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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 to 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 61-136996 in view of Jp02-229797.
The Jp 61-136996 reference teaches a method for producing a GaAs single crystal ingot, note translation. A raw material is prepared so that the amounts of Si and In charged are the amounts prescribed in the present claims and a single crystal ingot is grown. The ingot is a n type GaAs. There is a seed side a straight body and a tail, note examples. The differences between the instant claims and the prior art is the amount of zinc, boron and method of growth. However, Jp02-229797 reference teaches a encapsulated Bridgemen method can be used to grow a codoped GaAs ingot as a known method along with LEC, note translation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Jp 61-136996 reference by the teachings of the Jp02-229797 to use a Bridgemen method in order to lower dislocations.
The Jp 61-136996 and Jp 02-229797 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the concentration of boron. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the dopant concentration of the boron in the combined references in order to have the wanted properties as the reference does teach starting with similar amounts of dopants and with a boric oxide encapsulant, the source of boron.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the amount of zinc in order to achieve the desired properties in the ingot, noting that the reference does not teach adding zinc and the range includes zero.
With regards to claim 15, the Jp 61-136996 reference teaches doping only with indium and silicon, note translation.
With regard to claim 16, the Jp 61-136996 reference teaches silicon and indium additional amounts.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 61-136996 in view of JP 2012-6829 A and Jp -2-229797.
The Jp 61-136996 and Jp 02-229797 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the stirring of the boric oxide. However, the JP 2012-6829 A teaches stirring the sealant while the crystal is being grown ( paragraphs [0021], [0022], [0030], and [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references by the teachings of the Jp2012-6829 reference to stir the boric oxide in order to lower inclusions.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 18 , and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 61-136996 in view of JP 2012-6829 A and Jp -2-229797.
The Jp 61-136996, Jp 02-229797 and Jp 2012-6829 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the diameter. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable diameter sizes in the combined references in order to create the desired wafter.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 20 to 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 61-136996 in view of Jp 02-229797
The Jp 61-136996 et al reference teaches a n-type GaAs single crystal ingots and wafers. The gallium arsenide comprising Si, In, wherein Si and In fulfill the numerical ranges prescribed in the present claims. The reference does not teach addition of zinc and that the GaAs is n type, meaning no p type dopants like zinc. The Jp 02-229797 reference teaches the dislocation density range. The sole difference from the invention in the carrier concentration is range . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to bring the carrier concentration close to the lower limit for favorable carrier concentrations to create the desired device.
With regards to claim 2 and 21, the Jp 61-136996 reference teaches an indium concentration within the claimed range, note translation.
With regards to claim 4, and 22 the Jp 61-136996 reference teaches the ratio of silicon to indium, note translation.
With regards to claim 23, the references do teach the dopants claimed which has the same segregation coefficients at same concentrations inherently acting as claimed.
With regards to claim 24, the references do teach the dopants claimed which has the same segregation coefficients at same concentrations inherently acting as claimed with similar properties.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 61-136996 in view of JP02 229797
The Jp 61-136996 and Jp 02-229797 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the concentration of impurities. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the impurity concentrations in the bottom area in the combined reference in order to lower dislocations.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 61-136996 in view of JP02 229797
The Jp 61-136996 and Jp 02-229797 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the concentration of dopants, boron at specific places in the ingot. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the impurity concentrations in the entire ingot in the combined reference in order to as the amounts of the dopants are similar as is the process.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning there is no support for the inherent concentration is noted. However, as set for before, the examiner has based this on the instant specification. The specification clearly teaches that the boron dopant comes from the boric oxide only. There exists no other teachings in the specification as to separately adding boron. Further, the Itani (2004/0187768) and Kretzer (EP 1739210) references both teach that boron doping into a gallium arsenide crystal happens from boric oxide. Also, the specification gives no guidance onto the amount of boric oxide or conditions needed to obtain the claimed boron doping range. Only that the boron doping is a substitution for that of silicon. The silicon amount directly affects the boron amount. The examiner has clearly set for as to why the boron amount is inherent in the prior art.
The 1.132 declaration filed on November 12, 2025 by Junji Sugiura has been fully considered and not deemed persuasive in view of the submitted arguments. There is still no explanation as to the results obtained in view of the specification. Thus, the declaration is not deemed to overcome the rejections over the prior art of record.
Applicant’s argument concerning the boron concentration is noted. However, the instant specification paragraph 033 as filed, teaches that the boron concentration is not obtained by doping with boron. Rather, the boron concentration is inherently formed in the crystal by the use of a boric oxide encapsulant. The prior art does teach using the same boric oxide as encapsulant. Thus, the prior art inherently has and teaches the similar boron concentration in the gallium arsenide crystal. Further, the properties of the crystal would be within the skill of the art. The combination of references renders the instant invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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, 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714