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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-19 in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 06/17/2025 and 09/13/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites a “monocrystalline SiC substrate produced from a sublimation-grown SiC volume monocrystal;” this language is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974. See MPEP 2113; “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 11 additionally recites inter alia “a total screw dislocation substrate density” in (b), which is interpreted to include values greater than or equal to zero. Since any substrate must either have or not have an amount of screw dislocations, this language is not interpreted to be a structural limitation of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11-19 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.
Claim 11 recites inter alia “a total main surface being notionally divided…” which is an abstract concept and cannot be construed as a definite limitation. The term “notionally” renders the term “divided” relative in scope: one or ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of when and where the material is considered notionally divided, and when and where the material is considered uniform.
Claim 11 additionally recites inter alia “the local screw dislocation substrate segment densities of all substrate segments lying within said sub-area deviate from the total screw dislocation substrate density by at most 25%” in (c). This is indefinite in scope since a substrate can be cut into smaller pieces, which may have a uniform total screw dislocation substrate density in each piece, but the original substrate before cutting may have a non-uniform total screw dislocation substrate density. It would therefore be possible for the small pieces to meet the limitation as presently written even when the original substrate does not.
Claims 12-19 depend upon and do not rectify the issue of claim 11 and are therefore similarly rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by JPH05262599A, Atsushi et al. 1993. A machine English translation, as provided with this office action, is cited herein.
Regarding claim 11, Atsushi teaches a monocrystalline SiC substrate (substrate cut from an SiC crystal, 0026), comprising:
a total main surface being notionally divided into substrate segments each having an associated substrate segment area, with each of said substrate segments having a local screw dislocation substrate segment density which indicates a number of substrate screw dislocations present in the respective substrate segment relative to the associated substrate segment area of said substrate segment (wafer, 0033);
a total screw dislocation substrate density that is applicable to the total main surface of the SiC substrate as a whole (having no hexagonal etch pits, therefore a screw dislocation substrate density of 0 cm-2, 0033); and
a sub-area that is formed by at least 85% of the total main surface, wherein the local screw dislocation substrate segment densities of all substrate segments lying within said sub-area deviate from the total screw dislocation substrate density by at most 25% (sub-area formed by 100% of the total main surface having no hexagonal etch pits, therefore a screw dislocation substrate density of 0 cm-2, 0033).
The taught values of 100% and 0 cm-2 fall within the claimed ranges, thus anticipating them.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Atsushi teaches that no dislocations are observed (0033); this anticipates the claimed ranges of at most 20% and at most 15%, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Atsushi teaches that no dislocations are observed over the whole crystal (0033); this anticipates the claimed sub-area range of at least 90% of the total main surface.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Atsushi teaches that no dislocations are observed (0033); this anticipates the claimed ranges of at most 1000 and 500 cm-2, respectively.
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 19, Atsushi teaches that no dislocations are observed over the whole crystal (0033); thus the dislocation density of 0 cm-2 is uniform over the sub-area taught (100% of the total crystal surface). This anticipates the claimed ranges of a difference between segments in the sub-area being at most 25%, at most 20%, and at most 15%, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Letertre 2003, US 20040187766 A1, discloses a crystal grown from a monocrystalline material wherein micropipe densities are in the range of 1-10 cm-2 in the case of the crystal being SiC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights