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
Applicant’s 11/20/25 election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-4 is acknowledged. Claims 5-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL “Ultrahigh-quality silicon carbide single crystals” Nakamura et al. Claim 1 requires “A silicon carbide seed crystal, comprising at least a high-quality region”. Nakamura et al. is directed towards a method of growing SiC crystals of high quality [Title].
Claim 1 further requires “in the high-quality region: a quantity of micropipes is zero”. Nakamura et al. discloses “The average EPD and micropipe density of a 20-mm-diameter substrate, taken from the crystal grown on RAF seed with a-face growth performed three times (Fig 2), were respectively 75 cm-2 and 0 cm-2” [Page 1011, Column 2, Paragraph 2].
Claim 1 further requires “a density of threading screw dislocations is smaller than 300/cm2, a density of mixed dislocations is smaller than 20/cm2”. Nakamura et al. discloses “As shown clearly in Fig. 2, the EPDs decrease exponentially with increase in the repeat count of a-face growth. This shows that dislocations in the SiC crystal are effectively eliminated by the RAF growth” [Page 1011, Column 2, Paragraph 2]. In other words the density of screw and mixed dislocations is zero or very near to zero.
Claim 1 further requires “a difference between full widths at half maximum of X-ray rocking curves at any two positions, between which a distance is equal to 1 cm, is smaller than 40 arc seconds”. Nakamura et al. discloses “The width of the peak spectrum (full-width at half-maximum, FWHM, 27 arcsec), which was obtained in the case that the q-scan axis is perpendicular to the growth direction (case A), almost equalled that of perfect crystal (26 arcsec) in our apparatus, indicating that there is little perturbation in the direction parallel to the growth direction of a-face growth crystal … Moreover, we found that the FWHM (in case B) plots for various measurement points z, which is the distance from seed crystal in the direction parallel to the growth direction, does not change as a function of z. In other words, a-face growth crystal faithfully inherits only the c-axis variations perpendicular to the growth direction.” [Page 1010, Column 2, Paragraph 1]. In other words, the full widths at half maximum of X-ray rocking curves yield 27 arcseconds everywhere (along the growth axis) and therefore the difference in the FWHM between 2 positions 1 cm apart is 0 arcseconds (or very near to zero arcseconds), which is less than 40.
Claim 1 further requires “an area of the high-quality region is larger than 0.25 cm2.”. Nakamura et al. discloses “As a result, we have obtained large RAF substrates, 1.5–3.0 inches in diameter” [Page 1011, Column 2, Paragraph 3]. A diameter of 1.5-3.0 inches corresponds to an area of 11.4–45.6 cm2 (3.14*(1.5 inch*2.54 cm/inch/2)2 = 11.4 cm2, 3.14*(3.0 inch*2.54 cm/inch/2)2 = 45.6 cm2).
Claim 2 requires “the density of threading screw dislocations is smaller than 100/cm2; and the area of the high-quality region is larger than 1 cm2.”. Nakamura et al. discloses near zero concentration of dislocations and an area of 11.4–45.6 cm2 (see Claim 1).
Claim 3 requires “the density of threading screw dislocations is smaller than 50/cm2; and the area of the high-quality region is larger than 10 cm2”. Nakamura et al. discloses near zero concentration of dislocations and an area of 11.4–45.6 cm2 (see Claim 1).
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Ultrahigh-quality silicon carbide single crystals” Nakamura et al. Claim 4 requires “the density of threading screw dislocations is smaller than 30/cm2, the density of mixed dislocations is smaller than 5/cm2”. Nakamura et al. discloses near zero concentration of dislocations (see Claim 1).
Claim 4 further requires “the difference between full widths at half maximum of X- ray rocking curves at any two positions, between which a distance is equal to lcm, is smaller than 20 arc seconds”. Nakamura et al. discloses a difference in the FWHM between 2 positions 1 cm apart is 0 arcseconds (or very near to zero arcseconds) (see Claim 1).
Claim 4 further requires “the area of the high-quality region is larger than 50cm2.”. Nakamura et al. discloses an area of 11.4–45.6 cm2 (see Claim 1), which is outside of the range claimed. However, MPEP 2144.04.IV.A cites findings from In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053.). Furthermore Nakamura et al. states that scaling to larger sample sizes as an active goal “Moreover, we have succeeded in manufacturing a large size substrate by this method, which makes feasible commercial applications. We consider that it will be possible in the near future to eliminate dislocations perfectly, and to enlarge the diameter to several inches.” [Page 1011, Column 2, Paragraph 4]. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt a RAF synthesis of SiC crystals on a substrate larger then 3 inches diameter. It is reasonable to assume that such efforts would be successful without undue experimentation.
Furthermore, because 50 cm2 corresponds to a diameter of 3.1 inches (
√
(
50
c
m
2
/
3.14
)
* 2 / 2.54 cm/inch = 3.1 inch) while Nakamura et al. does not disclose an area that overlaps with the range claimed (>3.1 inch), the disclosure of a 3 inch diameter substrate renders a 3.1 inch diameter substrate obvious. MPEP 2144.05.1 states “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”. Generally for a prior art disclosure which is outside of the range claimed but close to be considered non-obvious a showing that the claimed range is critical to the invention is required. The range of >50 cm2 is not considered critical because claims 1-3 have a smaller range claimed and function similarly to the seed crystal of Claim 4 (are able to be used in further method steps appearing in withdrawn claims).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736