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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received on 08/27/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-21 are pending in this office action. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn. Claim 3 is canceled.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6 , 9 , and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitora et al (US20150325660A1) in view of Oda et al (JP 2018002544A).
Re claim 1 Hitora teaches, a multilayer structure comprising:
a crystal film (1, fig 2) [0052] containing a crystalline metal oxide ( gallium , indium and aluminum, In Al Ga O3) [0052] as a major component (i.e a crystal film) and arranged directly on a support or arranged on the support via another layer (base substrate, Sapphire) [0056] (see fig 2), the crystalline metal oxide containing at least gallium (1, fig 2) [0052], the support having a thermal conductivity of 100 W/m-K (the material is the same as the substrate material of the present application, so the support is disclosed to have a thermal conductivity of 100 W/m-K or more at room temperature) of or higher at room temperature, the crystal film having a corundum structure [0052].
Hitora does not teach a film thickness of the crystal film being in a range of 1 μm to 30 μm and an area of the crystal film being 15cm2 or more.
Oda teaches a film thickness of the crystal film being in a range of 1 μm to 30 μm. (a thick film of 3 μm) and an area of the crystal film being 15cm2 or more. (400 μm2) [0011].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Oda into the structure of Hitora to include a film thickness of the crystal film being in a range of 1 μm to 30 μm and an area of the crystal film being 15cm2 or more as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Oda based on the teaching of Hitora in the above manner for the purpose of avoiding the problem of cracking.[0006].
Hitora and Oda do not teach a distribution of film thickness in the area failing within a range of ±10%.
Oda teaches the thickness of the crystal film in a range 3 μm [0006] and the area of the crystal film [0011].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught Oda to include a distribution of film thickness in the area failing within a range of ±10% as claimed to achieve crack free film.
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed distribution of thickness in the area within a range ±10% would be a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 4 Hitora in view of Oda teaches the multilayer according to claim 1, wherein the crystal film is a semiconductor film (1, fig 2) [ Hitora, 0052].
Re claim 6 Hitora in view of Oda teaches the multilayer structure of according to claim 1.
Hitora and Oda do not teach a distribution of film thickness in the area failing within a range of ±5%.
Oda teaches the thickness of the crystal film in a range 3 μm [0006] and the area of the crystal film (400µm2) [0011].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught Oda to include a distribution of film thickness in the area failing within a range of ±5% as claimed to achieve crack free film.
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed distribution of thickness in the area within a range ±5% would be a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 9 Hitora in view of Oda teaches the multiple structure to claim 1, wherein the area of the crystal film being 100 cm2 or more (400 μm2) [Oda, 0011].
Re claim 11 Hitora in view of Oda teach a semiconductor device comprising at least:
an electrode (2, metal layer, fig 2) [Hitora, 0051]; and
a semiconductor layer (1, fig 2) [Hitora, 0052]
wherein the semiconductor device (MOSFET) [Hitora, 0091] includes the multilayer structure according to claim 1 [Hitora, 0091].
Re claim 12 Hitora in view of Oda, the semiconductor device according to claim 11, wherein the crystal film (1, fig 2) [Hitora 0052] of the multilayer structure (fig 2) is a semiconductor film [0052], and wherein the semiconductor film is used as the semiconductor layer (1, fig 2) [0052].
Re claim 13 Hitora in view of Oda teach the semiconductor device according to claim 11, wherein the semiconductor device is a power device.(MOSFET) [Hitora, 0091].
Re claim 14 Hitora in view of Oda teach a semiconductor system comprising:
a semiconductor device (MOSFET) [Hitora, 0091],
wherein the semiconductor device is the semiconductor device according to claim 11.(the semiconductor device of Hitora constructed in view of Oda is part of a semiconductor integrated system or system).
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitora et al (US20150325660A1) in view of Koshi et al (US20150380501A1) and Oda et al (JP 2018002544A.
Re claim 2 Hitora teaches, a multilayer structure comprising: a crystal film containing (1, fig.3) [0052] a crystalline metal oxide as a major component and arranged directly on a support or arranged on the support via another layer (base substrate, Sapphire) [0056] (see fig 3), the crystalline metal oxide containing at least gallium [0052-0053], the support having a thermal conductivity of 100 W/m-K or higher at room ambient temperature (the material is the same as the substrate material of the present application , so the support is disclosed to have a thermal conductivity of 100 W/m-K or more at room temperature) , the crystal film having a β-gallia structure,
Hitora does not teach the crystal film having a β gallia structure, a principal plane of the crystal film being a (001) plane or a (100) plane.
Koshi does teach the crystal film having a β gallia structure [0054], a principal plane of the crystal film being a (001) plane or a (100) plane [0023, 0054].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Koshi into the structure of Oda to include the crystal film having a β gallia structure, a principal plane of the crystal film being a (001) plane or a (100) plane as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Oda based on the teaching of Koshi in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve excellent crystalline quality [0010].
Hitora and Oda do not teach a film thickness of the crystal film being in a range of 1 μm to 30 μm and an area of the crystal film being 15cm2 or more.
Oda teaches a film thickness of the crystal film being in a range of 1 μm to 30 μm. (a thickness of the film of 3 μm) and an area of the crystal film being 15cm2 or more. (400 μm2) [0011].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Oda into the structure of Hitora and Koshi to include a film thickness of the crystal film being in a range of 1 μm to 30 μm and an area of the crystal film being 15cm2 or more as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Oda based on the teaching of Hitora in the above manner for the purpose of avoiding the problem of cracking.[0006].
Hitora and Oda do not teach a distribution of film thickness in the area failing within a range of ±10%.
Oda teaches the thickness of the crystal film in a range 3 μm [0006] and the area of the crystal film [0011].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught Oda to include a distribution of film thickness in the area failing within a range of ±10% as claimed to achieve crack free film.
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed distribution of thickness in the area within a range +10% would be a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitora modified by Oda as applied to claim 1, further in view of Suzuki et al (20030180977A1).
Re claim 5 Hitora in view of Oda teach according to claim 1,
Hitora and Oda do not teach a principal plane of the crystal film is an r plane an S plane.
Suzuki does teach a principal plane of the crystal film (crystal layer) [0020] is an r plane or an S plane [0020].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Suzuki into the structure of Hitora and Oda to include a principal plane of the crystal film is an r plane or an S plane as claimed because it helps in achieving a desired shape of the crystal plane and enhance the crystallinity of the crystal film. Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Oda and Fujiwara based on the teaching of Suzuki in the above manner due to the above reason.
Re claim 7 Hitora in view of Oda teach the multilayer structure according to claim 1,
Hitora and Oda do not teach a dislocation density of the crystal film is 1.0 x 106 /cm2 or less.
Suzuki does teach a dislocation density of the crystal film is 1.0 x 106 /cm2 or less. (about 103/cm2) [Suzuki, 0008].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Suzuki into the structure of Hitora and Oda to include a dislocation density of the crystal film is 1.0 x 106 /cm2 or less as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hitora and Oda based on the teaching of Suzuki in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve desirable crystallinity [Suzuki 0080, 0091].
Re claim 10 Hitora in view of Oda teaches the multilayer structure to claim 1, Hitora and Oda do not teach wherein the support contain silicon.
Suzuki does teach the support contain silicon (substrate) [0080].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Suzuki into the structure of Hitora and Oda to include the support contain silicon as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hitora and Oda based on the teaching of Suzuki in the above manner for the purpose of achieving desirable crystallinity [Suzuki, 0080, 0091]. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125USPQ 416. In the instant case, the material of Suzuki is suitable for providing support to the crystal film of Hitora and Oda.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitora modified by Koshi and Oda as applied to claim 2, further in view of Suzuki et al (20030180977A1).
Re claim 8 Hitora, in view of Koshi and Oda teaches the multilayer structure according to claim 2,
Hitora, Koshi and Oda do not teach a dislocation density of the crystal film is 1.0 x 103/cm3 or less.
Suzuki does teach a dislocation density of the crystal film is 1.0 x 103/cm3 or less (a crystal film having a dislocation density of about 106/cm2) [Suzuki, 0008].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Suzuki into the structure of Hitora, Koshi and Oda to include a crystal film having a dislocation density of about 1.0 x 103/cm2 as claimed, in order to improve the crystallinity and morphology of the film [Suzuki, 0005].
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed dislocation density range of “a dislocation density of the crystal film is 1.0 x 103/cm2 or less.” Would be a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working involves only routine skill in the art. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 4-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 11/7/25