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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
It is understood that the hardness values as recited in claims 28, 30, and 40 refers to a Vickers hardness and the units Kg/mm2 is equivalent to Kfg/mm2 as this is known and customary in the art.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to as it refers to a single claim but recites “claims”. Claim 30 should be amended to “The method of claim 28”.
Claim 31 is objected to as it refers to a single claim but recites “claims”. Claim 31 should be amended to “The method of claim 28”.
Claim 32 is objected to as it refers to a single claim but recites “claims”. Claim 32 should be amended to “The method of claim 28”.
Claim 33 is objected to as it refers to a single claim but recites “claims”. Claim 33 should be amended to “The method of claim 28”.
Claim 35 is objected to as it refers to a single claim but recites “claims”. Claim 35 should be amended to “The method of claim 34”.
Claim 36 is objected to as it refers to a single claim but recites “claims”. Claim 36 should be amended to “The method of claim 35”.
Claims 32, 33, 35, and 36 are objected to. Each of these claims recite “the porous mass”. These claims should be amended to “the porous mass of SiC” for utmost clarity and consistency.
Claim 43 is objected to as it is missing a period at the end of the claim. Claim 43 is further objected as it has an extra comma in line 1.
Claim 44 is objected to. The limitation “A boule” should be amended to “A silicon carbide boule” for utmost clarity and consistency.
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.
Claims 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In section “c” of claim 28 is recited the limitation “the vapor disposition apparatus” which does not have proper antecedent basis. Claims 29-36 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 28.
Claims 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The limitation “vapor disposition apparatus” renders the claim indefinite. All of the previous instances of an apparatus in claim 28 is to a vapor deposition apparatus. Changing “deposition” to “disposition” creates a new, undefined term. This also renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if this is a different piece of equipment or simply typographical error. Claims 29-36 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 28. In the event that this is simply a typographical error, Applicants may overcome this rejection (as well as the rejection immediately above) by amending “vapor disposition apparatus” to “vapor deposition apparatus”.
Claims 37-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In section “c” of claim 28 is recited the limitation “the vapor disposition apparatus” which does not have proper antecedent basis. Claims 38-45 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 37.
Claims 37-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The limitation “vapor disposition apparatus” renders the claim indefinite. All of the previous instances of an apparatus in claim 37 is to a vapor deposition apparatus. Changing “deposition” to “disposition” creates a new, undefined term. This also renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if this is a different piece of equipment or simply typographical error. Claims 38-45 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 37. In the event that this is simply a typographical error, Applicants may overcome this rejection (as well as the rejection immediately above) by amending “vapor disposition apparatus” to “vapor deposition apparatus”.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 45 is a process claim that depends from product claim 44. This results in a lack of clarity as to the statutory category of the invention. Applicants may overcome this claim by amending claim 45 to “An SiC wafer made from cutting the boule of claim 44.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, the claims are free of prior art rejections. Independent claims 28 and 37 are drawn to a method for making a silicon carbide (SiC) boule. Claim 28 requires that the method requires a porous mass of SiC comprising granules of SiC, wherein the porous mass of SiC has an apparent density of less than 3 g/cc and a hardness of less than about 1,400 Kg/mm2. Claim 37 requires that the method requires a porous mass of SiC comprising granules of SiC, wherein the granules of SiC has an actual density which is greater than the apparent density of the porous mass of SiC and that the hardness of the SiC granules is at least two times greater than the hardness of the porous mass of SiC. While the preparation of silicon carbide boules is known in the art, the specific requirements of the silicon carbide porous mass which comprises granules of silicon carbide as instantly claimed is not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art. Several of the prior art references of record effectively teach steps b, c, and d of independent claims 28 and 37; however, they do not effectively teach or suggest the starting silicon carbide powder which satisfies step a of claims 28 and 37. The characteristics of the starting porous mass of silicon carbide comprising granules of silicon carbide as claimed necessarily required a solid mass which is porous and which is sufficiently porous such that the apparent density is lower than the actual density of the silicon carbide and that the hardness of the porous mass is less than about 1,400 Kg/mm2 (claim 28) or less than half the hardness of the granules of SiC (claim 37). The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest these requirements/features. Powell et al. teaches preparing silicon carbide wafers from silicon carbide boules. Powell et al. (US 2014/0291698) teaches employing a silicon carbide source powder, which is not a porous mass (which is understood in the art to be a solid mass which is comprised of pores). That is, a porous mass is different from a powder and a porous mass represents a consolidated structural body which comprises a network of interconnected empty spaces. Fujiwara et al. (US 2013/0061801) teaches a method for preparing a silicon carbide crystal in which the source material is preferably a silicon carbide powder which is taught as being prepared by pulverizing a silicon carbide polycrystal (paragraph 0038). Fujiwara et al. does not teach employing or preparing a porous mass of silicon carbide. Gupta et al. (US 2010/0031877) and Malta et al. (US Pat. 7,147,715) are prior art references which are similar to Fujiwara et al. in that a silicon carbide powder, not a porous mass, is employed as the starting silicon carbide. The silicon carbide porous mass as taught and claimed by Applicants are necessarily friable (e.g., soft and crumbly) which allows for such low hardness values to be measured for the porous mass compared to the granules of silicon carbide (as in independent claim 28). Applicants claimed silicon carbide granules have a much higher hardness than the porous mass of silicon carbide (as in independent claim 37) which is a feature not taught or acknowledged in the prior art.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights