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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 fails to further limit claim 5 because they disclose the same subject matter (i.e. the irradiation dose of the electron beams to be irradiated is 3x1014/cm2 or more and 1x1016/cm2 or less . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 6, 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kinoshita (US 2018/0197737) and Hwang et al. (US 2021/0050216) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2020/0194216).
Regarding claim 6, Kinoshita disclose forming the nitride semiconductor film (2, 3 and 5)[0025-0027] on the silicon single-crystal substrate (1)[0020] (Hwang et al. [0003] is evidence the silicon substrate would be a single crystal silicon substrate) (See MPEP 2131.01 II “[e]xtrinsic evidence may be used to explain … the meaning of terms and phrases used in the reference relied upon as anticipatory of the claimed subject matter. In re Baxter TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); and irradiating the silicon single-crystal substrate with electron beams [0028] with an irradiation dose of 1x1014/cm2 or more or more and 1x1016/cm2 or less [fig. 4, 0034, 1*1e16/cm2] and an irradiation energy of not less than 150keV [0028](i.e. more than 150 keV which would include 250 keV or more).
Ad arguendo Kinoshita and Hwang et al. fail to explicitly disclose an irradiation energy of 250 keV or more.
Ikeda et al disclose an electron beam with an irradiation energy of 300 keV and at that energy the electrons would penetrate the silicon [0032].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the irradiation energy to 250 keV or greater), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (using a greater electron irradiation energy would result greater the electron depth into the substrate and the greater electron irradiation energy would produce point defects and inactivate the dopant and/or carrier in the silicon).
Regarding claim 7, Kinoshita disclose the irradiation dose of the electron beams to be irradiated is 3x1014/cm2 or more and 1x1016/cm2 [0034] or less in the step of irradiating the electron beams.
Regarding claim 10, Kinoshita disclose the step of irradiating the electron beams (S4, fig. 2)[0028] is performed after the step of forming the nitride semiconductor film(S2, S3, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kinoshita disclose the step of irradiating the electron beams (S4, fig. 2)[0034] is performed after the step of forming the nitride semiconductor film (S2, S3, fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 2018/0197737) and Hwang et al. (US 2021/0050216) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2020/0194216) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of “Electron-enhanced atomic layer deposition of silicon thin films at room temperature” by Sprenger et al. and Wu (US 2016/0336413) and Jin (US 2005/0173740).
Kinoshita Hwang et al. and Ikeda et al. disclose the invention supra.
Kinoshita Hwang et al. and Ikeda et al. fail to explicitly disclose the step of irradiating the electron beams is performed before the step of forming the nitride semiconductor film.
Sprenger et al. disclose the step of irradiating the electron beam to deposit silicon by ALD (atomic layer deposition) on a silicon substrate (Films were deposited on boron-doped Si (111) substrates) (page 01A118-2).
Wu disclose the ALD deposition in an epitaxial deposition.
The combination of Kinoshita and Hwang et al. Sprenger Wu et al. would result in an epitaxial silicon deposition on the bulk silicon substrate, the epitaxial silicon single crystal layer would have a lower defect density than bulk silicon (Jin US 2005/0173740 [0045]), and would be performed before the step of forming the nitride semiconductor film.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods(using electron enhanced ALD to deposit silicon), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the epitaxial electron enhanced silicon would have a lower defect density than the bulk silicon).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 2018/0197737) and Hwang et al. (US 2021/0050216) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2020/0194216) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of “Electron-enhanced atomic layer deposition of silicon thin films at room temperature” by Sprenger et al. and Wu (US 2016/0336413) and Jin (US 2005/0173740).
Kinoshita Hwang et al. and Ikeda et al. disclose the invention supra.
Kinoshita Hwang et al. and Ikeda et al. fail to explicitly disclose the step of irradiating the electron beams is performed before the step of forming the nitride semiconductor film.
Sprenger et al. disclose the step of irradiating the electron beam to deposit silicon by ALD (atomic layer deposition) on a silicon substrate (Films were deposited on boron-doped Si (111) substrates) (page 01A118-2).
Wu disclose the ALD deposition in an epitaxial deposition.
The combination of Kinoshita and Hwang et al. Sprenger Wu et al. would result in an epitaxial silicon deposition on the bulk silicon substrate, the epitaxial silicon single crystal layer would have a lower defect density than bulk silicon (Jin US 2005/0173740 [0045]), and would be performed before the step of forming the nitride semiconductor film.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods(using electron enhanced ALD to deposit silicon), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the epitaxial electron enhanced silicon would have a lower defect density than the bulk silicon).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freed et al. (US 2020/0300618) disclose an electron beam energy of 300 keV.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights