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 election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “a defect, in the first main surface, observed using molten potassium hydroxide is a second defect” in lines 8-9. However, unlike a mirror electron microscope recited in claim 1, molten potassium hydroxide is not a means of observing a defect in a silicon carbide substrate and therefore creates a lack of clarity as to how the second defect is being observed in order to determine the claimed area density of the second defect. Molten potassium hydroxide can be used as an etching solution to create additional defects and/or remove other existing defects, but is not itself a means of observing defects.
Further, claim 1 recites “the first defect consists of a first blind scratch, a first basal plane dislocation spaced apart from the first blind scratch, a second basal plane dislocation in contact with the first blind scratch, and a second blind scratch spaced apart from each of the first basal plane dislocation and the second basal plane dislocation, and the second defect consists of the first basal plane dislocation and the second basal plane dislocation” in the last two limitations. However, these limitations require distinct first and second defects to include the same structural elements, i.e. the first and second basal plane dislocations. MPEP 2173.05(o) notes that double inclusion can create indefiniteness where a claim (particularly a device/apparatus claim) can reasonably be read to require the same physical element twice in a way that creates confusion or inconsistency (see Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)). In this case, defining a first defect as four different defects (i.e. first and second basal plane dislocations and first and second blind scratches) and a second defect as two of those four defects (i.e. first and second basal plane dislocations) creates a lack of clarity as to which physical defect structures belong to the first or second defect (which themselves are meant to be physical defect structures).
Further, Applicant is directed to MPEP 2113 product by process in that the determination of patentability is only related to the final product. Therefore, the claim should be related to the substrate having defects and the consistency/structure of the defects. Stating ‘when a defect’ suggests that a defect ‘could also not be present’? This conditional language should be deleted to make clear what is present and part of the claim language. Also, active language such as observed and irradiating is only related to patentability as to the final product that would be present.
Claims 2-6 include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons presented above.
The claim analysis that follows is presented as the claim set is best understood given the lack of clarity therein and may change depending upon any amendments made in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, as best understood, appear to be allowable subject matter. Specifically, claim 1, as best understood and in its current form, recites “a defect (noting that the defect needs to be required in the final claim), in the first main surface, observed using a mirror electron microscope while irradiating the first main surface with an ultraviolet ray is a first defect and a defect, in the first main surface, observed using molten potassium hydroxide is a second defect, a value obtained by dividing an area density of the first defect by an area density of the second defect is more than 0.9 and less than 1.2, the first defect consists of a first blind scratch, a first basal plane dislocation spaced apart from the first blind scratch, a second basal plane dislocation in contact with the first blind scratch, and a second blind scratch spaced apart from each of the first basal plane dislocation and the second basal plane dislocation, and the second defect consists of the first basal plane dislocation and the second basal plane dislocation” which collectively is not disclosed in the prior art uncovered.
For instance, Applicant’s own prior art US 2019/0242014 A1 to Kanbara et al. (hereinafter “Kanbara”) and US 2020/0362470 A1 to Hori et al. (hereinafter “Hori”) each disclose use of KOH as an intermediate step in defect density measurements and polishing to control surface defects as well as detection of basal plane dislocations and quantitative defect density ratios for quality control in epi substrates. However, the defects disclosed focus on annular and threading dislocations rather than blind scratches paired with dislocations and the specific ratio of the first and second defects as defined in claim 1. Further, the observation techniques disclosed involve photoluminescence rather than electron microscopy with UV radiation.
Moreover, US 2023/0053509 A1 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”) discloses use of molten KOH etching for later observation of basal plane dislocation defects and associated density measurements. US 2022/0278206 A1 to Watanabe et al. (hereinafter “Watanabe”) discloses treatment of basal plane dislocations and threaded screw dislocations, use of KOH etching to later perform measurement of defects and associated defect density quantification with targets for density ratios to maintain surface integrity for substrate quality control. However, like Kanbara and Hori, neither of Liu nor Watanabe disclose the specifically-defined first and second defects nor the means of measuring the first defect with the associated density ratio range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN DEGRASSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30a until 5:00p.
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, JEFF NATALINI can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/IAN DEGRASSE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights