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) 1,6 and 7 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.
With respect to claim 7, the Stein et al reference teaches a seed temperature 50 to 100k less than the source temperature, translation page 7.
Claim(s) 2 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) and Ueta et al (20160040317).
The Stein et al and Hartmann et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the seed holder being movable. However, the Ueda et al reference teaches that the seed holder in a sublimation apparatus can be removed before and after growth, note para 0027. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Stein et al apparatus by the teachings of the Ueta et al reference to have a removable seed holder in order to easily remove the crystal without damage.
Claim(s) 4 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) , Ueta et al (20160040317) and Zwieback et al (2010/0061914).
The Hartmann et al, Stein et al and Ueta et al reference are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the mold for the growing crystal However, the Zwieback et al reference teaches that the seed holder is place such that there is a mold surround it to grow a specific shape crystal , note fig 6 no 42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Stein et al apparatus by the teachings of the Zwieback et al reference to have a mold around the seed holder in order to grow the desired shaped crystal for further use in devices.
Claim(s) 5 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) , Ueta et al (20160040317) and Zwieback et al (2010/0061914).
The Hartmann et al, Stein et al, Zwieback et al and Ueta et al reference are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the mold on the pedestal arrangement. 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 mold arranges with the seed crystal and seed holder on a pedestal facing the lid in order to increase the rate of crystal growth.
Claim(s) 7 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) , Ueta et al (20160040317) and Zwieback et al (2010/0061914).
The Hartmann et al, Stein et al, Zwieback et al and Ueta et al reference are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the mold on the pedestal arrangement. 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 mold arranges with the seed crystal and seed holder on a pedestal facing the lid in order to increase the rate of crystal growth.
Claim(s) 8 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), f Ueta et al (20160040317) and Zwieback et al (2010/0061914).
The Hartmann et al, Stein et al, Zwieback et al and Ueta et al reference are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the growth ratio of the seed surface. 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 a set growth ratio on the surface of the seed crystal which has difference surfaced in order to grow the desired orientation.
Claim(s) 11 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), Ueta et al (20160040317) and Zwieback et al (2010/0061914).
The Hartmann et al, Stein et al, Zwieback et al and Ueta et al reference are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the pedestal thermal conductivity. 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 a low thermal conductive holding plate in order to maintain a uniform temperature of the seed.
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), Ueta et al (20160040317) and Zwieback et al (2010/0061914).
The Stein et al, Zwieback et al and Ueta et al reference are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs 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.
Claims 3, 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims are allowable over the prior art of record as the prior art does not teach the arrangement of the holding plate and seed with regards to the source material.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1,2, 4-8 and 11-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights