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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the steps of “introducing Trimethylaluminum as a nitrogen precursor and ammonia as an aluminum precursor.” However, trimethylaluminum does not include nitrogen atoms and ammonia does not include aluminum atoms. Thus, it is unclear how trimethylaluminum and ammonia can be a nitrogen and aluminum precursor, respectively. It is assumed applicants intended to recite that trimethylaluminum is utilized as an aluminum precursor and ammonia is used as a nitrogen precursor. Dependent claims 2-9 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites forming a substrate layer which comprises “an aluminum nitrogen layer, a gallium nitrogen layer or a silicon carbon layer” followed by forming “at least one gallium oxygen layer on the aluminum nitrogen layer.” It is unclear how a gallium oxide layer can be formed on the aluminum nitrogen layer if the substrate layer comprises gallium nitrogen or silicon carbon instead of aluminum nitrogen. For examination purposes it is assumed that the substrate layer must include aluminum nitrogen. Dependent claims 11-18 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 10.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 16 recite, inter alia, the formation of an “aluminum nitrogen layer,” a “gallium nitrogen layer,” a “silicon carbon layer,” and/or a “gallium oxygen layer.” It is unclear whether this is supposed to be a layer containing the recited elements or if it is an aluminum nitride, gallium nitride, silicon carbide, and a gallium oxide layer as is commonly known in the art. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 17-18 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1 or 10.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reactor” in l. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the metal-organic chemical vapor deposition reactor.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the reactor” in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the metal-organic chemical vapor deposition reactor.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the reactor” in l. 3, 4, 9, and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the metal-organic chemical vapor deposition reactor.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the reactor” in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the metal-organic chemical vapor deposition reactor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0312660 to Manijeh Razeghi (hereinafter “Razeghi”) in view of a publication to S. Hasan, et al. entitled “Growth evolution of high-quality MOCVD aluminum nitride using nitrogen as carrier gas on the sapphire substrate,” Journal of Materials Research, Vol. 36, Issue 21, pp. 436-69 (2021) (“Hasan”).
Regarding claim 1, Razeghi teaches a method for growing Ga2O3 Growth on sapphire (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and entire reference which teach a method for growing Ga2O3 on sapphire substrates) comprising:
employing a metal–organic chemical vapor deposition reactor (see Figs. 2A-B & 4A-B, ¶[0019], and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach utilizing a MOCVD reactor);
introducing at least one sapphire template to the reactor (see Fig. 2A, ¶[0030, and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach the use of a sapphire substrate which is introduced to the MOCVD reactor);
introducing Triethylgallium as a gallium precursor and oxygen as an oxygen precursor using nitrogen as a carrier gas in the reactor to form at least one gallium oxygen layer on the layer (see Figs. 2A-B & 4A-B, ¶¶[0020]-[0024], and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach the use of TEGa as a Ga precursor, O2 gas as an oxygen precursor, and N2 as a carrier gas to deposit Ga2O3 on the substrate); and
employing silane in the reactor as a silicon precursor contemporaneous with introduction of the Triethylgallium and the oxygen in the reactor (see ¶[0022] and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach the use of silane (SiH4) during growth of the Ga2O3 layer).
Razeghi does not teach using nitrogen as a carrier gas to enable nitridation of the sapphire substrate and introducing Trimethylaluminum as an aluminum precursor and ammonia as a nitride precursor to the reactor to form an aluminum nitrogen layer on the at least one sapphire template. However, in the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, as well as the Experimental and Results section at pp. 4361-69 Hasan teaches a method of growing a high quality AlN layer on a sapphire substrate using nitrogen as a carrier gas. As detailed specifically in the Abstract, Fig. 8, and the Experimental Methods section at pp. 4366-67, nitrogen is used as a carrier gas and the surface of the sapphire substrate is initially nitride at 970 °C for 2 min. This is followed by the growth of an AlN layer by MOCVD using trimethylaluminum and ammonia as precursor gases via a two-step process in order to yield a high quality AlN epitaxial layer on sapphire. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the surface nitridation and AlN growth method of Hasan to produce a high quality AlN layer on the sapphire substrate utilized for Ga2O3 growth in the method of Razeghi in order to benefit from the use of a high quality crystalline substrate which is suitable for high power devices due to its higher thermal conductivity. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Razeghi teaches that a reactor pressure and a substrate temperature are kept constant throughout growth (see ¶[0030] and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach that a constant temperature and pressure are used during Ga2O3 growth).
Regarding claim 3, Razeghi does not teach that the aluminum nitrogen layer is formed via pulsed mode growth. However, in Fig. 8 and the Experimental methods section at pp. 4366-67 Hasan teaches that the AlN layer is produced by a two-step method in which an initial rough AlN layer is formed by pulsed growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to produce the AlN layer via a pulsed growth mode as part of a two-step process for growing a high quality and thick AlN layer on the sapphire substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Razeghi teaches that the at least one gallium oxygen layer comprises at least one β-Ga2O3 layer (see Figs. 2A & 4A and ¶[0043] of Example 2 which teach that the gallium oxide layer includes a β-Ga2O3 layer).
Regarding claim 5, Razeghi teaches that the at least one β-Ga2O3 layer comprises monoclinic phase-pure gallium oxide (See Figs. 1A & 4A and ¶[0043] which show that the deposited Ga2O3 layer shows only X-ray diffraction peaks synonymous with the presence of monoclinic pure-phase β-Ga2O3. Alternatively, since the method taught by the combination of Razeghi and Hasan performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely the formation of a β-Ga2O3 layer comprised of monoclinic phase-pure gallium oxide. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a β-Ga2O3 layer comprised of monoclinic phase-pure gallium oxide, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 6, Razeghi teaches forming at least one SiOx complex in the at least one β-Ga2O3 via the introduction of silane into the reactor contemporaneous with the introduction of the Triethylgallium and the oxygen (see ¶[0027] and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach that silane is introduced into the reactor together with the gallium and oxygen precursor gases to form a doped β-Ga2O3 layer. Moreover, the presence of both Si- and O-containing precursors during film growth will necessarily produce at least one SiOx complex in the at least one β-Ga2O3 layer. Alternatively, since the method taught by the combination of Razeghi and Hasan performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely the formation of at least one SiOx complex as claimed. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of at least one SiOx complex, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984)).
Regarding claim 7, Razeghi teaches forming sixfold inplane rotational symmetry in the at least one β-Ga2O3 layer formed on the aluminum nitrogen layer (See Figs. 4A-B and at least ¶[0043] of Example 2 which teaches that the β-Ga2O3 layer has 6 rotated domains. Alternatively, since the method taught by the combination of Razeghi and Hasan performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely a sixfold in-plane rotational symmetry in the β-Ga2O3 layer formed on the aluminum nitrogen layer. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the presence of sixfold in-plane rotational symmetry, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 8, Razeghi teaches that the method does not include thermal annealing (see Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach that the MOCVD growth method does not include thermal annealing).
Regarding claim 9, Razeghi teaches that the sapphire template comprises c-plane sapphire (see Example 1 at ¶¶[0036]-[0039] which teaches the sue of c-plane sapphire).
Regarding claim 10, Razeghi teaches a method for growing Ga2O3 layers on sapphire (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and entire reference which teach a method for growing Ga2O3 on sapphire substrates) comprising:
employing a metal–organic chemical vapor deposition reactor (see Figs. 2A-B & 4A-B, ¶[0019], and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach utilizing a MOCVD reactor);
introducing at least one sapphire template to the reactor (see Fig. 2A, ¶[0030, and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach the use of a sapphire substrate which is introduced to the MOCVD reactor);
introducing Triethylgallium as a gallium precursor and oxygen as an oxygen precursor using nitrogen as a carrier gas in the reactor to form at least one gallium oxygen layer on the layer (see Figs. 2A-B & 4A-B, ¶¶[0020]-[0024], and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach the use of TEGa as a Ga precursor, O2 gas as an oxygen precursor, and N2 as a carrier gas to deposit Ga2O3 on the substrate); and
employing silane in the reactor as a silicon precursor contemporaneous with introduction of the Triethylgallium and the oxygen in the reactor (see ¶[0022] and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach the use of silane (SiH4) during growth of the Ga2O3 layer).
Razeghi does not teach using nitrogen as a carrier gas to enable nitridation of the sapphire substrate and forming at least one substrate layer onto the sapphire substrate wherein the at least one substrate layer comprises an aluminum nitrogen layer, a gallium nitrogen layer or a silicon carbon layer. However, in the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, as well as the Experimental and Results section at pp. 4361-69 Hasan teaches a method of growing a high quality AlN layer on a sapphire substrate using nitrogen as a carrier gas. As detailed specifically in the Abstract, Fig. 8, and the Experimental Methods section at pp. 4366-67, nitrogen is used as a carrier gas and the surface of the sapphire substrate is initially nitride at 970 °C for 2 min. This is followed by the growth of an AlN layer by MOCVD using trimethylaluminum and ammonia as precursor gases via a two-step process in order to yield a high quality AlN epitaxial layer on sapphire. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the surface nitridation and AlN growth method of Hasan to produce a high quality AlN layer on the sapphire substrate utilized for Ga2O3 growth in the method of Razeghi in order to benefit from the use of a high quality crystalline substrate which is suitable for high power devices due to its higher thermal conductivity. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 11, Razeghi teaches that a reactor pressure and a substrate temperature are kept constant throughout growth (see ¶[0030] and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach that a constant temperature and pressure are used during Ga2O3 growth).
Regarding claim 12, Razeghi does not teach that the aluminum nitrogen layer is formed via pulsed mode growth. However, in Fig. 8 and the Experimental methods section at pp. 4366-67 Hasan teaches that the AlN layer is produced by a two-step method in which an initial rough AlN layer is formed by pulsed growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to produce the AlN layer via a pulsed growth mode as part of a two-step process for growing a high quality and thick AlN layer on the sapphire substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Razeghi teaches that the at least one gallium oxygen layer comprises at least one β-Ga2O3 layer (see Figs. 2A & 4A and ¶[0043] of Example 2 which teach that the gallium oxide layer includes a β-Ga2O3 layer).
Regarding claim 14, Razeghi teaches that the at least one β-Ga2O3 layer comprises monoclinic phase-pure gallium oxide (See Figs. 1A & 4A and ¶[0043] which show that the deposited Ga2O3 layer shows only X-ray diffraction peaks synonymous with the presence of monoclinic pure-phase β-Ga2O3. Alternatively, since the method taught by the combination of Razeghi and Hasan performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely the formation of a β-Ga2O3 layer comprised of monoclinic phase-pure gallium oxide. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a β-Ga2O3 layer comprised of monoclinic phase-pure gallium oxide, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 15, Razeghi teaches forming at least one SiOx complex in the at least one β-Ga2O3 via the introduction of silane into the reactor contemporaneous with the introduction of the Triethylgallium and the oxygen (see ¶[0027] and Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach that silane is introduced into the reactor together with the gallium and oxygen precursor gases to form a doped β-Ga2O3 layer. Moreover, the presence of both Si- and O-containing precursors during film growth will necessarily produce at least one SiOx complex in the at least one β-Ga2O3 layer. Alternatively, since the method taught by the combination of Razeghi and Hasan performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely the formation of at least one SiOx complex as claimed. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of at least one SiOx complex, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984)).
Regarding claim 16, Razeghi teaches forming sixfold inplane rotational symmetry in the at least one β-Ga2O3 layer formed on the aluminum nitrogen layer (See Figs. 4A-B and at least ¶[0043] of Example 2 which teaches that the β-Ga2O3 layer has 6 rotated domains. Alternatively, since the method taught by the combination of Razeghi and Hasan performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely a sixfold in-plane rotational symmetry in the β-Ga2O3 layer formed on the aluminum nitrogen layer. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the presence of sixfold in-plane rotational symmetry, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Regarding claim 17, Razeghi teaches that the method does not include thermal annealing (see Examples 1-2 in ¶¶[0036]-[0060] which teach that the MOCVD growth method does not include thermal annealing).
Regarding claim 18, Razeghi teaches that the sapphire template comprises c-plane sapphire (see Example 1 at ¶¶[0036]-[0039] which teaches the sue of c-plane sapphire).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714