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 .
Specification
The objection to the title is withdrawn in view of applicants’ submission of a replacement title.
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 2-9 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.
As amended, claims 2-9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and recite “[t]he device” in l. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “[t]he device for producing the group III nitride crystal.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0255975 to Mori, et al. (hereinafter “Mori”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0021549 to Fujikane, et al. (“Fujikane”).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches a device for producing a group III nitride crystal (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and entire reference which teach an embodiment of a Group III-nitride manufacturing apparatus (150)), the device comprising:
a raw material chamber configured to generate a group III element oxide gas (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0038]-[0058] which teach a raw material chamber (100) which generates a Group III-element oxide gas); and
a growth chamber configured to cause the group III element oxide gas supplied from the raw material chamber to react with a nitrogen element-containing gas to generate the group III nitride crystal on a seed substrate (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0038]-[0058] which teach a growth chamber (111) which includes a nitrogen gas supply port (112) and a substrate (116) where the oxide gas reacts with the nitrogen gas to produce a Group III-nitride crystal on the substrate (116)),
wherein the growth chamber includes a structure configured to (i) be on a back surface side of the seed substrate, and (ii) promote heat release from the back surface side of the seed substrate (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0038]-[0058] which teach that a back surface side of the substrate (116) is supported by a susceptor (117) which necessarily promotes heat release from the back surface of the substrate (116)), the structure includes
a substrate susceptor (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0038]-[0058] which teach a susceptor (117)), and
a rotary shaft; the substrate susceptor is disposed on the rotary shaft (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0038]-[0058] which teach that the susceptor is supported by and, hence, is disposed upon a shaft; moreover, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to make the support shaft rotatable in order to promote the growth of a more uniform Group III-nitride crystal with reduced thickness and compositional nonuniformities); and
the rotary shaft defines a heat transfer path configured to: (ii) promote the heat release from the back surface of the seed substrate (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0038]-[0058] which teach that the substrate (116) is in contact with the susceptor (117) which, in turn, is in contact with the supporting shaft which necessarily means that there is a heat conducting path towards the supporting shaft which promotes heat release from the back surface of the substrate (116)).
Mori does not teach a substrate tray which is configured to have the seed substrate disposed thereupon, the substrate tray is disposed on the substrate susceptor, and that the heat transfer path is configured to (i) transfer heat to outside via the substrate tray and the rotary shaft in sequence. However, in Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶[0067]-[0070] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Fujikane teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for the growth of Group III-nitrides such as GaN onto a substrate from gaseous precursors. The substrate (2) is provided on and in contact with a quartz tray (3) which is supported by and in contact with the entire surface of a carbon susceptor (4) that is capable of being heated by induction heating using an RF coil. The substrate (2) itself is capable of being either heated or cooled via heat conduction through the quartz tray (3) and the carbon susceptor (4) depending on whether the RF coil is activated. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Fujikane and would be motivated to utilize a quartz tray between the susceptor (117) and substrate (116) in the apparatus of Mori since (i) this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material (i.e., the quartz tray) according to its intended use and (ii) it provides a comparatively inert supporting surface for the seed crystal which facilitates easy removal of accumulated deposits by chemical etching. In this case the presence of the quartz tray (3) of Fujikane between the substrate (116) and susceptor (117) of Mori would then facilitate heat transfer to the outside via the substrate tray and rotary shaft in sequence as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Mori does not teach that the substrate tray and the substrate susceptor are in contact with each other over an entire surface of the substrate susceptor. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Fig. 4 and ¶[0067] Fujikane teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for the growth of Group III-nitrides in which the substrate (2) is provided on a quartz tray (3) which is supported by and in contact with the entire surface of a carbon susceptor (4) that is heated by induction heating using an RF coil. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Fujikane and would be motivated to utilize a quartz tray between the susceptor (117) and substrate (116) in the apparatus of Mori since (i) this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material (i.e., the quartz tray) according to its intended use and (ii) it provides a comparatively inert supporting surface for the seed crystal which facilitates easy removal of accumulated deposits by chemical etching.
Regarding claim 8, Mori does not teach that the substrate tray is made of a material including at least one selected from the group consisting of SiC, C, BN, SiO2, SiN, AlN, and a transition metal. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Fig. 4 and ¶[0067] Fujikane teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for the growth of Group III-nitrides in which the substrate (2) is provided on a quartz tray (3) which is supported by and in contact with the entire surface of a carbon susceptor (4) that is heated by induction heating using an RF coil. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Fujikane and would be motivated to utilize a quartz (i.e., SiO2) tray between the susceptor (117) and substrate (116) in the apparatus of Mori since (i) this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material (i.e., the quartz tray) according to its intended use and (ii) it provides a comparatively inert supporting surface for the seed crystal which facilitates easy removal of accumulated deposits by chemical etching.
Regarding claim 9, Mori does not teach that the substrate susceptor is made of a material including at least one selected from the group consisting of SiC, C, BN, SiO2, SiN, AlN, and a transition metal. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Fig. 4 and ¶[0067] Fujikane teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for the growth of Group III-nitrides in which the substrate (2) is provided on a quartz tray (3) which is supported by and in contact with the entire surface of a carbon susceptor (4) that is heated by induction heating using an RF coil. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Fujikane and would be motivated to utilize a material such as carbon for the susceptor (117) in order to take advantage of its good thermal conductivity and ability to be heated to high temperatures.
Claims 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Fujikane and further in view of Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP 2000-133698A to Sato, et al. (“Sato”).
Regarding claim 3, Mori does not teach that the substrate tray and the substrate susceptor include a contact part and a non-contact part as claimed. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, Fujikane teaches a contact part where the substrate tray and the substrate susceptor are in contact with each other at a part of a surface of the substrate susceptor (See Fig. 4 and ¶[0067] which teach an analogous embodiment of a system for the growth of Group III-nitrides in which the substrate (2) is provided on a quartz tray (3) which is supported by and in contact with the entire surface of a carbon susceptor (4) that is heated by induction heating using an RF coil. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Fujikane and would be motivated to utilize a quartz tray that is in contact with the susceptor (117) in the apparatus of Mori since (i) this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material (i.e., the quartz tray) according to its intended use and (ii) it provides a comparatively inert supporting surface for the seed crystal which facilitates easy removal of accumulated deposits by chemical etching.
Mori and Fujikane do not teach a non-contact part where the substrate tray and the substrate susceptor are not in contact with each other. However, Figs. 1-5 and the Detailed Description section at pp. 3-5 Sato teaches an analogous embodiment of a substrate holding device (1) for supporting and heating a substrate in a chemical vapor deposition system which includes a susceptor (10) for holding a substrate (14) and a heating block (2) below the susceptor for raising the temperature of the substrate (14). As explained by Sato at p. 3 there is a problem in that the heater produces a temperature gradient which is highest at the center and decreases towards the periphery and that this leads to nonuniformities in the deposited thin film. In Fig. 1 and pp. 3-4 Sato specifically teaches a solution in which the back surface of the susceptor (10) and the front surface of the heating block are tightly joined around a peripheral portion (3), but are in a non-contact state at the center in order to produce a more uniform temperature across the surface of the substrate (14). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Sato and would be motivated to provide a gap between the quartz tray (3) and susceptor (4) of Fujikane in a central region thereof in order to reduce the temperature at the center of the substrate such that a more uniform temperature is produced across the entire surface of the substrate during film growth.
Regarding claim 4, Mori and Fujikane do not teach that the non-contact part overlaps a region where the rotary shaft is disposed in a plan view as viewed from a direction of the rotary shaft. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 3, in Fig. 1 and pp. 3-4 Sato teaches an embodiment in which the back surface of the susceptor (10) and the front surface of the heating block are tightly joined around a peripheral portion (3), but are in a non-contact state at the center in order to produce a more uniform temperature across the surface of the substrate (14). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Sato and would be motivated to provide a gap between the quartz tray (3) and susceptor (4) of Fujikane in a central region which overlaps the region of the rotary shaft in order to reduce the temperature at the center of the substrate such that a more uniform temperature is produced across the entire surface of the substrate during film growth.
Regarding claim 5, Mori and Fujikane do not teach that the non-contact part is larger than a region where the rotary shaft is disposed in a plan view as viewed from a direction of the rotary shaft. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 3-4, in Fig. 1 and pp. 3-4 Sato teaches an embodiment in which the back surface of the susceptor (10) and the front surface of the heating block are tightly joined around a peripheral portion (3), but are in a non-contact state at the center in order to produce a more uniform temperature across the surface of the substrate (14). Sato specifically teaches that for a susceptor having a diameter of 250 mm the ring-shaped peripheral portion (3) has a width of only 5 to 30 mm. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Sato and would be motivated to ensure that the gap provided between the quartz tray (3) and susceptor (4) of Fujikane is about a central region which is larger than the region of the rotary shaft in a plan view in order to minimize temperature differences produced by the presence of the rotary shaft itself such that a more uniform temperature is produced across the entire surface of the substrate during film growth.
Regarding claim 6, Mori and Fujikane do not teach that a ratio of a contact area over a surface area of the substrate tray is more than or equal to 0.45, the contact area being where the substrate tray and the substrate susceptor are in contact with each other. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 3-5, in Fig. 1 and pp. 3-4 Sato teaches an embodiment in which the back surface of the susceptor (10) and the front surface of the heating block are tightly joined around a peripheral portion (3), but are in a non-contact state at the center in order to produce a more uniform temperature across the surface of the substrate (14). Sato specifically teaches that for a susceptor having a diameter of 250 mm the ring-shaped peripheral portion (3) may have a width of 30 mm. This therefore means that the susceptor (10) has an area of π[Symbol font/0xD7](125 mm)2 = 49,086 mm2 while the ring-shaped peripheral portion (3) has an area of (49,086 mm2 - π[Symbol font/0xD7](125 mm – 30 mm)2) = 20,747.5 mm2 for a peripheral width of 30 mm. This therefore means that the ratio of the area of the peripheral portion (3) to the total surface area of the susceptor (10) is 20,747.5 / 49,086 = 0.423 which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of 0.45 that it would be reasonably expected to yield the same results. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2144.05(I). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Sato and would be motivated to utilize a ratio between the contact area and the surface area of the substrate tray which is more than or equal to 0.45 as claimed in order to produce the required uniformity in the temperature across the entirety of the substrate surface.
Alternatively, since the size of the contact area between the heating block (2) and the susceptor (10) in the apparatus of Sato and, consequently, the ratio of the contact area to the surface area determines the amount of heat flowing therebetween it is 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 width of the ring-shaped peripheral portion (3) and, consequently, the ratio of the contact area to the surface are that is necessary to produce the desired heating profile and thermal characteristics of the substrate during operation.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Fujikane and further in view of Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP05-198519 to Takatsu, et al. (“Takatsu”).
Regarding claim 7, Mori and Fujikane do not teach that the rotary shaft is configured to circulate cooling water inside the rotary shaft. However, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0010]-[0017] Takatsu teaches analogous embodiment of a rotary shaft (12) for a substrate provided in a vacuum chamber (10). As shown specifically in Figs. 1-2 the rotary shaft (12) includes a hollow portion (14) with a cooling pipe (20) that extends through the hollow portion (14). One end (22) of the cooling pipe (20) is connected to a cooling water supply portion while the other end (24) is provided with a cooling water discharge port (26) which facilitates the flow of cooling water through the rotary shaft (12) such that its temperature may be regulated during operation. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide the support shaft in the apparatus of Mori with a hollow portion (14) and a cooling pipe (20) contained therein in order to facilitate the flow of cooling water therethrough in order to regulate the temperature of the shaft such that it does not overheat during film growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed September 8, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants initially argue that the function of the substrate tray and susceptor in Mori and Fujikane is to heat the substrate to the crystal growth temperature which is the opposite of the claimed configuration of these components and the rotary shaft which provides a continuous heat conduction path for releasing heat. See applicants’ 9/8/2026 reply, pp. 11-12. Applicants also argue that Takatsu merely discloses a configuration for cooling a rotary shaft (12) and does not teach or suggest the claimed heat conduction path. Id. at p. 12. Applicants’ arguments are noted, but are unpersuasive. It is pointed out that the pending claims are apparatus claims and, consequently, patentability is based on the structure of the apparatus rather than its method of operation. Even if the apparatus taught by the combination of Mori and Fujikane uses the tray and susceptor to heat the substrate, since it possesses the claimed structure it also provides a continuous heat conduction path for releasing heat from a back surface of the seed substrate. Similarly, the use of a hollow rotary shaft with a cooling pipe to facilitate the flow of cooling water as per the teachings of Takatsu meets the structure of the rotary shaft as recited in claim 7. Where 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). See also MPEP 2112.01.
Applicants then argue against the reliance on Sato to teach a contact area ratio of equal to or greater than 0.45 in amended claim 6 by initially contending that the contact area is between a heating block (2) and susceptor (10) instead of between a substrate tray and susceptor as claimed. Id. at p. 13. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. Even though Sato calls component (10) the susceptor while component (2) is identified as a heating block, the arrangement in Fig. 1 of Sato is similar to that shown in Fig. 3B of the instant application. Providing a different name for the same component does not provide a patentable difference if the structure or function of that component is the same. In this case, components (10) and (2) in Fig. 1 of Sato could be labeled as a substrate tray and a substrate susceptor, respectively, in order to meet the claim.
Finally, applicants argue that Sato does not teach a contact area/surface area ratio of 0.45 or more as recited in amended claim 6. Id. at pp. 13-14. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Since Sato discloses a contact area/surface area ratio of up to 0.423 it is the Examiner’s position that this is close enough to the claimed value of 0.45 or greater that it would be expected to yield the same results. This appears to be reinforced by at least ¶[0077] of the published application which teaches that a ratio of 0.34 results in a reduction of polycrystals of ≥ 70% while a ratio of 0.45 reduces the number of polycrystals by ≥ 80% which is only 10% higher. Thus, a ratio of 0.423 as taught by Sato would be reasonably expected to yield a reduction in the number of polycrystals which is close to 80% or more. Alternatively, the contact area/surface area ratio is considered to be a result-effective variable that may be optimized through routine experimentation in order to obtain the desired heat flow characteristics.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 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