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 and Claim Status
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 06/30/26 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending with claims 13-20 withdrawn. Claims 1-12 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: use of the incorrect chemical notation Ga2O3 (the number of atoms of a particular element in a chemical formula should be denoted by subscripts, not superscripts). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claim is a wherein clause that is attached to the positively recited step of “subjecting a Ga2O3 semiconductor material to neutron irradiation.” The wherein clause recites the natural effects of this step: wherein the neutron irradiation transmutes Ga-69 and Ga-71 to Ga-70 and Ga-72, wherein Ga-71 and Ga-72 decay to produce Ge-70 and Ge72. The effects recited in claim 12 are solely the natural consequences of the neutron irradiation step recited in claim 1. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 12 does not recite any particular further method steps associated with the natural phenomenon of neutron-induced transmutation and natural radioactive decay. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
6. Claim 12 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.
7. Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the Ga2O3 semiconductor wafer or boule.” Further, the recitation “thereby producing the Ge-doped Ga2O3 material in the form of a wafer or boule” is indefinite because it is unclear what steps are necessary to produce the wafer or boule. None of the previously recited steps are capable of producing such a structure, so it is unclear what step the “thereby” clause is limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
8. Claims 1, 3-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvine et al., “Enhancement of excitonic and defect-related luminescence in neutron transmutation doped β-Ga2O3” in view of Feigelson et al., US 2012/0068188.
9. Regarding claim 1, Irvine discloses a method of making a germanium (Ge)-doped gallium oxide (Ga2O3) semiconductor material (see Title and Abs.), comprising: subjecting a Ga2O3 semiconductor material to neutron irradiation comprising a higher thermal neutron content than fast neutron content, thereby producing a Ge-doped Ga2O3 semiconductor material (II. Experimental Details); and annealing the Ge-doped Ga2O3 semiconductor material (p. 114603-7, last paragraph). Irvine does not disclose annealing in nitrogen at temperatures above 700 °C. Feigelson teaches annealing a Ga-containing semiconductor material at a temperature of at least 700 0C in an atmosphere of nitrogen gas ([0033], [0063]), thereby generating an electrically conductive n-type Ge-doped Ga2O3 semiconductor material ([0075]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the annealing step taught by Feigelson with the Ge-doping process of Irvine because Irvine notes that its annealing step was “ineffective” at removing vacancies, while Feigelson teaches that its annealing “restores crystal lattice damaged by the implantation and moves implanted impurities to the proper lattice sites to make them electrically and optically active” ([0032]).
10. Regarding claims 3-4, the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with Irvine’s Ge-doping process makes claim 1 obvious. Irvine further discloses neutron irradiation with neutron energy of 0.025 eV (II. Experimental Details.
11. Regarding claims 5-6, the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with Irvine’s Ge-doping process makes claim 1 obvious. Irvine further discloses a method producing an n-type Ge-doped Ga2O3 semiconductor with a Ge concentration of 1.7 x 1018 atoms/cm (Fig. 1), which touches the claimed range. It is noted that Feigelson clearly establishes that the produced Ge concentration is a function of time (see Abs. and Fig. 1), making it a result-effective variable. Accordingly, the entirely of the claimed range is obvious over Irvine, because one need only modify the irradiation time to achieve a particular desired Ge concentration within the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05(I), (II)).
12. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with Irvine’s Ge-doping process makes claim 1 obvious. Feigelson suggests that the resultant resistivity of the n-type Ge-doped Ga2O3 semiconductor material produced by the combination of Irvine’s neutron transmutation doping and Feigelson’s annealing step would be within the claimed range ([0070] discloses a resistivity in the claimed range for a different material annealed). Thus, it is the examiner’s position that the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with the Ge-doped Ga2O3 semiconductor produced by Irvine’s neutron transmutation doping process necessarily would result in a n-type Ge-doped Ga2O3 semiconductor having a resistivity falling within the claimed range. That is, the claim recites the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art Irvine and Feigelson (MPEP 2112(IV)). Further, according to MPEP 2112.01, “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In other words, the examiner believes that the product produced by the method of Irvine as combined with Feigelson’s annealing step would be identical to the product as recited in the claim.
12. Regarding claims 8-9, the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with Irvine’s Ge-doping process makes claim 1 obvious. Feigelson further teaches a semiconductor annealing process further comprising capping a surface of the Ge- doped Ga2O3 semiconductor material with a protective material prior to the annealing ([0042]) to protect against surface reconstruction during the annealing (intended use recitation) and wherein the annealing is performed via multicycle rapid thermal annealing (MRTA) using a series of rapid heating and cooling pulses ([0033]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the annealing step taught by Feigelson with the Ge-doping process of Irvine for the reason stated above.
13. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with Irvine’s Ge-doping process makes claim 1 obvious. Irvine further discloses a method wherein the neutron irradiation transmutes Ga-69 isotopes and Ga-71 isotopes in the Ga2O3 semiconductor wafer or boule to respective unstable isotopes Ga-70 and Ga-72, wherein the unstable isotopes Ga-70 and Ga-72 decay over a period of time to produce respective stable isotopes Ge-70 and Ge-72, thereby producing the Ge-doped Ga2O3 material in the form of a wafer of boule, and wherein the period of time is based on the half-life of Ga-72 (see section III. A. on p. 114603-2).
14. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvine et al., “Enhancement of excitonic and defect-related luminescence in neutron transmutation doped β-Ga2O3” in view of Feigelson et al., US 2012/0068188 in further view of Bina et al., US 2018/0308698.
15. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with Irvine’s Ge-doping process makes claim 1 obvious. Irvine discloses neutron irradiation with 12:1 thermal to fast neutrons (see section II. on p. 114603-2). Bina teaches a method of neutron transmutation doping of semiconductors wherein the neutron irradiation is performed using a thermal neutron to fast neutron ratio of at least 25:1 (Fig. 5, steps 312, 314; [0051-52]; the neutron flux irradiated to the semiconductor elements is entirely thermal). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to modify the method of Irvine with the neutron flux taught by Bina because Bina teaches that “epithermal and fast neutrons may damage the wafer” ([0040]).
16. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvine et al., “Enhancement of excitonic and defect-related luminescence in neutron transmutation doped β-Ga2O3” in view of Feigelson et al., US 2012/0068188 in further view of Hoshikawa et al., US 10,570,528.
17. Regarding claims 10 and 11, the combination of Feigelson’s annealing step with Irvine’s Ge-doping process makes claim 1 obvious. Irvine does not disclose how its Ga2O3 semiconductor material is obtained but does disclose that it includes iridium (see section II. on p. 114603-2). Hoshikawa teaches growing a Ga2O3 semiconductor material (column 8, lines 36-46) that is free of iridium(column 4, lines 4-7). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the method step taught by Hoshikawa to the method of Irvine as combined with Feigelson for the predictable purpose of providing a Ga2O3 semiconductor material “having large size and high quality with less defects” (column 5, lines 20-25).
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights