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.
Claim 9 is 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 claim is indefinite for failing to particularly claim the invention. The claim recites creating graphite and an interface in the substrate. However, it is unclear as to the means to create the graphite. The claims which claim 9 depends do not recite or require any form of carbon to be present in the wafer. It is therefore unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to meets and bounds of the claims and the inclusion of graphite.
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 to 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Nishibayashi et al (2017/0233889).
The Nishibayashi et al reference teaches a method of forming a wafer which can consist of diamond, note entire reference. The reference numbers are to figure 1. The reference teaches a method comprising creating a damaged layer (2) in a seed wafer (1) at a depth from a seed wafer upper surface. Then forming a crystalline structure (3) on the seed wafer upper surface; and applying light (4) from a laser to the damaged layer (2) to separate the formed crystalline structure (3) from the seed wafer. This forms a wafer (3+1a). Nishibayashi et al also teaches, example 1 para [0076]-[0121]) a method of forming a diamond wafer (3+1a), the method comprising creating a damaged layer (2) in a seed wafer (1) at a depth from a seed wafer upper surface, wherein the seed wafer comprises a diamond crystalline structure. Then employing a laser to the damage area and forming a new wafer by separation as the damage area.
With regards to claim 2, the Nishibayashi et al reference teaches using ion implantation to create the damage layer, note examples.
With regards to claim 3, the Nishibayashi et al reference teaches using ion implantation using helium to create the damage layer, note para 0091.
With regards to claim 4, the Nishibayashi et al reference teaches using ion implantation using hydrogen atoms to create the damage layer, note example.
With regards to claim 5, the Nishibayashi et al reference teaches using ion implantation using carbon to create the damage layer, note para 0091.
With regards to claim 6, the Nishibayashi et al reference teaches epitaxial growth of the layer note examples.
With regards to claim 7, the Nishibayashi et al reference teaches chemical vapor deposition of the layer note examples.
With regards to claim 14, the Nishibayashi et al reference teaches using a diamond wafer and growing diamonds, note entire reference.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibayashi et al (2017/0233889).
The Nishibayashi et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the growth temperature being high enough to anneal. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine though routine experimentation the optimum, operable growth temperature range in the Nishibayashi et al reference in order to remove damage in the wafer so as to have a more uniform growth front creating a better diamond layer.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 to 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibayashi et al (2017/0233889).
The Nishibayashi et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the growth temperature being high enough to graphitize the damage layer. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine though routine experimentation the optimum, operable growth temperature range in the Nishibayashi et al reference to form graphite from the damage layer in order to aid in the removal of the grown layer.
Claim(s) 10 to 12 and 18 to 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibayashi et al (2017/0233889).
The Nishibayashi et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the removal of remnants of the damage layer from the final wafer by polishing or etching. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine though routine experimentation the optimum, operable means to cleanup a final wafer in the Nishibayashi et al reference in order to prepare the wafer for further processing. Noting that both polishing and etching method to cleanup and remove impurities from a wafer are well known in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibayashi et al (2017/0233889).
The Nishibayashi et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the reuse of the seed wafer. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine though routine experimentation the optimum, operable to reuse the seed wafer in the Nishibayashi et al reference in order to grow more diamond wafers with similar lattices and orientations.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in diamond manufacture.
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