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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 to 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The claims recite the term “ in particular” which does not positively recite the meets and bounds on the claims. It is unclear as to the limits of the claims to the two recited molecules or are more to be included which are not listed. Clarification is required.
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) 1,6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stein et al (DE 4310745).
The Stein 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 1, no 10. The crucible as configured to receive and hold a source material, fig 1, no 28. There is a heater that is arranged such that the source material is heated to sublime or become gases, note translation page 3. There is a holding plate, fig 1, no 6 which holds a seed crystal so that the crystal faces the lid and the gas source material deposits on the seed. Further, the holding plate is set at a distance from the crucible bottom and is located between the bottom and 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.
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE 4310745) in view of Ueta et al (20160040317).
The Stein et al reference is 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 Stein et al (DE 4310745) in view of Ueta et al (20160040317) and Zwieback et al (2010/0061914).
The 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 Stein et al (DE 4310745) in view of 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 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 Stein et al (DE 4310745) in view of 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 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 Stein et al (DE 4310745) in view of 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 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 Stein et al (DE 4310745) in view of 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 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 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (DE 4310745) in view of 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 and 14, 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.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art.
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