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 .
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) 12 to 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al (Semiconductor Science and Technology) in view of Stein et al (DE 4310745).
The Hartmann et al reference teaches a method and apparatus of growing a crystal semiconductor, note entire reference. The apparatus consists of the crucible. The crucible is a vessel with a lid arrange on the vessel, note fig 3a. The crucible as configured to receive and hold a source material, fig 3a. There is a heater that is arranged such that the source material is heated to sublime or become gases, note page 3. There is a seed crystal that is placed between the source and the lid, note 3b. Further the seed is not in contact with either the bottom or the lid. The source material is placed in the vessel and heated to sublimation temperatures. Then the gas flows to the seed and deposits to grow a single crystal. The sole difference between the instant claims and the prior art is the seed holder. However, the Stein et al reference teaches using a seed holder which is not in contact with the bottom or lid of the crucible and holds the seed so that it faces the lid, note fig 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Hartmann et al reference by the teachings of the Stein et al reference to use a seed holder in order to stabilize the seed growing a more uniform layer. The Stein et al, and Zwieback et al reference further differ from the instant claim in the properties of the crystal. The references do teach either aluminum nitride or silicon carbide single crystals. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have the crystal with low dislocations and a Burgens vector along the (0001) in order to increase the use of the crystal.
With regards to claims 13, 14, 18 and 19, the references do teach the use of the grown crystal in further semiconductor device formation steps including mechanical or chemical steps.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 to 11 are allowable over the prior art of record in view of the amendment and arguments.
Applicants’ argument concerning inherency in the rejection of claims 12 to 19 is noted. However, the references do teach a similar process to that which is claimed which would create a similar result. It is noted that applicants have not shown any reasoning or evidence that this is not the case. There is no showing of differences in the Burgers vectors, Further, the references do teach a less or defect free final product.
Applicants’ argument concerning Official Notice has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The Hartmann reference in particular does teach that the seed and process do materially affect the final product defect amounts. The reference does teach this is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Hartman et al reference further teaches growing as low as possible defect. The examiner has relied on known teachings in the art, and not just taken Official Notice to reject the product claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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, 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
