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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al., US 2005/0104162.
Xu et al. shows the invention as claimed including a group III element nitride semiconductor substrate, comprising:
A first and second surface (see upper and lower surface of wafer in figs. 10A-10B), wherein the Group-III element nitride semiconductor substrate has a c-plane tilted with respect to a direction of the first surface (see paragraphs 0046 and 0051 and upper surface of wafer in figs. 10A-10B), and wherein a direction of the tilt falls between a <1-100> direction and a <11-20> direction (see paragraph 0074 and 0052). Note that the direction <1-100> includes the direction <10-10> as discussed in paragraph 0052.
Concerning dependent claims 2-4, note that Xu et al. discloses that the direction of the tilt falls within a range of plus or minus fifteen degrees, plus or minus twelve and a half degrees, or plus or minus seven and a half degrees (see, for example, paragraph 0015).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 2005/0104162 in view of Yamasaki, US 2002/0105986.
Xu et al. is applied as above with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) but does not expressly disclose wherein the Group-III element nitride semiconductor substrate has an orientation flat parallel to a <11-20> direction. However, Yamasaki discloses a gallium nitride-based semiconductor substrate that has an orientation flat parallel to a <11-20> direction (see paragraph 0088). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Xu et al. so as to perform the orientation flat as suggested by Yamasaki because the <11-20> is shown to be a suitable direction to be used for an orientation flat in a gallium nitride substrate.
Regarding dependent claims 8-9, note that in Xu et al. the direction of the tilt falls within the claimed range (see, for example, paragraph 0015).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 2005/0104162.
Xu et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the specific area of the region occupied by the tilt or the specific tilt angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum tilt angle and specific area occupied by the tilt based upon a variety of factors and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the combination of limitations of: wherein the tilt has an angle of from 0.2° to 0.8°, wherein the Group-III element nitride semiconductor substrate has a diameter of 75 mm or more, and has a thickness of 300 pm to 1,000 pm, and wherein the surface roughness (Ra) of at least one of the first surface and the second surface measured in a 90 pm square with an AFM is 1.0 nm or less, as required by independent claim 10. Note that the Xu et al. reference used in the above rejections fails to disclose the combination of these limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
November 16, 2025