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 of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on June 1, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 1, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Device for producing a Group III nitride crystal comprising a raw material chamber with a multistage raw material boat
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 1-5 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 “a group III nitride crystal” in ll. 4-5. It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the group III nitride crystal recited in l. 1. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the group III nitride crystal.” Dependent claims 2-5 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 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 Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP2009-173463A to Kenji Hori (“Kenji”).
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 apparatus for producing Group III-nitride crystals), the device comprising:
a raw material chamber that generates a group III element oxide gas (see Fig. 2 and ¶[0038] which teach a raw material reaction chamber (100) which supplies a Group III-oxide gas); and
a growth chamber that reacts the group III element oxide gas supplied from the raw material chamber with a nitrogen element-containing gas to generate a group III nitride crystal on a seed substrate (see Fig. 2 and ¶[0038] which teach a growth chamber (111) where the Group III-oxide gas supplied through port (118) reacts with a nitrogen gas supplied through port (112) in order to generate a Group III-nitride crystal on a seed substrate (116)),
wherein the raw material chamber includes a raw material reaction room, and a raw material boat, is provided in the raw material reaction room, is filled with a starting group III element source, and causes a reactive gas to flow to react with the starting group III element source to generate the group III element oxide gas (see Fig. 2 and ¶[0038] which teach a raw material reaction chamber (101) which includes a boat (104) containing a Group III-element source (105) where a reactive gas delivered via reactive gas pipe (103) reacts with the Group III-element source (105) to generate the Group III-oxide gas), and
the boat includes a channel pipe through which the reactive gas flows (see Fig. 2 and ¶[0038] which teach that the raw material reaction chamber (101) includes a channel pipe through which the reactive gas from the reactive gas pipe (103) flows).
Mori does not teach that the raw material boat is a multistage raw material boat that includes stages and includes, in each of the stages, at least two or more channel pipes through which the reactive gas flows, the at least two or more channel pipes connecting the stage to an adjacent stage among the stages. However, in the Abstract, Fig. 1, and the Best Mode at pp. 6-7 Kenji teaches an analogous embodiment of vapor phase apparatus for GaN growth. The Group III raw material is provided in a Ga melt storage device (16) which includes a HCl gas inlet (1a) and a GaCl gas outlet (4). The Ga melt storage device further includes plurality of first to nth sealed Ga melt tanks (6a), (6b), and (6c) which are connected by separate gas supply pipes (1b) that are vertically staggered such that the incoming HCl reaction gas flows horizontally over the surface of the Ga melt (5) provided in each individual Ga melt tank (6a-c). With this configuration the reaction time between the Ga melt (5) and the HCl reaction gas is increased and the amount of unreacted HCl gas is greatly reduced such that the flow rate of the GaCl precursor gas is increased. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide raw material reaction chamber (101) of Mori with multiple Ga melt tanks (6a-c) which include at least two channel pipes (1b) connecting adjacent stages in a manner analogous to the Ga melt storage device (16) in Fig. 1 of Kenji in order to increase the residence time of the reactive gas (103) over the surface of the Ga melt such that the reaction efficiency and overall flow rate of the Group III-oxide gas is increased so that a higher GaN growth rate may be obtained.
Regarding claim 2, Mori teaches that the reactive gas passing inside the raw material chamber flows from an upstream side to a downstream side in the raw material reaction room (see Fig. 2 and ¶[0038] which teach that the reactive gas from pipe (103) flows from an upstream side to a discharge port (107) at a downstream side of the raw material reaction chamber (101)), and the raw material boat includes a passage through which the reactive gas flows, the passage being disposed from an upstream low-temperature side toward a downstream high-temperature side of the raw material reaction room (see ¶[0044] which teaches that the downstream connection pipe (109) is heated by a third heater (110) to a temperature higher than the first heater (106) which surrounds the raw material chamber (100) in order to avoid having the starting Ga source material precipitate inside the connection pipe (109); accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to ensure that the downstream side of the raw material reaction chamber (101) is heated to a higher temperature than an upstream side in order to prevent the Ga source material precipitate on inside surfaces of the discharge port (107)).
Mori does not teach that the boat is a multistage raw material boat that includes, in each stage, a passage through which the reactive gas flows, the passage being disposed from an upstream side toward a downstream side of the raw material reaction room. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in the Abstract, Fig. 1, and the Best Mode at pp. 6-7 Kenji teaches an analogous embodiment of vapor phase apparatus for GaN growth. The Group III raw material is provided in a Ga melt storage device (16) which includes a HCl gas inlet (1a) and a GaCl gas outlet (4). The Ga melt storage device further includes plurality of first to nth sealed Ga melt tanks (6a), (6b), and (6c) which are connected by separate gas supply pipes (1b) that are vertically staggered such that the incoming HCl reaction gas flows horizontally over the surface of the Ga melt (5) provided in each individual Ga melt tank (6a-c). With this configuration the reaction time between the Ga melt (5) and the HCl reaction gas is increased and the amount of unreacted HCl gas is greatly reduced such that the flow rate of the GaCl precursor gas is increased. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide raw material reaction chamber (101) of Mori with multiple Ga melt tanks (6a-c) which include at least two channel pipes (1b) connecting adjacent stages from an upstream side near inlet (1a) to a downstream side near outlet (4) in a manner analogous to the Ga melt storage device (16) in Fig. 1 of Kenji in order to increase the residence time of the reactive gas (103) over the surface of the Ga melt such that the reaction efficiency and overall flow rate of the Group III-oxide gas is increased so that a higher GaN growth rate may be obtained.
Regarding claim 3, Mori and Kenji do not explicitly teach that the multistage raw material boat satisfies relationships of Formulas (1) to (5) as claimed where dGaN is a mass density of gallium nitride, dGa is a mass density of gallium, [GaN] is a molecular weight of gallium nitride, [Ga] is an atomic weight of gallium, W is a surface area of a wafer, t is a thickness of a grown GaN crystal, Sm is a surface area of the raw material boat of an m-th stage, nm is a number of channel pipes of the raw material boat of the m-th stage, Tm is a sectional area of the channel pipe of the raw material boat of the m-th stage, lm is a height of the raw material boat of the m-th stage, y is a yield of Ga in GaN crystal growth, and k is a total number of stages of the multistage raw material boat. However, since the GaN growth reactor of Mori and multistage raw material boat of Kenji possess each and every element of the claimed structure and utilize the same Ga source material to deposit GaN onto a wafer (116) to a predetermined thickness it therefore is the Examiner’s position that it would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to optimize each of the claimed variables, including the number of boats (6), the size of each boat (6-c), the number and diameter of the channel pipes (1b), as well as the amount of Ga in each boat which satisfies equations (1)-(5) as claimed in roder to obtain the desired Ga precursor vapor concentration and flow rate for the growth of a high quality GaN layer at the desired growth rate and with the desired materials properties. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Mori does not teach that the multistage raw material boat has a structure in which the at least two or more channel pipes of the respective stages are not at positions that coincide with the at least two or more channel pipes of the stage with respect to a vertically adjacent stage among the stages in plan view. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Fig. 1 and the Best Mode at pp. 6-7 Kenji teaches an analogous embodiment of vapor phase apparatus for GaN growth. The Group III raw material is provided in a Ga melt storage device (16) which includes a HCl gas inlet (1a) and a GaCl gas outlet (4). The Ga melt storage device further includes plurality of first to nth sealed Ga melt tanks (6a), (6b), and (6c) which are connected by separate gas supply pipes (1b) that are vertically staggered such that the incoming HCl reaction gas flows horizontally over the surface of the Ga melt (5) provided in each individual Ga melt tank (6a-c). With this configuration the reaction time between the Ga melt (5) and the HCl reaction gas is increased and the amount of unreacted HCl gas is greatly reduced such that the flow rate of the GaCl precursor gas is increased. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to provide raw material reaction chamber (101) of Mori with multiple Ga melt tanks (6a-c) which include at least two channel pipes (1b) connecting adjacent stages that are vertically offset in a plan view in a manner analogous to the Ga melt storage device (16) in Fig. 1 of Kenji in order to increase the residence time of the reactive gas (103) over the surface of the Ga melt such that the reaction efficiency and overall flow rate of the Group III-oxide gas is increased so that a higher GaN growth rate may be obtained.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Kenji and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0043442 to Konno, et al. (“Konno”).
Regarding claim 5, Mori and Kenji do not teach that a sectional area Tm of each of the at least two or more channel pipes is less than or equal to 100 mm2. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0045]-[0057] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Konno teaches an analogous embodiment of a vapor deposition system for the epitaxial growth of GaN single crystals. As shown in Fig. 1 the system includes, inter alia, a Group III line (62) which supplies a reactive gas to a boat (7) containing a Ga melt (7a), a Group V gas line (61), and a doping line (63), all of which deliver the desired precursor gases to a substrate (11) for deposition of GaN. In ¶[0057] Konno specifically teaches an embodiment wherein the gas pipes (60) have a diameter of 10 mm which translates to a cross-sectional area of π[Symbol font/0xD7](5 mm)2 = 78.5 mm2 for a circular pipe which falls within the claimed range. Thus, a PHOSITA would look to the teachings of Konno as a guide and would start with channel pipes (1b) having a diameter of 10 mm (i.e. a cross-sectional area of 78.5 mm2 which is less than 100 mm2) and would utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal diameter and, hence, the cross-sectional area of each of the channel pipes (1b) within the Ga melt storage device (16) of Kenji that produces the flow rate and pressure of the Group III-oxide precursor gas that is required for growth of a GaN crystal having the desired materials properties.
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