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 .
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, 4, 5, 8, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko (WO 2012/053081 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko et al discloses A method for producing a silicon carbide substrate(3), wherein the method comprises: providing the silicon carbide substrate(3) and irradiating the silicon carbide substrate (3)with particles out of a group comprising electrons(pp. 5 Embodiment 1), wherein an energy of the particles for irradiation is selected such that a resistivity (̬ρ) is increased by the irradiation at least in a part(6) of the silicon carbide substrate(3) and the silicon carbide substrate(3) is semiconducting after irradiation(pp. 6 para 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko et al discloses wherein before irradiating
the silicon carbide substrate(3), the silicon carbide substrate(3) is a conducting silicon
carbide substrate with a resistivity of equal or lower than 10-2 Ω cm(fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the whole silicon carbide substrate (3)has an n-type conductivity before and after irradiation(fig. 5, pp 13 para 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kaneko et al discloses wherein providing the silicon carbide substrate (3)as a silicon carbide wafer having a first main side and a second main side, wherein during irradiating the silicon carbide substrate(3), the particles enter the first main side of the silicon carbide wafer(fig. 1/fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kaneko et al discloses wherein irradiating with
electrons as the particles with a dose between 0.5.10¹⁰ cm⁻² and 2.10¹⁹ cm⁻²(pp. 9 para 4).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodama (US Pub no. 2019/0348289 A1).
Regarding claim 1 ,Kodama et al discloses A method for producing a silicon carbide substrate(10) [0060], wherein the method comprises: providing the silicon carbide substrate(10) and irradiating the silicon carbide substrate(10) with particles out of a group comprising helium atoms[0072] wherein an energy of the particles for irradiation is selected such that a resistivity (p) is increased by the irradiation at least in a part of the silicon carbide substrate(10) and the silicon carbide substrate(10) is semiconducting after irradiation[0060][0072].
Claim(s) 1, 2, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao (CN112760719 A)
Regarding claim 1, Mao et al discloses A method for producing a silicon carbide substrate(wafer) (pp. 6,para 1) wherein the method comprises: providing the silicon carbide substrate(wafer-8) and irradiating the silicon carbide substrate with particles out of a group comprising electrons(pp. 6 para 1-3) wherein an energy of the particles for irradiation is selected such that a resistivity (p) is increased by the irradiation at least in a part of the silicon carbide substrate and the silicon carbide substrate is semiconducting after irradiation(pp. 6 para 1-4; pp. 10 para 2).
Regarding claim 2, Mao et al discloses wherein the resistivity (p) is increased by the irradiation in the whole silicon carbide substrate(8) (pp. 11 para 1)
Regarding claim 15, Mao et al discloses wherein the silicon carbide substrate(8) has a homogeneous net doping concentration over its volume before
and after irradiation(para 3 pp 12).
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 & 12, 13, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama (US Pub no. 2019/0348289 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kodama et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein before irradiating the silicon carbide substrate (10)the silicon carbide substrate is a conducting silicon carbide substrate with a resistivity [0060] but fails to teach of equal or lower than 10-2 Ω cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a resistivity of equal or lower than 10-2 Ω cm through routine experimentation. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 12, Kodama et al discloses wherein irradiating with hydrogen atoms as the particles having an energy in a range and/or a thickness of the silicon carbide wafer(10)is in a range [0105] but fails to teach range between 9 MeV and 11 MeV and a thickness range 315 µm to 385 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve energy in a range between 9 MeV and 11 MeV and a thickness range 315 µm to 385 µm through routine experimentation. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 13, Kodama et al discloses wherein irradiating with hydrogen atoms as the particles with a dose [0105] but fails to teach between 0.5-102 cm⁻² and 2.10¹⁰ cm⁻². It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a dose of 0.5-102 cm⁻² and 2.10¹⁰ cm⁻²through routine experimentation. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 14, Kodama et al discloses wherein irradiating with helium atoms as the particles with at least one of an energy in a range and a thickness of the silicon carbide wafer(10) in a range, and/or a dose [0072] [0060]but fails to teach an energy in a range between 13.5 MeV and 16.5 MeV; thickness between45 µm to 55 µm; and dose between 0.5.10² cm-2 and 2.10¹⁰ cm⁻². It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve energy in a range between 13.5 MeV and 16.5 MeV; thickness between45 µm to 55 µm; and dose between 0.5.10² cm-2 and 2.10¹⁰ cm⁻² through routine experimentation. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim(s) 3, 9, & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (WO 2012/053081 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kaneko et al discloses wherein the resistivity (p) is increased up to a range(pp. 4, para 3) but fails to teach between 102 Ω cm and 10⁵ Ω cm by the irradiation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a range between 102 Ω cm and 10⁵ Ω cm through routine experimentation. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 9, Kaneko et al discloses wherein irradiating with electrons as the particles with at least one of an energy (para 2 pp. 6) but fails to teach in a range between 140 keV and 180 keV. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve energy range between 140 keV and 180 keV through routine experimentation to optimize resistivity. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 10, Kaneko et al discloses wherein the particles for irradiation are electrons having an energy in a range and a thickness of the
silicon carbide wafer (3) (para 2 pp. 6) but fails to teach energy in a range between 450 keV and 550 keV and thickness range between 315 µm to 385 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve energy in a range between 450 keV and 550 keV and thickness range between 315 µm to 385 µm through routine experimentation to optimize resistivity. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (WO 2012/053081 A1) in view of Ellison (US Pub no. 2003/0079676 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kaneko et al discloses all the claim 1 but fails to teach wherein providing the silicon carbide substrate as a silicon carbide boule, and sawing the silicon carbide boule into wafers after irradiating the silicon carbide boule.
However, Ellison et al discloses wherein providing the silicon carbide substrate as a silicon carbide boule, and sawing the silicon carbide boule into wafers after irradiating the silicon carbide boule[0075]. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaneko et al in order to prepare substrates for epitaxial growth.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (WO 2012/053081 A1) in view of Ellison (US Pub no. 2003/0079676 A1) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Mao (CN112760719 A).
Regarding claim 7, Kaneko et al as modified by Ellison et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6 but fails wherein irradiating the silicon carbide boule from a lateral side of the silicon carbide boule.
However, Mao et al discloses wherein irradiating the silicon carbide boule from a lateral side of the silicon carbide boule (para 1 pp11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Kaneko et al & Ellison et al with the teachings of Mao et al to ensure each position of the wafer has been bombarded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813