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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claims 12-18 are withdrawn. Claims 1-11, 19 and 20 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “…the base body...” which should read “…the tubular base body...”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "...integral… inwardly…lies on…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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 1-6, 8-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vodakov et al (US 6428621 B1, “Vodakov”), and further in view of Harada et al (US 20120032191 A1, “Harada”).
Regarding claim 1, Vodakov teaches a device for growing single crystals, comprising a chamber 419/519 (crucible) (figs 4 and 5, col 6 lines 44-54; col 9 lines 25-34), wherein the crucible defines an outer lateral surface and moreover delimits an accommodation space designed for growing the single crystals (fig 4, col 5 lines 11 to col 6 line 45; col 9 lines 5-15 and lines 35-40), wherein the device comprises a seed crystal/substrate 401/501/601 (at least one seed crystal layer) (figs 4-6, col 5 lines 11 to col 6 line 45; col 9 lines 5-15 and lines 35-40), wherein the accommodation space extends between a bottom section and a top section (an opening section) (fig 4), wherein a holding system comprising cylinder/ring 415/407/409/511/507/505 (holding section) is arranged in the opening section and extends circumferentially around an opening of the opening section (figs 4-6, col 5 line 55 to col 6 line 46; col 9 lines 5-19), wherein the holding section is formed integral with a cylinder 415 (tubular base body) and protrudes inwardly from the cylinder 415 (tubular base body) (fig 4, col 6 lines 31-50; col 7 lines 40-50; col 8 lines 50-52), and wherein an outer edge region of the seed crystal/substrate 401/501/601 (at least one seed crystal layer) lies on the ring 409/505 of the holding section (figs 4 and 5, col 5 lines 11 to col 6 line 45; col 9 lines 5-15 and lines 35-40).
Vodakov teaches the at least one seed crystal layer as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the at least one seed crystal layer is assembled from multiple seed crystal plates in a tessellated manner, and the multiple seed crystal plates are connected to one another by an epitaxy layer of monocrystalline silicon carbide. However, Harada teaches an apparatus, wherein a substrate layer is assembled from a plurality of single crystal substrates (plates) (multiple seed crystal plates) in a tessellated manner (figs 1-5, 0100-0102, 0112, 0113), the plurality of single crystal substrates (multiple seed crystal plates) is connected to one another by an epitaxial silicon carbide growth layer (figs 4 and 6, abstract, 0009-0011, 0112-0115, 0126-0128, claims 5 and 15). 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 Vodakov per teachings of Harada in order to provide silicon carbide substrate having large diameter while keeping the single crystal high quality for further efficiently manufacturing semiconductor devices (Harada 0007-0011). It is also well established that “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2133.
Also, it is well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Vodakov/Harada teaches the multiple seed crystal plates in the at least one seed crystal layer have identical crystal orientations (Harada 0022-0026).
Regarding claim 3, Vodakov/Harada teaches that the seed crystal each have a polygonal (for example square) circumferential contour (Harada fig 2). It is also well established that absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding claim 4, Vodakov/Harada teaches the multiple seed crystal plates and the crucible/chamber as addressed above, and further teaches that the seed crystals are connected to top surrounding portions/members/disk portions (cover) of the chamber/crucible (Vodakov fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, Vodakov/Harada teaches the multiple seed crystal plates as addressed above, and further teaches the seeds are applied to a substrate (for example foil 411) separate from the cover/top surrounding portions/members/disk portions (Vodakov figs 4 and 5, col 9 lines 5-20).
Regarding claim 6, Vodakov/Harada teaches that the substrate/foil is formed from graphite (Vodakov col 6 lines 31-40). 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 8, Vodakov/Harada teaches the at least one seed crystal layer as addressed above, and further teaches the seed crystal layer is formed of SiC (Vodakov col 5 lines 10-15; Harada abstract), same material as the instantly claimed seed crystal layer (for example the seed crystal layer may be provided with a material, in particular SiC, as disclosed in [0042] of the instant PGPUB US 2024/0035200 A1). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the seed crystal layer of Vodakov/Harada has a mass per unit area of between 2.20 kg/m2 and 3.90 kg/m2. It is well established that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II. It is also 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 9, Vodakov/Harada teaches that the at least one seed crystal layer comprises at least a polished surface (Vodakov col 5 lines 23-30).
Regarding claim 10, Vodakov/Harada teaches the at least one seed crystal layer as addressed above, and further teaches that the seed crystal layer has an RMS (area-related roughness) value of 50 angstroms (=5 nm) or less (Vodakov col 5 lines 30-31). 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); also see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 19, Vodakov/Harada teaches the multiple seed crystal plates connected to the cover of the crucible as addressed above, and further teaches that intermediate layers arranged between the seed crystal and the cover (Vodakov fig 4). It is also noted that the instant specification and claim 20 explicitly recites that “without intermediate layers arranged between the seed and the cover”. Therefore, the criticality of the claimed “with intermediate layers arranged between the seed and the cover” is not currently established. The court held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vodakov/ Harada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masashi Nakabayashi (US 20180282902 A1, “Nakabayashi”).
Regarding claim 7, Vodakov/Harada teaches the at least one seed crystal layer as addressed above, and further teaches the seed crystal layer having a thickness (Vodakov fig 4; Harada fig 1) but does not explicitly teach that the thickness is between 350 and 2000 µm. However, Nakabayashi teaches an apparatus for growing crystals, wherein a seed crystal has a thickness of 1200 or 1400 µm (0070, 0083, 0090, 0097). 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 Vodakov/Harada per teachings of Nakabayashi in order to provide a silicon carbide single crystal with excellent quality (Nakabayashi 0001).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vodakov/ Harada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kosho Tomoaki (JP 2016052961 A, machine translation, “Tomoaki”).
Regarding claim 11, Vodakov/Harada teaches the seed crystal layer as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the seed crystal layer is doped with at least one material. However, Tomoaki teaches an apparatus for producing crystals, wherein an N-type (doped) seed crystal is used for producing the crystals (abstract, 0011, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0022, 0024, 0025, 0028, 0030, 0037, 0041, 0047, 0048, 0053, 0055, 0057, 0059, 0063, 0065, 0067, 0071). 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 Vodakov/Harada per teachings of Tomoaki in order to provide suitable conditions/seed crystals for producing the crystals with low defect density and controlled properties for various applications (Tomoaki abstract, 0009, 0010, 0030, 0037, 0047, 0048). It is also 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vodakov/ Harada as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kito et al (US 6110279 A, “Kito”).
Regarding claim 20, Vodakov/Harada teaches the multiple seed crystal plates connected to the cover of the crucible as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach without intermediate layers arranged between the seed and the cover. However, Kito teaches an apparatus, wherein a seed layer and a lid/cover of a crucible are directly joined without using intermediate layers (col 6 lines 65-68). 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 Vodakov/Harada per teachings of Kito in order to provide an alternate way mounting the seed crystal for producing single crystal with high quality at low cost (Kito abstract). It is also noted that the instant specification and claim 19 explicitly recites that “with intermediate layers arranged between the seed and the cover”. Therefore, the criticality of the claimed “without intermediate layers arranged between the seed and the cover” is not established. The court held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Conclusion
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