3, 7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) in view of Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] for growing at least one single crystal of semiconductor material (73) fig. 8 [0101] (SiC) by means of a sublimation growing process [0104], the sublimation system [see fig. 8] comprising:
a crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] having a longitudinal axis (vertical-axis) and a sidewall (right/left sidewall of 70) along the (vertical) longitudinal axis, wherein the crucible (70) comprises a fixing means (74) fig. 8 [0108] for at least one seed crystal (72) fig. 8 [0101, 0108] and at least one source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] for containing a source material (91) fig. 8 [0097]; and
a heating system (83) fig. 8 [0091, 0111] for generating a temperature field (83 disposed beside both sidewalls of 70 generate non-zero temperature field throughout surrounded crucible 70) around a circumference of the crucible (70 may be cylindrical) [0085] along the longitudinal (vertical) axis (212) of the crucible (70);
a unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] arranged within the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] at the sidewall (right/left inner sidewalls) of the crucible (70).
However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose the unit (90) (graphite) as a thermally insulating unit (thermal conductivity properties not specified).
Schmitt teaches a sublimation system (100) fig. 1 [0028-0029] wherein the unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] (graphite) is a thermally insulating unit (explicitly disclosed as thermally-insulative graphite [0029], due to porosity [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta such that the graphite layer beside the graphite crucible is provided as porous, thermally insulating graphite [0029] in order to improve thermal management of the crucible system [0029] to allow the production of a single single crystal at a time [0029], as taught by Schmitt.
Regarding claim 2, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt also teaches wherein the thermally insulating material (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is arranged adjacent to an area (comprising source material 91) [0097] in which during operation the temperature is higher [0091, 0111] than at the remaining (upper sidewall of 70 beside 75) fig. 8 [0100] part of the sidewall (218) of the source material compartment (SiC source material 91/71 temperature may be higher than that of higher membrane area beside 75 [0091, 0111]).
Regarding claim 3, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta also teaches wherein the system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] further comprises an outer insulation unit (78) fig. 8 [0098] (formed of silica [0111], SiO2, widely-recognized in the art as an insulator), which surrounds the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0111, 0098].
Regarding claim 7, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt (with reference to Schmitt) also teaches wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermally insulating unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] is lower than a thermal conductivity of a material of the sidewall (sidewall of graphite crucible 102) fig. 1 [0029] (114 is referred to as a “thermal insulation layer” [0029], while 102 is distinguished as a “thermally conductive graphite crucible” [0029] – implying that the thermal conductivity of 114 is distinctly lower than 102 [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt (with reference to Schmitt) wherein the thermally insulating unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] comprises at least one of: porous graphite [0029].
Regarding claim 13, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt also teaches wherein the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] forms a ring along the sidewall (218) of the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0097] (70 may be cylindrical [0085], 90 lines inner sidewall(s) of 70, giving it a cylindrical shape with ring-circumference).
Regarding claim 14, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 13. Gupta in view of Schmitt also teaches wherein an inner wall of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] forms a concave cylinder (inner walls of 90, conforming to cylindrical shape of 70 [0085], have L-shape in cross-section, due to partially-hollow space, making 90 a concave polygon).
Regarding claim 15, Gupta teaches a method [0106-0113] (using sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104]) of growing at least one single crystal of semiconductor material (73) fig. 8 [0101] (SiC) by means of a sublimation growing process [0104], the method (using sublimation system [see fig. 8]) comprising:
providing a crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] having a longitudinal axis (vertical-axis) and a sidewall (right/left sidewall of 70) along the (vertical) longitudinal axis, fixing at least one seed crystal (72) fig. 8 [0101, 0108] at a fixing means (74) fig. 8 [0108] of the crucible (70), and filling a source material (91) fig. 8 [0097] into at least one source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100];
wherein, during a least a part of the growing process, a unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is present within the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] at the sidewall of the crucible (70);
generating, by means of a heating system (83) fig. 8 [0091, 0111], a temperature field (83 disposed beside both sidewalls of 70 generate non-zero temperature field throughout surrounded crucible 70) around a circumference of the crucible (70 may be cylindrical) [0085] along the longitudinal (vertical) axis (212) of the crucible (70).
However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose the unit (90) (graphite) as a thermally insulating unit (thermal conductivity properties not specified).
Schmitt teaches a method [0085] using a sublimation system (100) fig. 1 [0028-0029] wherein the unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] (graphite) is a thermally insulating unit (explicitly disclosed as thermally-insulative graphite [0029], due to porosity [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta such that the graphite layer beside the graphite crucible is provided as porous, thermally insulating graphite [0029] in order to improve thermal management of the crucible system [0029] to allow the production of a single single crystal at a time [0029], as taught by Schmitt.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (U.S. PG Pub No US2007/0256630A1).
Regarding claim 4, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one pillar is arranged along the longitudinal (vertically) axis within the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100].
Wang teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 9, 0086] wherein at least one pillar (vertically-extending portion of 31) fig. 9 [0083, 0086] (see fig. 6 for label [0083]) is arranged along the longitudinal (vertical) axis within the source material compartment (space within 6, between 34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta to include the source holder of Wang in order to subdivide the source material for the formation of two single crystal boules [0086] in a single crucible at the same time [0086], improving crucible productivity [0086], as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose wherein the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] is divided into two separate compartments by a barrier which extends across the longitudinal (vertical) axis; and
wherein the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] comprises a fixing means for at least two seed crystals (72) fig. 8 [0101, 0108].
Wang teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 9, 0086] wherein the source material compartment (space within 6, between 34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086] is divided into two separate compartments (right, left sections of source material 7) fig. 9 [0086] by a barrier (vertically-extending portion of 31) fig. 9 [0083, 0086] (see fig. 6 for label [0083]) which extends across the longitudinal (vertical) axis; and
wherein the crucible (6) fig. 9 [0086] comprises a fixing means (34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086] for at least two seed crystals (35 and 35’, respectively) fig. 9 [0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta to include the source holder of Wang in order to subdivide the source material for the formation of two single crystal boules [0086] in a single crucible at the same time [0086], improving crucible productivity [0086], as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 6, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Wang teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 5. Gupta in view of Schmitt and Wang (with reference to Wang) also teaches wherein the heating system [0074] is arranged so that during operation the temperature (midsection of 6) [0077, 0080] at the barrier (31 bordering 7) fig. 9 [0086, 0083] (see fig. 6 for label [0086]) extending across the longitudinal axis (vertically) is higher than at the remaining part (upper/lower portion of sidewall of 6) of the sidewall (sidewall of 6, beside upper/lower end of 6 where nucleation occurs [0077, 0080]) fig. 9 [0086] of the source material compartment (space within 6, between 34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086] (source material, in direct contact with and at 31, may be 3-300 degrees centigrade higher [0077] than nucleation site where single crystal growth occurs at top/bottom of crucible 6 [0077]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Polidor (U.S. Patent No 4,877,705).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] (formed of graphite in Schmitt) [0029] is higher than a porosity of the source material (91 of Gupta) and/or a porosity of a material (silica) of the outer insulation unit (78) fig. 8 [0098] (formed of silica [0111], SiO2, in Gupta).
Polidor teaches ceramic materials compositions applicable to sublimation systems [see fig. 1, col 3, lines 38-67] wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (comprising 4) fig. 1 [col 4, lines 40-49, col 5, lines 40-64] (when 4 is formed of graphite-based base material with porosity of 17% [col 5, lines 40-43]) is higher than a porosity of a (silica-based) material of the outer insulation unit (silica-based base material with porosity of 11% [col 6, lines 40-43]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation systems of Gupta in view of Schmitt such that the graphite-based material has a higher porosity (~17%) [col 5, lines 40-43] than the silica based material (~11%) [col 6, lines 40-43] in order to, along with other features, optimize the potential corrosion resistance properties of the graphite [col 5, lines 60-65] and silica [col 6, lines 50-58] materials when exposed to high temperatures, as taught by Polidor.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN Pub No CN 213172679 U).
Regarding claim 9, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose wherein a volume of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is between 10% and 50% of a volume of the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] (volumes not specified).
Chen teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 3, fig. 4, lines 134-147] wherein a volume of the thermally insulating unit (innermost porous graphite 40) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] is between 10% and 50% of a volume of the (cylindrical) crucible (second 41 bordering and surrounding circumference of innermost 41) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] (innermost porous graphite 40 has outer diameter of 20 mm [line 335], so radius r40 = 10 mm, second 41 has inner diameter of 20 mm and thickness of 5 mm [line 337], making outer diameter 30 mm, so radius r41 = 15 mm, ratio of volumes enclosed by outer diameters ~ [(r40)/(r41)]^2 = 100/225~ 44.44% ratio of enclosed volumes, which is between 10-50%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite layers in the crucible of Gupta in view of Schmitt to have the porosity and thickness/volume characteristics prescribed by Chen [lines 327-345] in order to reduce the formation of silicon and carbon defects [lines 340-345] during growth so as to improve the quality of the produced silicon carbide crystals [lines 325-326], as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 11, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is between 50% and 90% of a porosity of graphite used to construct the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] (graphite).
Chen teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 3, fig. 4, lines 134-147] wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (innermost porous graphite 40) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] (porosity of 35%) [line 336] is between 50% and 90% of a porosity of graphite used to construct the crucible (outermost / fifth layer of 40) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] (porosity of 50%) [line 339] (35/50 = 70%, which is halfway between 50 and 90%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite layers in the crucible of Gupta in view of Schmitt to have the porosity and thickness/volume characteristics prescribed by Chen [lines 327-345] in order to reduce the formation of silicon and carbon defects [lines 340-345] during growth so as to improve the quality of the produced silicon carbide crystals [lines 325-326], as taught by Chen.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/002785A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Kindaichi (JP Pub No JP 2021088476 A).
Regarding claim 10, Gupta in view of Schmitt teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermal conductivity of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (porous graphite) [0097] is at least 20% smaller than a thermal conductivity of a material of the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] (graphite) (thermal conductivity not specified).
Kindaichi teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 3, 0004, 0044-0048] wherein the thermal conductivity of the thermally insulating unit (50) fig. 3 [0044] (graphite) is (10 W/mK) [0044] at least 20% smaller than a thermal conductivity (40 W/mK) [0048] of a material of the crucible (10) fig. 3 [0040, 0048] (graphite) (thermal conductivity not specified) (10 is 75% smaller than 40) [0044, 0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta in view of Schmitt such that the thermally-conductive graphite of the crucible explicitly has a significantly higher thermal conductivity value that the thermally insulative graphite [0044, 0048] ensure thermally-conductive [0048] and thermally-insulative [0044] behavior of the appropriate materials for improved thermal management and distribution [0048, 0054] in the sublimation system, as taught by Kindaichi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature graphite-based sublimation systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 02/28/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892