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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-10 and 20 withdrawn as pertaining to a nonelected invention. Applicant's amendments to the claims have rendered moot the previous rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102(a)(1), and 102(a)(2); these rejections are therefore withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been set forth in this Office action.
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 (c), 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 11 additionally has been amended to recite “having square substrate segments,” which is interpreted to still include the presence of having theoretical segments defined, as shown in Figure 8, in the scope of this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable in view of Furuya et al. 2018, US 20180130872 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Furuya teaches a monocrystalline SiC substrate produced from a sublimation-grown SiC volume monocrystal (“SiC single crystal seed,” 0169) in Comparative Example 1 (0175) comprising:
a total main surface of the SiC substrate being tilted with respect to an (0001) plane of a crystal structure of the SiC substrate by an angle in a range between 0 and 8 degrees in a direction of the [-1-120] crystal direction (4 degrees, 0169, where the <11-20> direction is shown as perpendicular to the <0001> direction in Figs. 8a-c and therefore the <-1-120> direction, being symmetrically equivalent with <11-20>, would have the same angle of offset of 4 degrees, 0169);
the total main surface having square substrate segments each having an associated substrate segment area, which is the same for all substrate segments and is in a range from 1 mm2 to 100 mm2 (25 mm2, 0169), 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 (0 cm-2, 0175);
a total screw dislocation substrate density that is applicable to the total main surface of the SiC substrate as a whole (0 cm-2, 0175); 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% (0 cm-2, 0175).
The claimed segments may be theoretical (see specification [0035]) and therefore a uniform SiC crystal must necessarily have the segments as claimed. Since Furuya does not teach any variation in the dislocation density over the substrate taught, and explicitly discloses a dislocation density of zero, the necessary segments over this density of zero would necessarily be uniform since there is no presence of any other number of dislocations. Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that Furuya teaches and suggests the claimed invention. Similarly, Furuya teaches that the <11-20> orientation is perpendicular to the <0001> direction in Figs. 8a-c. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that therefore the SiC crystal taught by Furuya must necessarily have the offset of 4 degrees in the <-1-120> direction, being symmetrically equivalent with <11-20>, and therefore Furuya renders obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Furuya teaches a dislocation density of 0 cm-2 (0175) without segments having deviations from the total substrate dislocation density; this anticipates the claimed ranges of deviation of at most 20% and at most 15%, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Furuya teaches a dislocation density of 0 cm-2 over the entire initial facet formation surface (0175); this anticipates the claimed sub-area range of at least 90% of the total main surface.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Furuya teaches a dislocation density of 0 cm-2 (0175); this anticipates the claimed ranges of a total dislocation density of at most 1000 and 500 cm-2, respectively.
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 19, Furuya teaches Furuya teaches a dislocation density of 0 cm-2 (0175); thus the dislocation density 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 10, filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. Specifically, Applicant argued that the orientation of the surface along the crystal direction is not taught by Atsushi and distinguishes the present invention from the prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Furuya, US 20180130872 A1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights