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, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 116288721 (CN ‘721), an English computer translation CT is provided.
CN ‘721 teaches an apparatus, comprising: a crucible (outer crucible 20) having an upper region and a lower region; a silicon carbide (SiC) precursor 53 disposed in a moveable source capsule (supporting crucible 50 with lifting shaft 52) in the lower region; a SiC seed 60 disposed in the upper region; and an inductive heater coil 80 surrounding at least a portion of a sidewall of the crucible ([n0053]-[n0099]; Fig 1, 5 and 6).
Referring to claim 3, CN ‘721 teaches supporting crucible 50 with lifting shaft 52, which reads on a lifting mechanism underneath the moveable source capsule, the lifting mechanism configured to alter a position of the moveable source capsule.
Referring to claim 4, CN ‘721 teaches graphite components (CT [n0057]- [n0071]) which inherently have a thermal expansion coefficient; therefore, expand and shrink with changes in temperature; therefore, reads on a smart materials.
Referring to claims 6 and 23, CN ‘721 teaches graphite crucible (CT [n0067]- [n0071]).
Referring to claim 8, see remarks above. Also, CN ‘721 teaches the speed of the lifting shaft 52 is controlled ([n0060], [n0090], [n0098]), which inherently requires a controller configured to control a position of the moveable SiC source capsule.
Referring to claim 9, see remarks above. Also, CN ‘721 teaches a motive device (lifting shaft 52) configured to alter a position of the movable SiC source capsule; and CN ‘721 teaches the speed of the lifting shaft 52 is controlled and calculating a descent speed of the support crucible to ensure reduction in distance between the growth interface and the surface of the silicon carbide powder 53 caused by crystal growth can be compensated ([n0060], [n0072], [n0090], [n0098]), which reads on a processor configured to engage the motive device to adjust a position of the capsule relative to the SiC crystal during growth.
Referring to claim 10, CN ‘721 teaches the speed of the lifting shaft 52 is controlled ([n0060], [n0090], [n0098]), which reads on a lifting mechanism.
Referring to claim 21 and 28, see remarks above. Also, CN ‘721 teaches a lifting shaft 52, which reads on a motive device configured to change a position of the moveable source capsule, the motive device being disposed outside of the crucible and coupled to the moveable source capsule by a rigid member (shaft) extending into the crucible.
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) 2, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116288721 (CN ‘721), an English computer translation CT is provided, as applied to claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 23 and 28 above, and further in view of Oshima et al (WO 2013/151045 A1), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
CN ‘721 teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except the movable source capsule is donut shaped. CN ‘721 teaches a supporting crucible 50 with lifting shaft 52) ([n0053]-[n0099]; Fig 1, 5 and 6), however does not explicitly teach the shape.
In a sublimation apparatus, Oshima et al teaches a raw material container 75 has a generally torus or donut shape with a cylindrical opening provide in a lid allows raw material vapor to be release with high directionality (pages 14, 15 and 20; Fig 2, 3B, 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify CN ‘721 by using a donut shaped raw material container, as taught by Oshima et al, because changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and to allow raw material vapor to be release with high directionality.
Referring to claim 22, the combination of CN ‘721 and Oshima et al teaches a torus or donut shape which clearly suggests a toroidal shape.
Referring to claim 24, CN ‘721 does not teach a quartz outer wall. Oshima et al teaches a reaction vessel 13 may also be configured to include an external graphite container that covers the reaction vessel 13; and temperature buffering member, such as a quartz tube, may be placed between the reaction vessel 13 and the heating unit 11 to reduces fluctuations in the heating temperature in the reaction vessel 13, allowing for precise control of the heating temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify ‘CN 721 by using a quartz buffer tube, as taught by Oshima et al, to reduces fluctuations in the heating temperature.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116288721 (CN ‘721), an English computer translation CT is provided, as applied to claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 23 and 28 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 2023/0151511).
CN ‘721 teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, except CN ‘721 does not explicitly teach a drive motor.
In a sublimation apparatus, Chen et al teaches a graphite crucible is connected with a drive assembly at the bottom thereof; and the drive assembly comprises a lifting mechanism, wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a hollow lifting rod connected to the bottom of graphite crucible in a sliding way and a lifting motor ([0008]-[0015], [0045], [0050]-[0063]; Fig 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify CN ‘721 by using a drive motor, as taught by Chen et al, to lift the shaft using a conventional known means.
Claim(s) 7, 11, 12, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116288721 (CN ‘721), an English computer translation CT is provided, as applied to claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 23 and 28 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 117071058A), an English computer translation (CT3) is provided.
CN ‘721 teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except a pyrometer.
In a sublimation apparatus, Yang teaches a silicon carbide growth device comprises an outer crucible, a first lifting shaft, an inner crucible, a second lifting shaft and a lifting device, the outer crucible is provided with a containing space, and the top is provided with a seed crystal structure, the first lifting shaft is vertically arranged at the bottom of the outer crucible; a lifting passage is arranged in the first lifting shaft; the inner crucible is used for containing the silicon carbide powder and is arranged in the containing space; and the top of the inner crucible is provided with an opening, the second lifting shaft is vertically arranged at the bottom of the inner crucible, and the second lifting shaft is arranged in the lifting passage; the lifting device is connected with the first lifting shaft for controlling the first lifting shaft to move up and down (CT3 [n0008]-[n0027]). Yang also teaches during the growth of silicon carbide, the outer crucible can be raised by a lifting device, and as the silicon carbide crystal grows, the surface of the grown silicon carbide crystal is kept in a stable temperature gradient, which stabilizes the surface temperature of the grown silicon carbide crystal (CT3 [n0027]). Yang teaches using an optical pyrometer to detect the temperature of the surface of a crystal and by detecting the temperature of the surface used for growing silicon carbide crystals and controlling the operation of the lifting device 500, it is possible to ensure that the temperature of the surface used for growing silicon carbide crystals is stable, that is, to keep the surface used for growing silicon carbide crystals in a stable temperature gradient, thereby achieving the purpose of improving the growth quality of silicon carbide crystals (CT3 [n0065]-[n0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify CN ‘721 by using a pyrometer, as taught by Yang, to detect the temperature of the surface of a crystal and by detecting the temperature of the surface used for growing silicon carbide crystals and by controlling the operation of the lifting device, it is possible to ensure that the temperature of the surface used for growing silicon carbide crystals is stable, that is, to keep the surface used for growing silicon carbide crystals in a stable temperature gradient, thereby achieving the purpose of improving the growth quality of silicon carbide crystals (Yang CT3 [n0065]-[n0067]).
Referring to claims 11 and 26-27, the combination of CN ‘721 and Yang teaches a pyrometer and controlling the lifting device based on detected temperatures (Yang CT3 [n0065]-[n0067]).
Referring to claim 12, the combination of CN ‘721 and Yang a pyrometer and in-situ annealing (‘721 CT [n0090]).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116288721 (CN ‘721), an English computer translation CT is provided, as applied to claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 23 and 28 above, and further in view of Ebner et al (US 2023/0332330).
CN ‘721 teaches all of the limitations of claim 24, as discussed above, except the crucible is a disposed within a thermal insulation sleeve in a chamber having a quartz outer wall.
In a sublimation apparatus, Ebner et al teaches a quartz chamber 402; a crucible 403 and insulation 409 surrounding it preferably consist of graphite, wherein the insulation 409 is formed by a graphite felt ([0036]-[0040]; [0071], Fig 1-10). Ebner et al teaches a device 200 may also comprise a separate quartz housing 215, which defines an accommodation chamber 216 in its interior; the accommodation chamber 216 is preferably sealed from the outer atmosphere and may also be evacuated to an internal pressure that is lower than that of the outer atmosphere; and the crucible 201 is accommodated in the accommodation chamber 216 ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify CN ‘721 by providing insulation and a quartz chamber, as taught by Ebner et al, so the chamber can be preferably sealed from the outer atmosphere and may also be evacuated to an internal pressure that is lower than that of the outer atmosphere. Also, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07); therefore, the use of quartz would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Referring to claim 25, the combination CN ‘721 and Ebner et al teaches a graphite crucible and graphite felt insulation which clearly suggests insulation with less dense graphite. Also, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zwieback et al (US 2013/0320275) teaches a PVT apparatus comprising a growth crucible 11 is commonly made of dense, fine-grain, isostatically molded graphite, while thermal insulation 12 is made from light-weight, fibrous graphite ([0027]).
JPH 06-298594 teaches a moving source crucible.
CN113684538 teaches a sublimation apparatus with a moving source crucible.
CN 110055583 teaches a sublimation apparatus with a moving source crucible.
US 11306412 teaches a sublimation apparatus with a moving source crucible.
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