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 with traverse of Group I, claims 24-38 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method of Groups I, II, and III share the corresponding feature of the method of claim 24 and because Lee lacks the process step of a second heating for the selective sublimation of the most volatile component of the substrate. This is not found persuasive because Group II relates to a method of forming a device whereas Group I relates to a method of preparing a surface of a wafer. Consequently, Groups I and II are two different methods which appear to recite different stages in the production of a device and are not so related in the manner required by categories (1) through (5). Moreover, it is the Examiner’s position that the second annealing step at 1,250 °C for 10 min in an O2 atmosphere in the method of Lee may be equated with the second heating step as claimed. Consequently, the special technical feature linking the inventions of Groups I-II and II-III does not make a contribution over the prior art and restriction is therefore appropriate.
Claims 39-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 20, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 25-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 25-38 are dependent claims which recite “Method according to” which is grammatically incorrect. The claims should be corrected to read “The method according to.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of a pressure in units of “hPa” in claim 35 is interpreted as a hectopascal which is a unit of pressure equal to 100 Pascals. Thus, a pressure of 10-8 to 10-12 hPa is equivalent to 10-6 to 10-10 Pa.
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 24-38 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 24 recites heating the substrate to a temperature to form “an arrangement with a minimal step density.” It is unclear as to what is meant by a minimal step density. Does the step density merely attain a stable or uniform value as a result of heating or is it somehow reduced to a smaller value that may be considered as a minimal step density? If the step density were to be reduced to its smallest possible value there would be no steps at all and the entire surface would be a single atomic plane which currently is not technologically possible. For examination purposes it is assumed that a minimal step density is a local minimum at which the step density is uniform and stabilized. Dependent claims 25-38 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 24.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the predefined miscut angle and miscut direction” in ll. 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the defined miscut angle and direction.”
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the step of heating” in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 28-30 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 27.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the surface to be treated" in l. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “a surface to be treated.”
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the second component of heating” in l. 2, “the most volatile constituent” in l. 3, and “the surface material” in l. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 29-30 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 28.
Claim 28 depends indirectly from claim 24 and recites irradiating the surface to be treated with a flux of “the most volatile constituent of the surface material.” It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from substrate constituent having the highest sublimation rate as recited in claim 24. For examination purposes it is assumed the most volatile constituent is the same atom or molecule that has the highest sublimation rate.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the same element” in l. 2 and “the chosen substrate temperature” in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the number of atoms" in l. 2 and in l. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 34-35 recite the limitation "the step of heating" in l. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 36-37 recite the limitation "the step of cutting" in l. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the bulk substrate of the single crystal" in l. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite just “the bulk substrate.”
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the plane of the crystal of the bulk substrate" in l. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite, for example, “a plane of the bulk substrate.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 24-26 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a publication to E. Thune, et al. entitled “Understanding of one dimensional ordering mechanisms at the (001) sapphire vicinal surface,” J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 121, p. 015301 (2017) (hereinafter “Thune”) or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thune in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0024258 to Masafumi Mizuguchi (“Mizuguchi”).
Regarding claim 24, Thune teaches a method of preparing a surface of a single crystal wafer as an epitaxial template, the surface comprising surface atoms and/or surface molecules, the single crystal wafer comprising a single crystal composed of two or more elements and/or two or more molecules as substrate constituents, each element and molecule respectively having a sublimation rate (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and entire reference which teach preparing the surface of a sapphire (Al2O3) substrate as an epitaxial template, said sapphire substrate being comprised of Al and O atoms which each have a sublimation rate), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a single crystal wafer substrate with a defined miscut angle and direction (see Figs. 1-2, Section I, and Section II(A) at pp. 015301-1 to -3 which teach providing 10×10 cm wide and 0.1 mm thick polished sapphire substrates with a miscut angle m of 1, 5, or 10° from the (001) planes with the step edges along the
110
direction);
heating the substrate to a temperature at which the surface atoms and/ or the surface molecules can reconstruct and/or migrate along the surface to form an arrangement with a minimal step density and step edges oriented according to the predefined miscut angle and miscut direction (see Sections II(A)-(C) which teaches that the sapphire substrates are subject to a thermal treatment in air and the results are measured using AFM and GISAXS analyses; see also Figs. 5-10 and Sections III(A)-(C) which investigate the influence of annealing to 1,125, 1,250, and 1,500 °C for different times and miscut angles on the sapphire substrate with the results specifically showing that adatom surface migration causes step edges to be oriented according to the miscut angle and direction while the period (i.e., the density) of the steps increases and becomes uniform with increasing temperature and annealing time, but decreases with increasing miscut angle; accordingly, a local minimum in the step density is attained for a given miscut angle, temperature, and annealing time);
heating the substrate to a temperature at which atoms or molecules of the substrate constituent having the highest sublimation rate may leave the surface (see at least Fig. 5 and Section II(A) which teach that heating the sapphire substrate to a final temperature of 1,250 or 1,500 °C necessarily causes at least some oxygen atoms to desorb (i.e., sublime) from the surface since the annealing temperature is a significant fraction of the 2,030 to 2,050 °C melting temperature of sapphire due to the availability of additional thermal energy for the desorption fo oxygen atoms).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that Thune does not teach heating the substrate to a temperature at which atoms or molecules of the substrate constituent having the highest sublimation rate may leave the surface, this would have been obvious in view of Mizuguchi. In Figs. 1-4 and ¶¶[0025]-[0054] as well as the Example at ¶¶[0055]-[0062] Mizuguchi teaches an analogous method of heat treating a sapphire substrate (13) in which a first heat treatment in an atmosphere containing oxygen (S1001) is followed by a second heat treatment in which the sapphire is annealed in a vacuum or within an inert gas atmosphere (S1003). The first heating step is performed at a temperature of 1,600 °C or higher while the second heating step is performed at a temperature of 1,800 °C or higher with the latter causing oxygen atoms which were introduced in the first heating step to be removed (i.e., sublimed) in an optimal manner. As shown in Fig. 4, the two-stage annealing step produces a sapphire wafer with an average internal transmittance of 95% or higher for light in the 150 to 220 nm wavelength range. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would, after performing an initial heat treatment in air as per the teachings of Mizuguchi, be motivated to follow this up with a second annealing treatment in a vacuum or inert atmosphere at a temperature of 1,800 °C or higher at which oxygen atoms leave the surface in order to produce a sapphire substrate with an average internal transmittance of 95% or higher.
Regarding claim 25, Thune teaches that the sublimation rates of the two or more elements and/or two or more molecules at a given temperature differ from one another (see Figs. 1-2, Section I, and Section II(A) at pp. 015301-1 to -3 which teach providing 10×10 cm wide and 0.1 mm thick polished sapphire substrates which are necessarily comprised of Al and O atoms which have different sublimation rates at a given temperature).
Regarding claim 26, Thune teaches that a sublimation temperature of the two or more elements and/or two or more molecules differs by at least 2°C (see Figs. 1-2, Section I, and Section II(A) at pp. 015301-1 to -3 which teach providing 10×10 cm wide and 0.1 mm thick polished sapphire substrates which are necessarily comprised of Al and O atoms which have sublimation temperatures which necessarily differ by more than 2 °C).
Regarding claim 31, Thune and Mizuguchi teach that the sublimation temperature is a temperature greater than 950 °C (see Fig. 5 and Section III(A) of Thune which teaches heating to a sublimation temperature of 1,125, 1,250, or 1,500 °C; see also ¶[0034] of Mizuguchi which teaches heating to a sublimation temperature of 1,900 °C or higher).
Regarding claim 32, Thune teaches that one of several energetically equivalent in-plane surface reconstruction unit cells is selected by defining the miscut direction (see Figs. 1-2, Section I, and Section II(A) at pp. 015301-1 to -3 which teach that the sapphire substrates have a miscut angle m of 1, 5, or 10° from the (001) planes with the step edges along the
110
direction which necessarily results in selecting an in-plane surface reconstruction unit cell).
Regarding claim 33, Thune teaches that the two or more elements and/or two or more molecules of the crystal are selected from the group of members consisting of: Si, C, Ge, As, Al, O, N, O, Mg, Nd, Ga, Ti, La, Sr, Ta and combinations of the foregoing (see Figs. 1-2, Section I, and Section II(A) at pp. 015301-1 to -3 which teach providing 10×10 cm wide and 0.1 mm thick polished sapphire substrates which are comprised of Al and O).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thune in view of Mizuguchi and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,344,084 to Koinuma, et al. (“Koinuma”).
Regarding claim 27, Thune and Mizuguchi teach that the step of heating the single crystal wafer comprises a first component of heating the single crystal wafer at a surface disposed remote from the surface to be treated (see Sections II(A) and III(A) of Thune which teach that the entire sapphire substrate is heated to temperatures of 1,125, 1,250, and 1,500 °C which necessarily means that both front and back surfaces of the sapphire substrate are heated; see also Fig. 3 and ¶[0057] of Mizuguchi which teach that the sapphire substrate (13) is heated in an atmospheric furnace (20) by means of heaters (21) which necessarily causes both the front and back surfaces of the substrate (13) to be heated either directly or indirectly).
Thune and Mizuguchi do not teach that the step of heating the single crystal wafer comprises two heating components. However, in Fig. 1 and col. 7, l. 64 to col. 11, l. 65 Koinuma teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for processing one or more substrates (5) such as sapphire which are supported by a holder (6) provided within a vacuum chamber (2) with a back side of the holder (6) being heated by heaters (7) and (8). The chamber is also equipped with nozzles (19) which feed a reactive gas such as oxygen to the chamber (2). A front side of the substrates (5) faces a plurality of raw material targets (12) which are supported by a table (10) and which are ablated with a laser beam (13) produced by a light source (14) in order to produce a plume of material that is deposited onto the desired substrate (5). In col. 9, ll. 26-27 Koinuma specifically teaches that the substrate (5) may be comprised of sapphire (i.e., Al2O3) while col. 9, ll. 55-62 further teaches that the target (12) can be any material that is in a solid state for use which would necessarily include sapphire. The process of ablating the target (12) also produces heat which indirectly heats a front side of the substrates (5) while it is simultaneously being heated from a back side using heaters (7) and (8) during an annealing and/or deposition process. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the process of annealing a sapphire substrate in the method of Thune and Mizuguchi may be performed in the apparatus of Koinuma which includes both backside heaters (7) and (8) and a source of heat from the front as a result of ablating a target (12) during one or more substrate processing steps with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate performing multiple processes on the same substrate such as annealing, etching, and film growth within the same process chamber.
Claims 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thune in view of Mizuguchi and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0398807 to Kaneko, et al. (“Kaneko”) and further in view of Koinuma.
Regarding claim 28, Thune and Mizuguchi do not teach providing a source to irradiate the surface to be treated with a flux of the most volatile constituent of the surface material. However, in Figs. 1-6, ¶¶[[0071]-[0165], and Example 1 in ¶¶[0237]-[0241] Kaneko teaches an analogous system and method for annealing a compound semiconductor comprised of SiC in step (S10) prior to performing epitaxial growth in step (S20). In Fig. 2 and ¶[0076] Kaneko specifically teaches that the surface of the substrate (10) becomes contaminated and damaged as result of slicing, polishing, and grinding and that this produces strain (111), scratches (112), and latent scratches (113) near the surface which produces a strained layer (11). In step (S10) and ¶¶[0083]-[0118] the strained layer (11) is removed by the Si vapor pressure etching method in which the substrate (10) is annealed at high temperatures in a gaseous ambient comprised of excess Si vapor which causes surface Si atoms to desorb by thermal decomposition and excess C on the surface then reacts with Si vapor and is sublimated as SiC. Removal of the strained layer (11) produces a step-terrace structure comprised of steps (15) and terraces (16) at the atomic level which is suitable for growth of a high quality epitaxial layer (13) in step (S20). Thus, the teachings of Kaneko show that annealing in a flux comprised of the most volatile constituent may be performed in order to remove surface contaminants present in a strained layer (11) and thereby produce an atomically flat surface suitable for the growth of a high quality epitaxial layer. Consequently, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to perform the annealing method of Thune and Mizuguchi in an atmosphere comprised of excess oxygen in order to promote etching of the near-surface layer of the sapphire substrate such that surface damage and contaminants may be removed to produce an atomically flat surface suitable for epitaxial growth.
Thune, Mizuguchi, and Kaneko do not teach that that the second component of heating is provided to a source to irradiate the surface to be treated. However, in Fig. 1 and col. 7, l. 64 to col. 11, l. 65 Koinuma teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for processing one or more substrates (5) such as sapphire which are supported by a holder (6) provided within a vacuum chamber (2) with a back side of the holder (6) being heated by heaters (7) and (8). The chamber is also equipped with nozzles (19) which feed a reactive gas such as oxygen to the chamber (2). A front side of the substrates (5) faces a plurality of raw material targets (12) which are supported by a table (10) and which are ablated with a laser beam (13) produced by a light source (14) in order to produce a plume of material that is deposited onto the desired substrate (5). In col. 9, ll. 26-27 Koinuma specifically teaches that the substrate (5) may be comprised of sapphire (i.e., Al2O3) while col. 9, ll. 55-62 further teaches that the target (12) can be any material that is in a solid state for use which would necessarily include sapphire. The process of ablating the target (12) also produces heat which indirectly heats a front side of the substrates (5) while it is simultaneously being heated from a back side using heaters (7) and (8) during an annealing and/or deposition process. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the process of annealing a sapphire substrate in a gaseous environment comprised of the most volatile constituent of the surface as taught by Kaneko may be performed by supplying Al and O species to the gaseous ambient using the gas nozzles (19) and an ablated target (12) of Koinuma such that the surface of the substrate is heated from the back via heaters (7) and (8) and is heated from the front as a result of being exposed to a plume of Al and O atoms from the target (12) with the motivation for doing so being to use a known device according to its intended use in order to promote etching of the near-surface layer of the sapphire substrate such that surface damage and contaminants may be removed to produce an atomically flat surface suitable for epitaxial growth.
Regarding claim 29, Thune, Mizuguchi, and Koinuma do not teach that the flux is selected lower than the sublimation rate of the same element from the surface at the chosen substrate temperature. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 28, in step (S10) and ¶¶[0083]-[0118] Kaneko teaches that the strained layer (11) on a SiC substrate (10) is removed by the Si vapor pressure etching method in which the substrate (10) is annealed at high temperatures in a gaseous ambient comprised of excess Si vapor which causes surface Si atoms to desorb by thermal decomposition and excess C on the surface then reacts with Si vapor and is sublimated as SiC. Removal of the strained layer (11) produces a step-terrace structure comprised of steps (15) and terraces (16) at the atomic level which is suitable for growth of a high quality epitaxial layer (13) in step (S20). Thus, the teachings of Kaneko show that annealing in a flux comprised of the most volatile constituent may be performed in order to remove surface contaminants present in a strained layer (11) and thereby produce an atomically flat surface suitable for the growth of a high quality epitaxial layer. Consequently, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to perform the annealing method of Thune and Mizuguchi in an atmosphere comprised of a flux of oxygen which promotes sublimation of oxygen atoms in the near-surface layer (i.e., etching) of the sapphire substrate such that surface damage and contaminants may be removed to produce an atomically flat surface suitable for epitaxial growth.
Regarding claim 30, Thune, Mizuguchi, and Koinuma do not teach that an intensity of flux is selected to provide an equilibrium between the number of atoms or molecules reaching the substrate surface and the number of atoms or molecules leaving the surface. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 29, in step (S10) and ¶¶[0083]-[0118] Kaneko teaches that the strained layer (11) on a SiC substrate (10) is removed by the Si vapor pressure etching method in which the substrate (10) is annealed at high temperatures in a gaseous ambient comprised of excess Si vapor which causes surface Si atoms to desorb by thermal decomposition and excess C on the surface then reacts with Si vapor and is sublimated as SiC. Removal of the strained layer (11) produces a step-terrace structure comprised of steps (15) and terraces (16) at the atomic level which is suitable for growth of a high quality epitaxial layer (13) in step (S20). Thus, the teachings of Kaneko show that annealing in a flux comprised of the most volatile constituent may be performed in order to remove surface contaminants present in a strained layer (11) and thereby produce an atomically flat surface suitable for the growth of a high quality epitaxial layer. Consequently, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to perform the annealing method of Thune and Mizuguchi in an atmosphere comprised of a flux of oxygen which initially promotes etching and removal of a strained layer (11) and then provides an equilibrium between the number of atoms reaching and leaving the surface such that an atomically smooth surface comprised of steps (15) and terraces (16) is produced which is suitable for epitaxial growth.
Claim 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thune in view of Mizuguchi and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0242843 to Koji Ebara (“Ebara”).
Regarding claim 34, Thune and Mizuguchi do not teach that the step of heating is carried out by one or more lasers. However, in Fig. 4, ¶[0060], ¶¶[0140]-[0142], and ¶¶[0162]-[0173] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Ebara teaches an embodiment of a laser annealing apparatus (22) which includes, inter alia, a laser oscillating source (24) that produces a laser beam (223) which irradiates and heats a predetermined region of the surface of a wafer (W) for the desired temperature and duration in order to perform an annealing step. The use of a laser to anneal the surface has the advantage of reducing the generation of thermal stress within the wafer since only a localized region at the surface is heated. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to use one or more lasers to heat the sapphire substrate in the method of Thune and Mizuguchi in order to more precisely control the area and duration of heating such that the generation of thermal stresses within the sapphire wafer may be minimized.
Claims 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thune in view of Mizuguchi.
Regarding claim 35, Thune does not teach that the step of heating is carried out in a vacuum atmosphere selected in the range of 10-8 to 10-12 hPa (i.e., 10-6 to 10-10 Pa). However, in at least ¶[0038] Mizuguchi teaches that in the second heating step the number of oxygen molecules per unit volume must be lower than a predetermined level in order to ensure that excess oxygen is removed from the sapphire crystal. In a preferred embodiment the oxygen partial pressure during the second heating step is preferably set to 10-2 Pa or lower which means that annealing is preferably performed in at least a high vacuum where the pressure is down to 10-5 Pa or lower. Since the chamber pressure directly influences the amount of oxygen present during the second annealing step it is therefore considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal vacuum atmosphere, including within the claimed range of 10-6 to 10-10 Pa, that is necessary to produce a sapphire single crystal having the desired surface structure and optical transparency.
Regarding claim 36, Thune does not teach that the step of cutting is carried out by mechanical cutting. However, in Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0039]-[0040] Mizuguchi teaches that sapphire substrates (13) having the desired dimensions, surface plane(s), and miscut are obtained by mechanically cutting a sapphire ingot (11). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the 10×10 cm wide and 0.1 mm thick polished sapphire substrates utilized in the method of Thune may be obtained by cutting a grown sapphire ingot (11) to the desired dimensions.
Regarding claim 37, Thune does not teach that the step of cutting the single crystal wafer from a bulk substrate is carried out by cutting the single crystal wafer from the bulk substrate of the single crystal by cutting the surface in a cutting plane that is different from the plane of the crystal of the bulk substrate. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 36, in Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0039]-[0040] Mizuguchi teaches that sapphire substrates (13) having the desired dimensions, surface plane(s), and miscut are obtained by mechanically cutting a sapphire ingot (11). As shown in Fig. 2 of Mizuguchi, obtaining a sapphire wafer (13) having primary surfaces which are comprised of the desired surface plane and miscut necessarily involves cutting the sapphire ingot (11) along one or more cutting planes which are different from planes that form the sapphire ingot (11) itself. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the 10×10 cm wide and 0.1 mm thick polished (001) sapphire substrates with a miscut of 1, 5, or 10° utilized in the method of Thune may be obtained by cutting the grown sapphire ingot (11) along a surface plane which differs from one or more planes that constitute the growth surface and direction of the ingot (11) itself.
Claim 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thune in view of Mizuguchi and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0104376 to Turchetti, et al. (“Turchetti”).
Regarding claim 38, Thune and Mizuguchi do not teach that the single crystal wafer is cut from the bulk substrate by cutting the surface in a cutting plane that is inclined with respect to the central axis of the bulk substrate by 0.01 to 0.1°. However, in ¶¶[0014]-[0025] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Turchetti teaches an analogous method of annealing a sapphire substrate in order to produce components for use as cover plates in electronic devices. In ¶[0015] Turchetti specifically teaches that the sapphire substrate may have principal surface planes comprised of the c-plane with a miscut or off-axis orientation of between 0 to 18 degrees which necessarily includes the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.1°. Moreover, since Fig. 8 and Section III(C) of Thune teaches that the miscut angle determines materials properties such as the period and height of the surface steps, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Turchetti and would recognize that the sapphire substrate utilized in the method of Thune and Mizuguchi may be cut from a sapphire ingot such that it has a miscut angle within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.1° with the motivation for doing so being to produce a sapphire substrate having the desired surface structure.
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
Prosecution Insights