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 Claims
Claims 3, 6 and 8 are cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 17 are currently examined on the merits.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “each SiC base substrate … constitutes a semiconductor substrate”, and the claim also recites “the SiC base substrate … made of SiC single crystal” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 1 “…alternately installing a SiC base substrates and a SiC source substrate bodies such that every two adjacent SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body contact each other …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. According to online dictionary https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/contact, “contact” is defined as “the act of touching physically.” It is not clear how/where a SiC growth layer can be formed on the SiC base substrate via physical vapor transport since the SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body contact (physically touch) each other. It is noted that the term “close contact” refers to the proximity of different members or the like while maintaining a predetermined separation distance, as disclosed in the instant specification (for example [0046] and [0047] of PGPUB US 2022/0316089 A1). For examining purpose, “SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body contact each other” is interpreted as “SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body close contact each other,” e.g., a separation distance exists at between the SiC base substrate and the SiC source substrate body. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (WO 2017188381 A1, US 20190136409 A1 used as a corresponding translation, “Kaneko”) in view of Vodakov et al (US 6261363 B1, “Vodakov”).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko teaches a method for producing semiconductor substrates comprising an installation step of alternately installing a SiC substrate 40 (SiC base substrate) and a SiC members 3/3a/3b/3/45 (SiC source substrate body) such that every two adjacent SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body contact each other (fig 8, 0067-0070, 0079, 0080), and a heating step of heating the SiC base substrate and the SiC source substrate body so that a temperature gradient (difference) is formed between the SiC base substrate (SiC substrate 40) and the SiC source substrate body (SiC members 3/3a/3b/3/45) which forms a SiC epitaxial layer 41 (growth layer) on the SiC base substrate (SiC substrate 40) via sublimation (physical vapor transport) (fig 8, 0069-0071, 0072, 0076-0080), wherein the SiC source substrate body is made of SiC (0067, 0068, 0079), wherein each SiC base substrate having the SiC growth layer formed thereon constitutes SiC (a semiconductor substrate) (0002, 0003, 0069-0071, 0072, 0076-0080).
Kaneko teaches the SiC base substrate and the SiC source substrate body, e.g., the SiC base substrate and the SiC source substrate body are made of SiC, as addressed above, and further teaches that the SiC base substrate is made of SiC single crystal (Kaneko 0069), and the SiC source substrate body is made of polycrystalline SiC (Kaneko 0067, 0079, 0086), but does not explicitly teach the SiC source substrate body is made of SiC single crystal. However, it is a known practice that either SiC poly- or monocrystal may be used as source for growing silicon carbide single crystal as taught by Vodakov (col 4 line 1-7; col 6 lines 43-46), e.g., SiC poly- or monocrystal SiC are functional equivalents when being used as source for growing silicon carbide single crystal. Substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Kaneko with the monocrystalline SiC source of Vodakov as an alternative source material to polycrystalline SiC source in order to provide SiC single crystals with higher quality (Vodakov col 4 line 1-7; col 6 lines 43-46). Further, it is well-settled that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Kaneko/Vodakov teaches that the installation step comprises installing the SiC base substrate and the SiC source substrate body in a space in which vapor generated in a chamber/furnace can be confined, and vacuum in the space is still possible (Kaneko 0042-0046, 0054, 0061, 0064, 0065), same “semi-closed space” as described in the instant specification (for example [0045] of instant PGPUB US 2022/0316089 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kaneko/Vodakov teaches installing the SiC base substrate and the SiC source substrate in a container 3a/3b (main container) made of SiC (Kaneko 0067-0068).
Regarding claim 17, Kaneko/Vodakov teaches installing the main container in a TaC container 2 (refractory material container made of TaC) (Kaneko 0068).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko/Vodakov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishibayashi et al (US 20170372965 A1, “Nishibayashi”).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko/Vodakov teaches the base substrate having the growth layer as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a separation step of separating a portion of the base substrate having the growth layer. However, it is a known practice that after growing a layer on the substrate, a separation step of separating a portion of the substrate having the growth layer as taught by Nishibayashi (abstract, 0023-0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Kaneko/ Vodakov per teachings of Nishibayashi in order to provide a semiconductor substrate for various application (Nishibayash abstract, 0001, 0021-0024).
Regarding claim 5, Kaneko/Vodakov/Nishibayash teaches the separation step comprises an introduction step of introducing a damaged layer into the base substrate having the growth layer (Nishibayash figs 1, 3, 5 and 7, 0072, 0104 and 0121-0125), and a separating (peeling) step of separating (peeling) a portion of the base substrate having the growth layer (Nishibayash figs 1, 3, 5, 7; 0072, 0104, 0121-0125).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko/ Vodakov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tadaaki (JP 2006339396 A, machine translation, “Tadaaki”).
Regarding claim 7, Kaneko/Vodakov teaches the installation step as addressed above, and further teaches installing two base-source substrate (a plurality of base-source substrate units) (Kaneko figs 8(c) and 8(d), 0079), each base-source substrate unit having a pair of the SiC base substrate and the polycrystalline SiC plate or SiC lower container (SiC source substrate body) (Kaneko figs 8(c) and 8(d), 0079), but does not explicitly teach a source substrate transport prevention body which is installed between one base-source substrate unit and another base- source substrate unit to prevent source substrate transport between base-source substrate. However, Tadaaki teaches a method for producing a substrate, wherein a spacer 50 (source substrate transport prevention body) is interposed between pairs, and each pair comprising a SiC substrate and another SiC substrate (for example substrate 31 and 19) (fig 4(b)). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Kaneko/ Vodakov per teachings of Tadaaki in order to provide suitable condition for making silicon carbide material having good electric activity (Tadaaki abstract). Kaneko/ Vodakov/ Tadaaki a similar arrangement of the source substrate transport prevention body (spacer) as just addressed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the source substrate transport prevention body (spacer) would be able to prevent source substrate transport between base-source substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “… claimed installation step is exemplified in fig 5 … the SiC base substrates and the SiC source substrate bodies are stacked in an alternating manner within the main container and the adjacent SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body contact each other… reference Kaneko fails to disclose a stack configuration… that "every two adjacent SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body contact each other". Specifically, the upper SiC base substrate 40 is in contact with the polycrystalline SiC plate 45…” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As applicant already noted, in fig 8 of Kaneko, SiC substrate 40 (base substrate) is in contact with the polycrystalline SiC plate 45/3 (source substrate body), similar contact to the recited instant fig 5. As addressed above, it is noted that the term “close contact” refers to the proximity of different members or the like while maintaining a predetermined separation distance, as disclosed in the instant specification (for example [0046] and [0047] of PGPUB US 2022/0316089 A1). Also, if there no gas between the base substrate and the source substrate body, how/where can a SiC growth layer be formed on the SiC base substrate via physical vapor transport? It is further noted that instant claim 7 (currently depending on claim 1) explicitly recites “a source substrate transport prevention body which is installed between one base-source substrate unit (having the base substrate and the source substrate body) and another base-source substrate unit (the base substrate and the source substrate body”. If there is no gap between the base substrate and the source substrate body, how/where is a a source substrate transport prevention body is installed? Therefore, for examining purpose, “SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body contact each other” is interpreted as “SiC base substrate and SiC source substrate body close contact each other,” e.g., a separation distance/gap exists between the SiC base substrate and the SiC source substrate body.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the teachings of Naokatsu have been considered, but not found persuasive because Naokatsu is not applied to the rejections provided above.
Applicant’s arguments that “Kaneko also fails to disclose that both the base substrate and the source substrate body are SiC single crystals” have been considered, but not found persuasive because the secondary reference to Vodakov teaches the argued/recited limitation, which is already noted by applicant. It is also well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
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 Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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.
/HUA QI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714