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 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 52-54, 56, 57, 59-62 are cancelled. Claims 1-35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46-51, 55, 58, 63-67 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 15, 29-31, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47 and 64-67 are amended. Claims 1, 31, 48 are independent claims. Claims 4-7, 16, 48-51, 55, 58, 63, 65 and 67 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 8-15, 17-35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 64 and 66 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the dashed line in fig 4 is not described. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the dopant with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the source material is fixed” and the acceptor atoms with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the source material is fixed” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: see crystal. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 65 and 67 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The status of claims 65 and 67 should be "Withdrawn” instead of “Currently amended”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner's Comment
The instant claims 2, 10, 13 and 31 recite “consists essentially of.” It is well established that the transitional language “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355. Therefore, for examining purpose, “consists essentially of” is interpreted as “comprising”.
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 1-3, 8-15, 17-35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47 and 64 and 66 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.
The recited in claim 1 “the dopant with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the source material is fixed” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “the dopant with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the source material is fixed” means, for example, it is not clear how the dopant is fixed with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the source material. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2, 3, 8-15 and 17-30 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 8 “the dopant comprises one or more of an element in Group 13 of the periodic table” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “the dopant comprises one or more of an element in Group 13 of the periodic table” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. For examining purpose, this limitation is interpreted as “the dopant comprises one or more element in Group 13 of the periodic table.”
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the only source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 31 “acceptor atoms held in the shaped charge SiC source material” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “the acceptor atoms held in the shaped charge SiC source material” means; it is not clear how the acceptor atoms is held/fixed in the shaped charge source material. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 31 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 32-35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47 and 64 and 66 are rejected because they depend on claim 31.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the only source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 64 “…a C face …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “a C face” is referred as a carbon face or a crystallographic C face. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 64 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 66 “…a C face …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “a C face” is referred as a carbon face or a crystallographic C face. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 66 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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 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 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 1-3, 8-14, 17, 24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mark S. Land (US 20170204532 A1, “Land”).
Regarding claim 1, Land teaches a method of making a SiC crystal having a predetermined conductivity/resistivity (electrical property), the method comprising placing a silicon carbide raw material (SiC source material) in a crucible/container /vapor deposition device (vapor deposition apparatus) (0215, 0233, 0236, 0245, 0248, 0249, 0251, 0259); the silicon carbide raw material (SiC source material) comprising silicon, carbon and a dopant (0262-0264, 0270, 0272, 0278-0282), wherein the dopant is selected to provide the predetermined electrical property to the SiC crystal (0155, 0262); wherein the dopant with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the source material is fixed (figs 5, 0274-0277); filling (adding) an inert gas into the crucible/ container (vapor deposition apparatus) (0259, 0276, 0301, 0329), and controlling a pressure in the crucible/container (vapor deposition apparatus) (0259, 0285, 0288); heating the SiC source material to thereby form a vapor (flux) (0259, 0275, 0276, 0287-0289), wherein the flux comprises silicon, carbon and the dopant (0259, 0275, 0276); and depositing the flux on a growth face of the SiC crystal to thereby grow the SiC crystal (0045-0051, 0259, 0269-0271); wherein the SiC crystal has the predetermined electrical property (0048-0050, 0261, 0262, 0276, 0282, 0283).
Regarding claim 2, Land teaches the source material consists essentially of silicon, carbon and the dopant (fig 5, 0274-0277).
Regarding claim 3, Land teaches the source material consists of silicon, carbon and the dopant (in a single capsule) (figs 5a and 5c, 0274, 0277).
Regarding claim 8, Land teaches the dopant comprises boron or aluminum (one or more of the elements in Group 13 of the periodic table) (0262, 0263, 0319).
Regarding claim 9, Land teaches the dopant comprises boron (0262, 0263, 0319).
Regarding claim 10, Land teaches the dopant consists essentially of boron (0262, 0263, 0319).
Regarding claim 11, Land teaches the dopant consists of boron (0262, 0263, 0319).
Regarding claim 12, Land teaches the dopant comprises aluminum (0262, 0263).
Regarding claim 13, Land teaches the dopant consists essentially of aluminum (0262, 0263).
Regarding claim 14, Land teaches the dopant consists of aluminum (0262, 0263).
Regarding claim 17, Land teaches the predetermined electrical property comprises resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299).
Regarding claim 24, Land teaches that the SiC source material is the only source of the dopant (figs 5a and 5c, 0274).
Regarding claim 26, Land teaches that the vapor deposition apparatus is a physical vapor transport apparatus (0067, 0259, 0288). Further, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 27, Land teaches that the flux (vapor) flows directedly to a seed crystal for crystal growth (fig 5, 0269-0277), e.g., the flux is a directional flux.
Regarding claim 28, Land teaches that the SiC source material has a volumetric shape (0034, 0122), e.g., a shaped charge.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Land as applied to claim 1 above, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land.
Regarding claim 15, Land teaches a same method as instantly claimed method of making the SiC crystal having the predetermined electrical property as addressed above, and further teaches that the crystal is a p-type crystal (0262). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the produced p-type crystal has the predetermined electrical property comprising a net charge and the net charge being positive, because a same/similar process/method is expected to produce same/similar results/effects. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. See MPEP 2144 II. It is also well established that mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art, consult Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 25, Land teaches that the method comprises the SiC source material and the dopant in form of element (0263, 0269, 0272, 0319), inexplicitly teaching no alloys are present, and thereby the method is alloy free. Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 18-23, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land as applied to claim 1 above,
Regarding claim 18, Land teaches the predetermined electrical property comprises a resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299), and the resistivity is 0.01-0.1 Ω-cm (0049, 0160 and claim 9), overlapping the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Land teaches the predetermined electrical property comprises a resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299), and the resistivity is 0.01-0.1 Ω-cm (0049, 0160 and claim 9), overlapping the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Land teaches the predetermined electrical property comprises a resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299), and the resistivity is 0.01-0.1 Ω-cm (0049, 0160 and claim 9), overlapping the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Land teaches the predetermined electrical property comprises a resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299), and the resistivity is 0.01-0.1 Ω-cm (0049, 0160 and claim 9), overlapping the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, Land teaches that the crystal growth is carried out in a sealed crucible having the source material for forming the flux/vapor (0288, 0336); it is reasonably expected that no other materials are added to the flux after it is formed from the source material since the crystal growth is carried out in a sealed crucible. Further, it is well-established 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 23, Land teaches that the crystal growth is carried out in a sealed crucible (vapor deposition apparatus) (0288, 0336); it is reasonably expected that no other materials are added to the vapor deposition apparatus since the crystal growth is carried out in a sealed crucible. Further, it is well-established 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 29, Land teaches that the SiC crystal has a diameter of larger than 100 mm and a height of exceeding 20 mm (0243-0247, 0254), overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). It is also well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 30, Land teaches that the SiC crystal has a diameter of larger than 100 mm and a height of exceeding 50 mm (0243-0247, 0254), overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). It is also well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 31-33, 35 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mark S. Land (US 20170204532 A1, “Land”).
Regarding claim 31, Land teaches a method of making a p-type SiC crystal, the method comprising placing a silicon carbide raw material (SiC source material) in a crucible/container/vapor deposition device (vapor deposition apparatus) (0215, 0233, 0236, 0245, 0248, 0249, 0251, 0259), the raw materials having a volumetric shape (shaped charge SiC source material) (0034, 0114, 0115, 0112); the silicon carbide raw material (shaped charge SiC source material) consisting essentially of silicon, carbon and an amount of dopant/impurity/acceptor (acceptor atoms) held in the shaped charge SiC source material (0155, 0262-0264, 0270, 0272-0282, 0353), wherein the acceptor atoms (dopant) with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the shaped charge source material is fixed (figs 5, 0274-0277); heating the shaped charge SiC source material and thereby forming a vapor (flux) through sublimation of the shaped charge source material (0122, 0243-0247, 0251, 0253, 0259, 0275, 0276, 0287-0289); wherein the flux comprises silicon, carbon and a portion of the amount of acceptor atoms (0259, 0276, 0282, 0288, 0289, 0315); and depositing the flux on a growth face of the p-type SiC crystal to thereby grow the p-type SiC crystal (0045-0051, 0259, 0262, 0263, 0269-0271); wherein at least some of the acceptor atoms in the flux form substitutional atomic impurities in the p-type SiC crystal (0155, 0262, 0263, 0276, 0299, 0319, 0338).
Regarding claim 32, Land teaches the dopant (acceptor atoms) comprises boron (0262, 0263, 0319).
Regarding claim 33, Land teaches the dopant (acceptor atoms) comprises aluminum (0262, 0263).
Regarding claim 35, Land teaches that the SiC source material is the only source of the dopant/acceptor atoms (figs 5a and 5c, 0274).
Regarding claim 47, Land teaches that during the growth of the p-type crystal the dopant remains fixed in the source material until it is sublimed to form the flux (fig 5, 0262, 0263, 0269-0277).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Land as applied to claim 1 above, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land.
Regarding claim 34, Land teaches that the method comprises the SiC source material and the dopant in form of element (0263, 0269, 0272, 0319), inexplicitly teaching no alloys are present, and thereby the method is alloy free. Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land as applied to claim 1 above,
Regarding claim 37, Land teaches that an inert gas is added into the crucible/ container (vapor deposition apparatus) (0259, 0276, 0301, 0329), and the crystal growth is carried out in a sealed crucible (vapor deposition apparatus) (0288, 0336); it is reasonably expected that no other gases are added to the vapor deposition apparatus since the crystal growth is carried out in a sealed crucible. Further, it is well-established 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 39, Land teaches that the SiC crystal has a diameter of larger than 100 mm and a height of exceeding 50 mm (0243-0247, 0254), overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). It is also well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kub et al (US 20180244513 A1, “Kub”).
Regarding claim 41, Land teaches the p-type SiC crystal has a resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299), but does not explicitly teach the resistivity of from 2.0 ohm-cm to about 0.1 ohm-cm. However, Kub teaches a method of making a doped SiC crystal, wherein a p-type SiC crystal has a resistivity of about 0.2 ohm-cm (0033), within the instantly claimed range. 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 land per teachings of Kub in order to provide suitable material for making electronic device (Kub 0033). Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 43 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khlebnikov et al (US 20210198804 A1, “Khlebnikov”).
Regarding claim 43, Land teaches the p-type SiC crystal has a resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299), but does not explicitly teach the resistivity of from about 0.013 ohm-cm to about 0.004 ohm-cm. However, Khlebnikov teaches a method of making a SiC crystal, wherein the SiC crystal has a resistivity in a range from 0.001 ohm-cm to 0.05 ohm-cm (0080), overlapping the instantly claimed range. 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 land per teachings of Khlebnikov in order to provide suitable material for electronic device (Khlebnikov 0080). Further, it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 46, Land teaches the p-type crystal has a resistivity (0166, 0167, 0258, 0262, 0299), but does not explicitly teach the resistivity of from about 0.009 ohm-cm to about 0.004 ohm-cm. However, Khlebnikov teaches a method of making a SiC crystal, wherein the SiC crystal has a resistivity in a range from 0.001 ohm-cm to 0.05 ohm-cm (0080), overlapping the instantly claimed range. 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 land per teachings of Khlebnikov in order to provide suitable material for electronic device (Khlebnikov 0080). Further it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 64 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land as applied to claim 1 or 31 above, and further in view of Nakabayashi et al (US 20070262322 A1, “Nakabayashi”).
Regarding claim 64, Land teaches growing p-type crystal growth on a face of a seed crystal as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a growth on a C face of the seed crystal. However, Nakabayashi teaches a method for growing SiC crystal, wherein a seed having a c face is set as a growing face of the crystal (0066). 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 land per teachings of Nakabayash in order to provide suitable conditions for growing the SiC crystal having desired properties and quality (Nakabayashi 0054, 0066, 0067).
Regarding claim 66, Land teaches growing p-type crystal growth on a face of a seed crystal as addressed above, and further teaches 4H or 6H polytype of SiC (0023, 0032, 0103), but does not explicitly teach a growth on a C face of the seed crystal. However, Nakabayashi teaches a method for growing SiC crystal, wherein a seed having a c face is set as a growing face of the crystal (0066). 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 land per teachings of Nakabayash in order to provide suitable conditions for growing the SiC crystal having desired properties and quality (Nakabayashi 0054, 0066, 0067).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the term “the only source” in claims 24 and 31 have been considered, but not found persuasive. It is noted that there no any reciting of “a only source” in claims 24 and 31. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim term “a C face” have been considered, but not found persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized “a C face” as “a carbon face” or “a crystallographic C face,” and a carbon face and a crystallographic C face are distinct; it is not clear whether “a C face” is referred as a carbon face or a crystallographic C face. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments that Land does not disclose “’source material contains silicon, carbon and a dopant or an acceptor atom’” and “shaped charge” have been considered, but not found persuasive. Land explicitly teaches a SiC raw/source material (0215, 0233, 0236, 0245, 0248, 0249, 0251, 0259); the silicon carbide raw material (SiC source material) comprising silicon, carbon and a dopant (0262-0264, 0270, 0272, 0278-0282), and the capsule holding a dopant/ acceptor is buried/fixed/held within the SiC source material (fig 5C, 0155, 0272, 0274, 0277), the SiC source material has a shape of the bottom growth container (fig 5), reading on the instantly claimed/argued “shaped charge SiC source material.” Therefore, Land does teach the shaped charge, and the dopant/acceptor with respect to the silicon and the carbon in the source material being fixed/held; thus the rejection is maintained.
In response to the arguments about other teahcings in Land, it is noted that the transitional term “comprising” is used in the instant claim. Therefore any additional features/elements can be included in Land. The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03).
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 case of anticipation and/or a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings 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