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
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 April 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chandler et al. (U.S. Patent 4,621,017). Regarding Claim 1, Chandler et al., hereafter “Chandler,” show that it is known to have a high temperature vessel (Column 1, lines 23-43; Column 2, lines 55-57), comprising: a structure defining a cavity and an interior surface lining the cavity; and a coating overlying at least a portion of the interior surface and defining a contact surface configured to contact molten silicon, wherein the structure comprises graphite at the interior surface, wherein the coating comprises silicon carbide or boron carbide (Column 2, lines 55-63), and wherein the coating is deposited chemical vapor deposition (Column 2, lines 3-5).
Regarding Claim 2, Chandler shows the vessel of claim 1 above, including one wherein the coating extends into pores of the structure (Column 2, lines 45-47).
Regarding Claim 4, Chandler shows the vessel of claim 1 above, including one wherein a thickness of the coating is from about 5um to about 5mm (Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Chandler shows the vessel of claim 1 above, but he does not specifically describe the total porosity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate porosity, such as that which is claimed, because Chandler describes how porosity can be varied (Column 9, lines 57-64), and where the general conditions of a claim are described in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, Chandler shows the vessel of claim 1 above, including coatings of silicon carbide and boron carbide (Column 2, lines 29-45, 55-63), but he does not show average grain size. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate grain size, such as that which is claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are described in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights