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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
A “growth surface” as recited in the context of at least claims 1-2, 7-9, and 19 is interpreted in light of arguments presented at pp. 7-8 of applicants’’ October 9, 2025, reply as the top-most surface on which CVD diamond growth occurs which changes as the diamond grows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The preceding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 9 and 112(b) rejection of claims 2-3, 9, and 20 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ arguments and claim amendments.
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 10-11 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 term “high-quality” in claims 10-11 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high-quality” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since neither the claims nor the specification clearly identify how the quality of the grown diamond region may be quantified such that whether it is “high-quality” can be readily identified, its recitation in claims 10-11 therefore renders the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a publication to Li, et al. entitled “Fabrication of low dislocation density, single-crystalline diamond via two-step epitaxial lateral overgrowth” Crystals, Vol. 7, p. 114 (2017) (hereinafter “Li”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,111,277 to Masao Ikeda (“Ikeda”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method of growing diamond (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and entire reference which teach a method of growing an epitaxial diamond layer), the method comprising:
providing an initial substrate having a growth surface (see Figs. 1-2 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach providing an initial diamond substrate having a growth surface);
positioning a first layer of diamond growth inhibitor over a first area of the growth surface (see steps 1-4 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach forming a Mo/Pd mask over a first area on the surface of the diamond substrate);
growing diamond on the growth surface using chemical vapor deposition, wherein growing the diamond includes growing a lateral overgrowth region over the first layer of diamond growth inhibitor (see step 5 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at p. 3 which teach growing a diamond layer by epitaxial lateral overgrowth using chemical vapor deposition (CVD)),
positioning a second layer of diamond growth inhibitor over a second area of the growth surface that is at least partially offset from the first area, after growing the lateral overgrowth region (see steps 7-8 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach forming a second Mo/Pd mask over a second area that is offset from the first area).
Li does not teach that the first area of the growth surface is an unetched portion of the growth surface or that the second layer of diamond growth inhibitor is at a height that is greater than or equal to a top surface of the lateral overgrowth region. However, in Figs. 1-4 and col. 3, l. 56 to col. 10, l. 35 Ikeda teaches an analogous method of reducing the density of threading dislocations (M) that propagate vertically from the substrate (1) during CVD growth by performing lateral epitaxial overgrowth through a plurality of offset masked layers (4a) and (4b). In Figs. 2 & 4a-c, col. 3, l. 56 to col. 5, l. 14, and col. 8, l. 34 to col. 9, l. 38 Ikeda specifically teaches that this is achieved by using a growth inhibitor such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3) to form a first mask layer (4a) comprised of strip-like masked areas (4d) which are separated by open areas (4c). The first mask layer (4a) is directly formed on an underling layer (3) and is followed by the epitaxial lateral overgrowth of a first epitaxial layer (5a). A second mask layer (4b) is then formed directly on top of the first epitaxial layer (5a) such that the openings (4c) therein are offset from the openings (4c) in the first mask layer (4b). This is then followed by the growth of a second epitaxial layer (5b) by epitaxial lateral overgrowth through the openings (4c). In this manner it is possible to greatly reduce the number of threading dislocations (M) that propagate vertically from the substrate (1). In col. 11, ll. 44-49 Ikeda specifically teaches that the first (4a) and second (4b) mask layer are formed using a material which inhibits growth of epitaxial layers (5a) and (5b) in the vertical direction. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Ikeda and would recognize that by utilizing a suitable growth inhibitor such as Al2O3, the masked regions utilized in each epitaxial growth step in Li may be formed directly onto a top of the underlying growth surface without the use of the Al pattern formation and ICP etching step with the motivation for doing so being to simplify and streamline the diamond epitaxial growth process such that a higher quality diamond layer may be produced in a shorter period of time and at reduced cost. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Li does not explicitly teach repeating the steps of positioning a subsequent layer of diamond growth inhibitor over an offset area of the growth surface and growing diamond on the growth surface using chemical vapor deposition until threading defect density is reduced by at least 50% relative to the initial substrate in a reduced defect area. However, in at least Figs. 4-5, associated descriptive text at pp. 4-5, and the Conclusion section at p. 6 Li teaches that each ELO step produced a successively lower etch pit density in the lateral overgrowth area. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Li and would be motivated to repeat the first and second ELO steps in Fig. 1 until substantially all of the defects are removed from the surface of the epitaxial diamond layer such that there is a greater than 50% reduction in the threading defect density in order to produce a higher quality crystalline diamond layer for the production of electronic devices thereupon. Alternatively, see infra regarding the reliance on Naamoun to teach the use of a third layer of growth inhibitor.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches growing diamond on the growth surface using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the grown diamond includes a second lateral overgrowth region over the second layer of diamond growth inhibitor (see steps 7-8 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach that a second layer of laterally overgrown diamond is formed over the second mask).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches that the first layer of diamond growth inhibitor and the second layer of diamond growth inhibitor are formed from the same material (see Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach that the first and second masks are both formed from the same material; alternatively, see col. 4, ll. 27-42 which teach that the first (4a) and second (4b) mask layers are both formed from a growth inhibitor such as Al2O3).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches that the lateral overgrowth region and the second lateral overgrowth region are on different layers (see Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach that the first and second laterally overgrown diamond layers are on different layers).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not explicitly teach repeating the steps of: positioning a layer of diamond growth inhibitor over an area of the growth surface; and growing diamond on the growth surface using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the grown diamond includes an additional overgrowth region over the diamond growth inhibitor until the threading defect density relative to the initial substrate is reduced by at least 80% relative to the initial substrate. However, as noted infra with respect to the rejection of claim 7, in at least Figs. 4-5, associated descriptive text at pp. 4-5, and the Conclusion section at p. 6 Li teaches that each ELO step produced a successively lower etch pit density in the lateral overgrowth area. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Li and would be motivated to repeat the first and second ELO steps in Fig. 1 until substantially all of the defects are removed from the surface of the epitaxial diamond layer in order to produce a higher quality crystalline diamond layer for the production of electronic devices thereupon. Alternatively, see infra regarding the reliance on Naamoun to teach the use of a third layer of growth inhibitor. Moreover, since the combination of Li and Ikeda teach each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely a growth surface where 80 or more is defect free. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. 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. Therefore, an 80% reduction in the threading defect density, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches that the substrate is a single-crystal diamond substrate (see the Results and Discussion section at p. 2 and the Materials and Methods section at p. 6 which teach the use of a HPHT diamond substrate which necessarily is substantially a single crystal diamond substrate).
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches that the grown diamond is single crystal (see Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach that epitaxial growth produces a layer comprised of a single crystal of diamond).
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches that amorphous carbon deposits over one or more of the diamond growth inhibitor layers (see specifically the last full paragraph on p. 3 and the first full paragraph on p. 5 which teaches that amorphous carbon formed over the mask is completely covered by the growth of diamond).
Claims 3, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ikeda and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0148005 to Noguchi, et al. (“Noguchi”).
Regarding claim 3, Li and Ikeda do not teach that the reduced defect area has a maximum dimension of at least 2 inches. However, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0098]-[0111] Noguchi teaches an analogous method of depositing high quality single crystal diamond films onto non-diamond substrates such as Si(111) or MgO(111) by CVD. In ¶[0105] and ¶[0107] Noguchi specifically teaches that the use of a Si(111) or MgO(111) substrate permits the growth of epitaxial diamond layers with a diameter of 4 inches or more. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a Si(111) or MgO(111) substrate having a diameter of 4 inches or more for the heteroepitaxial growth of high quality diamond layers using the method of Li in order to produce a larger single crystal diamond layer to facilitate the production of a larger number of electronic and/or optoelectronic devices per wafer.
Regarding claim 10, Li and Ikeda do not teach growing a large-area high-quality grown diamond region, wherein the large-area has a minimum dimension of at least 5”. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 3, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0098]-[0111] Noguchi teaches an analogous method of depositing high quality single crystal diamond films onto non-diamond substrates such as Si(111) or MgO(111) by CVD. In ¶[0105] and ¶[0107] Noguchi specifically teaches that the use of a Si(111) or MgO(111) substrate permits the growth of epitaxial diamond layers with a diameter of 4 inches or more. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a Si(111) or MgO(111) substrate having a diameter of greater than 4 inches, such as at least 5 inches for the heteroepitaxial growth of high quality diamond layers using the method of Li in order to produce a larger single crystal diamond layer to facilitate the production of a larger number of electronic and/or optoelectronic devices per wafer.
Regarding claim 13, Li does not teach that the growing diamond is heteroepitaxial. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 3, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0098]-[0111] Noguchi teaches an analogous method of depositing high quality single crystal diamond films onto non-diamond substrates such as Si(111) or MgO(111) by CVD. In ¶[0105] and ¶[0107] Noguchi specifically teaches that the use of a Si(111) or MgO(111) substrate permits the growth of epitaxial diamond layers with a diameter of 4 inches or more. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a Si(111) or MgO(111) substrate having a diameter of 4 inches or more for the heteroepitaxial growth of high quality diamond layers using the method of Li in order to produce a larger single crystal diamond layer to facilitate the production of a larger number of electronic and/or optoelectronic devices per wafer.
Regarding claim 14, Li does not teach the substrate is formed from a non- diamond material. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 3, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0098]-[0111] Noguchi teaches an analogous method of depositing high quality single crystal diamond films onto non-diamond substrates such as Si(111) or MgO(111) by CVD. In ¶[0105] and ¶[0107] Noguchi specifically teaches that the use of a Si(111) or MgO(111) substrate permits the growth of epitaxial diamond layers with a diameter of 4 inches or more. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a non-diamond substrate such as Si(111) or MgO(111) having a diameter of 4 inches or more for the heteroepitaxial growth of high quality diamond layers using the method of Li in order to produce a larger single crystal diamond layer to facilitate the production of a larger number of electronic and/or optoelectronic devices per wafer.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ikeda and further in view of a publication to M. Naamoun, et al. entitled “Reduction of dislocation densities in single crystal CVD diamond by using self-assembled metallic masks,” Diamond & Related Materials, Vol. 58, pp. 62-68 (2015) (“Naamoun”).
Regarding claim 7, Li and Ikeda do not explicitly teach positioning a third diamond growth inhibitor over a third area of the growth surface and growing diamond on the growth surface using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the grown diamond includes a third lateral overgrowth region over the diamond growth inhibitor. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 2, in at least Figs. 4-5, associated descriptive text at pp. 4-5, and the Conclusion section at p. 6 Li teaches that each ELO step produced a successively lower etch pit density in the lateral overgrowth area. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Li and would be motivated to repeat the first and second ELO steps in Fig. 1 such that a third diamond growth inhibitor is formed over a third area and ELO of diamond is repeated such that there is a further reduction in the defect density in order to produce a higher quality crystalline diamond layer for the production of electronic devices thereupon.
Li does not explicitly teach that the third diamond growth inhibitor is at least partially offset from the first area and the second area. However, in Figs. 2 & 6-7 as well as Sections 2 and 3.3-3.4 Naamoun teaches an analogous method of reducing the dislocation density in CVD-grown diamond by repeatedly forming a masked layer comprised of metallic nanoparticles and performing ELO of diamond over the metallic nanoparticles. As shown specifically in Fig. 6 the location of the metallic nanoparticles is offset in each successive layer and this leads to a continuous reduction in the defect density with each successive ELO diamond layer as evidenced by the reduced etch pit density in Fig. 7(c). Moreover, since it is the ELO diamond region rather than the unmasked region that exhibits a reduced defect density a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to offset each successive layer such that they do not overlap with each other in order to maximize the reduction in defect density that occurs during ELO diamond growth.
Regarding claim 8, Li and Ikeda do not teach that the first area of the growth surface, the second area of the growth surface, and the third area of the growth surface do not overlap. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 7, in Figs. 2 & 6-7as well as Sections 2 and 3.3-3.4 Naamoun teaches an analogous method of reducing the dislocation density in CVD-grown diamond by repeatedly forming a masked layer comprised of metallic nanoparticles and performing ELO of diamond over the metallic nanoparticles. As shown specifically in Fig. 6 the location of substantially all, if not the majority of the metallic nanoparticles is offset in each successive layer and this leads to a continuous reduction in the defect density with each successive ELO diamond layer as evidenced by the reduced etch pit density in Fig. 7(c). Moreover, since it is the ELO diamond region rather than the unmasked region that exhibits a reduced defect density a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to offset each successive layer such that they do not overlap with each other in order to maximize the reduction in defect density that occurs during ELO diamond growth.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ikeda and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,443,032 to Vichr, et al. (“Vichr”).
Regarding claim 11, Li and Ikeda do not teach removing the large-area high-quality grown diamond region from the remainder of the grown diamond. However, in Figs. 1-7 and col. 4, l. 47 to col. 6, l. 43 Vichr teaches an analogous method of growing a high quality epitaxial diamond layer on a substrate by CVD. In col. 5, ll. 11-35 Vichr specifically teaches that the thus-grown diamond layer (20) may be separated from the seed crystal by cleaving, thermal shock, etching, cutting, or the like in order to produce a freestanding diamond wafer. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Vichr and would be motivated to separate the high quality diamond layer having a reduced defect density produced in the method of Li from the underlying substrate in order to produce a freestanding wafer for use in the production of electronic and/or optoelectronic devices thereupon.
Regarding claim 17, Li does not teach one or more of the diamond growth inhibitor layers is formed from gold. However, in Figs. 1-7 and col. 4, l. 47 to col. 6, l. 43 Vichr teaches an analogous method of growing a high quality epitaxial diamond layer on a substrate by CVD growth through a masked layer (2). In col. 4, ll. 50-59 Vichr specifically teaches that the masking layer (2) may be formed a variety of materials including gold. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Vichr and would recognize that gold may be used as the mask in the method of Li and Ikeda since this would involve nothing more than the use of a known equivalent for the same purpose. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute known equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ikeda and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0127566 to Tokuda, et al. (“Tokuda”).
Regarding claim 18, Li does not teach the diamond growth inhibitor is formed from aluminum oxide. However, in col. 4, ll. 27-42 Ikeda teaches that the first (4a) and second (4b) mask layers may both be formed from a growth inhibitor such as Al2O3 with col. 11, ll. 44-49 of Ikeda specifically teaching that the first (4a) and second (4b) mask layer are formed using a material which inhibits growth of epitaxial layers (5a) and (5b) in the vertical direction. Moreover, in Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0026]-[0034] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Tokuda teaches an analogous method of growing an epitaxial diamond thin film which includes the formation of one or more patterns on the surface by one or more photolithographic process(es). In ¶[0027] Tokuda specifically teaches that the mask may be made of a material such as gold or platinum or a metal oxide such as alumina (i.e., Al2O3). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Ikeda and Tokuda and would recognize that aluminum oxide may be used in place of the Mo/Pd mask in the method of Li since this would involve nothing more than the use of a known equivalent for the same purpose. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute known equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ikeda and further in view of Vichr and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0095373 to Ballantine, et al. (“Ballantine”).
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches that the method comprises
etching the growth surface to form etched regions, the diamond growth inhibitor functioning as a mask preventing or reducing the formation of etched regions beneath the diamond growth inhibitor (see steps 4 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach that the substrate surface is etched using an HCl solution after formation of the Mo/Pd mask, the latter of which prevents the formation of etched regions underneath the masked areas);
depositing a first diamond portion using chemical vapor deposition (see step 5 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach growing a diamond layer by epitaxial lateral overgrowth (ELO) using chemical vapor deposition (CVD));
positioning a subsequent diamond growth inhibitor layer over a second area of the growth surface; etching the growth surface to form second etched regions, the second layer of diamond growth inhibitor functioning as a mask preventing or reducing the formation of the second etched regions beneath the diamond growth inhibitor (see step 7 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach that the process in steps 1-4 is repeated to form a second mask which is offset from the first mask which is again followed by etching the surface in an HCl solution);
depositing a second diamond portion using chemical vapor deposition (see step 8 in Fig. 1 and the Results and Discussion section at pp. 2-3 which teach depositing a second diamond layer by ELO using CVD).
Li and Ikeda do not teach the step of removing the diamond growth inhibitor. However, in Figs. 1-7 and col. 4, l. 47 to col. 6, l. 43 Vichr teaches an analogous method of growing a high quality epitaxial diamond layer on a substrate by CVD lateral epitaxial growth through a masked layer (2). As shown in Fig. 1, this is achieved by forming a patterned mask (2) having a plurality of openings (3) directly onto the substrate (1). As shown in Figs. 3 & 3a the epitaxial diamond crystal (14) grows vertically through the holes (3) and then laterally over the masked region (2) until adjacent crystalline regions coalesce into a higher quality single crystal diamond layer (20). After growth of a single crystal diamond layer the mask (2) is removed by immersion in an etching bath such that the single crystal diamond layer (20) may be readily separated from the underlying substrate (1). In col. 5, ll. 11-35 Vichr specifically teaches that the thus-grown diamond layer (20) may be separated from the seed crystal by cleaving, thermal shock, etching, cutting, or the like in order to produce a freestanding diamond wafer. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Vichr and would be motivated to remove the masked regions by etching in order to separate the high quality diamond layer having a reduced defect density from the underlying substrate for the production of a freestanding wafer for use in the production of electronic and/or optoelectronic devices thereupon.
Li, Ikeda, and Vichr do not teach that the first and second diamond portions are doped and that the second doped diamond portion has a different doping concentration from the first doped diamond portion. However, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0066]-[0095] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Ballantine teaches an analogous system and method for the formation of a plurality of doped diamond layers (150) by CVD which together form a color gradient due to different types and concentrations of dopants that may be desirable for the production of jewelry. In at least ¶¶[0093]-[0094] Ballantine specifically teaches that different layers (148) of the plurality of layers (150) have a different concentration of a dopant such as nitrogen in order to produce the desired color and/or to relieve stress in the resulting gem (151). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Ballantine and would be motivated to dope the first and second diamond portions with a different doping concentration in order to, for example, produce a color gradient for a gemstone and/or to relieve stress and thereby produce a higher quality single crystal diamond layer.
Regarding claim 20, Li, Ikeda, and Vichr do not teach at least one doped diamond portion includes boron, nitrogen, silicon, and/or phosphorous as dopants. However, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0066]-[0095] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Ballantine teaches an analogous system and method for the formation of a plurality of doped diamond layers (150) by CVD which together form a color gradient due to different types and concentrations of dopants that may be desirable for the production of jewelry. In at least ¶¶[0093]-[0094] Ballantine specifically teaches that different layers (148) of the plurality of layers (150) have a different concentration of a dopant such as nitrogen in order to produce the desired color and/or to relieve stress in the resulting gem (151). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Ballantine and would be motivated to dope the first and second diamond portions with different concentrations of a dopant such as nitrogen in order to, for example, produce a color gradient for a gemstone and/or to relieve stress and thereby produce a higher quality single crystal diamond layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed January 27, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. U.S. Patent No. 6,111,277 to Masao Ikeda has been introduced in place of U.S. Patent No. 5,443,032 to Vichr, et al. to more clearly teach the recited limitations.
Applicants’ comments that Li does not teach positioning the diamond growth inhibitor (DGI) over an unetched portion of the growth surface are acknowledged. See applicants’ 1/27/2026 reply, pp. 6-7. However, this deficiency in Li has already been acknowledged by the Examiner and Ikeda has been introduced in this Office Action to teach this aspect of the claims.
Applicants subsequently argue that Li and Vichr do not teach or suggest that the second DGI is positioned at or above the height of the lateral overgrowth region. Id. at pp. 7-8. While this argument is found unpersuasive, in an attempt to further advance prosecution the Examiner has introduced Ikeda in place of Vichr to more clearly teach the use of a second DGI which is at or above the height of the lateral overgrowth region.
Applicants then argue that Vichr’s mask does not function as a diamond growth inhibitor and simply placing the Mo or Pd mask utilized in Li onto a planar surface would not inhibit diamond growth thereupon because it eliminates the very mechanism Li depends on to generate lateral overgrowth. Id. at pp. 8-10. Applicants argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. However, in attempting to further advance prosecution the Examiner has introduced Ikeda to more clearly teach this limitation. In particular, in col. 11, ll. 44-49 Ikeda specifically teaches the use of a first (4a) and second (4b) mask layer which is formed using a material which inhibits growth of epitaxial layers (5a) and (5b) in the vertical direction with col. 4, ll. 27-31 specifically teaching the use of Al2O3 as a growth inhibitor. Thus, Ikeda specifically teaches the use of a known DGI such as Al2O3 as a mask layer that is placed directly on the underlying growth surface such that it is at a height greater than or equal to a top surface of the lateral overgrowth region.
Applicants argue that the materials utilized for the mask in Vichr are not diamond growth inhibitors because diamond does nucleate on the mask surface and, consequently, Vichr cannot supply Li’s missing inhibitor function. Id. at pp. 10-11. This argument is found unpersuasive and is moot in view of the introduction of Ikeda to specifically teach the use of a mask formed from a growth inhibitor. With respect to the teachings of Vichr it is noted that col. 4, ll. 50-59 Vichr specifically teaches the use of a material such as gold as the masking layer which is disclosed throughout the instant application as a known DGI. Moreover, there actually is some deposition that occurs even when using gold as a DGI as the inhibitor does not strictly prevent nucleation and growth altogether, it only inhibits or slows it down. This is specifically recited in claim 16 of the instant application which states that amorphous carbon is deposited over the DGI layers.
Applicants then argue that the proposed modification to Li would not work and is not supported by reasoned motivation. Id. at pp. 11. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive and is moot in view of the reliance on Ikeda in place of Vichr. As noted supra, Vichr teaches the use of gold which is a known DGI. Moreover, in col. 11, ll. 44-49 Ikeda specifically teaches the use of a growth inhibitor as the material for masks (4a) and (4b) and specifically teaches the use of another known diamond growth inhibitor in the form of Al2O3. Thus, removing the trenches utilized in the method of Li through the use of a known DGI such as gold or Al2O3 would not destroy the operation of Li’s process since the use of a mask comprised of gold or Al2O3 would achieve the same result, namely that of inhibiting diamond growth on the surface of the mask.
Applicants further argue that Vichr addresses a different problem and uses a fundamentally different mechanism. Id. at p. 12. This argument is not persuasive and is moot in view of the reliance on Ikeda to teach the use of mask layers (4a) and (4b) formed directly on the underlying epitaxial layer. In Ikea the mask layers (4a) and (4b) function to reduce the density of threading dislocations (M).
Applicants then contend that the Examiner’s reliance on general wafer-scale lithography does not address the actual technical issues raised by applicants. Id. It is unclear as to which rejected claim or which reference applicants are specifically arguing against with this argument. It is assumed applicants are generally referring to the reliance on Noguchi to teach the use of heteroepitaxial substrates with a diameter of 4 inches or more. This argument is not found persuasive since, for one, it appears to be based on arguments of counsel rather than factually supported objective evidence. There is no reason that the grooves shown in Fig. 1 of Li could not be produces across an entire 200 mm or 300 mm wafer such as what is routinely used in the semiconductor industry. In fact, even more complex lithography, film deposition, and etching operations are performed across the entirety of 200- and 300-mm wafers in order to fabricate electronic and/or optoelectronic devices thereupon. Noguchi is merely being relied upon to teach that high quality diamond layers may be heteroepitaxially grown on non-diamond substrates such as Si(111) or MgO(111) which have a diameter of 4 inches or more. Noguchi itself is not being relied upon to teach the specific processes utilized therein to obtain diamond crystals with dense NVCs. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Noguchi and would be motivated to use these larger wafers as the substrate in the method of Li in order to scale up the diamond epitaxial growth process such that a larger epitaxial diamond layer with a reduced defect area may be produced.
Finally, applicants argue that the assertion that the combination of references produces predictable results is unsupported. Id. at pp. 12-13. Applicants’ argument is noted, but remains unpersuasive. The Examiner has clearly identified deficiencies in Li, has explained how Ikeda is analogous art, has provided a detailed assessment of how an ordinary artisan would utilize the teachings of Ikeda to remedy deficiencies in Li, and has provided the requisite motivation for doing so in order to properly establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714