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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 26-27, 29, 31, 40-41, 43, 46-47, 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (JP 2006/216934 A) (for purpose of compact prosecution, a machine translation has been used and will be referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 26, Lee teaches an epitaxial wafer production method (method in Figs. 1-6 of Lee), comprising forming a gettering epitaxial film (30 in Fig. 4-5) containing silicon and carbon (as described in Best Mode section, paragraph #5) on a silicon substrate (10) under reduced pressure using a reduced pressure CVD apparatus (as described in Best Mode section, paragraph #3), and forming a silicon epitaxial film (40) on the gettering epitaxial film.
Regarding claim 27, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed under a pressure of 133 Pa to 10666 Pa (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed under pressure of 10 to 40 Torr, or 1333 to 5332 Pa).
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed into a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 1 µm (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #4, the gettering layer 30 is formed with thickness in the range of 0.1µm to 1 µm).
Regarding claim 31, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed with a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1017 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1018 atoms/cm3 or more and 1021 atoms/cm3).
Regarding claim 40, Lee teaches an epitaxial wafer (1 in Figs. 1-5 of Lee), comprising a silicon substrate (10), a gettering epitaxial film (30 in Figs. 4-5) formed of silicon uniformly gas-doped (the phrase “uniformly gas-doped’ is product-by-process language, which does not carry patentable weight and only requires that the film is doped) with carbon on the silicon substrate (as described in Best Mode section, paragraph #3), and a silicon epitaxial film (40) on the gettering epitaxial film.
Regarding claim 41, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 40, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 1 µm (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #4, the gettering layer 30 is formed with thickness in the range of 0.1µm to 1 µm).
Regarding claim 43, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 40, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1017 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1018 atoms/cm3 or more and 1021 atoms/cm3).
Regarding claim 46, Lee teaches an epitaxial wafer (1 in Fig. 5 of Lee), comprising a silicon substrate (10), and a gettering epitaxial film (30) formed of silicon uniformly gas-doped with carbon on the silicon substrate (the phrase “uniformly gas-doped’ is product-by-process language, which does not carry patentable weight and only requires that the film is doped), wherein the gettering epitaxial film has an insulation property and a high-frequency property (insulation property and high-frequency property are material properties. Since the material of gettering layer 30 is the same as those of the claim, the material properties are presume to be the same).
Regarding claim 47, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 46, and further comprising a silicon epitaxial film (40 in Fig. 5 of Lee) on the gettering epitaxial film.
Regarding claim 50, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 46, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 3 µm (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #4, the gettering layer 30 is formed with thickness in the range of 0.1µm to 1 µm).
Regarding claim 51, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 46, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 1 µm (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #4, the gettering layer 30 is formed with thickness in the range of 0.1µm to 1 µm).
Regarding claim 52, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 46, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film is doped with the carbon at a silicon substitution site (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #7 of Lee).
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.
Claims 28, 30, 32-39, 42, 44-45, 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 28, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, but does not explicitly teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed under a pressure of 667 Pa to 2666 Pa.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed under pressure of 10 to 40 Torr, or 1333 to 5332 Pa, which overlaps with the claimed range of 667 Pa to 2666 Pa, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film under a pressure of 667 to 2666 Pa. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, but does not teach wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed into a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 0.3 µm.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #4, the gettering layer 30 is formed with thickness in the range of 0.1nm to 1 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.025 µm to 0.3 µm, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 0.3 µm. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 32, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, but does not teach explicitly wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed with a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1.0 x 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less, hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a carbon concentration in the range of 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 1021 atoms/cm3. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 33, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, but does not teach wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed with a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or less.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1021 atoms/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or less. Hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 34, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, and also teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed in a mixed gas atmosphere containing silicon and carbon (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #5 of Lee) but does not teach wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed at 550⁰C to 1150⁰C.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6 of Lee, the gettering layer 30 is formed by a CVD method at temperature ranging from 500⁰C to 750⁰C, which overlaps with claimed range of 550⁰C to 1150⁰C. Hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film in temperature ranging from 550 to 1150⁰C . See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 35, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 26, but does not teach wherein the gettering epitaxial film is formed at 550⁰C to 800⁰C.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6 of Lee, the gettering layer 30 is formed by a CVD method at temperature ranging from 500 to 750⁰C, which overlaps with claimed range of 550⁰C to 800⁰C. Hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film in temperature ranging from 550 to 800⁰C . See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 36, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 34, and also teaches wherein at least one of SiH4 (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6 of Lee), SiH2Cl2, and SiHCl3 is used as a silicon source of the mixed gas atmosphere containing silicon and carbon.
Regarding claim 37, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 35, and also teaches wherein at least one of SiH4 (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6 of Lee), SiH2Cl2, and SiHCl3 is used as a silicon source of the mixed gas atmosphere containing silicon and carbon.
Regarding claim 38, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 34, and also teaches wherein at least one of SiH3(CH3) (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6 of Lee), SiH2(CH3)2, SiH(CH3)3, CH4, C2H6, and C3H8 is used as a carbon source of the mixed gas atmosphere containing silicon and carbon.
Regarding claim 39, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer production method according to claim 35, and also teaches wherein at least one of SiH3(CH3) (as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6 of Lee), SiH2(CH3)2, SiH(CH3)3, CH4, C2H6, and C38 is used as a carbon source of the mixed gas atmosphere containing silicon and carbon.
Regarding claim 42, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 40, but does not explicitly teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 0.3 µm.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #4, the gettering layer 30 is formed with thickness in the range of 0.1nm to 1 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.025 µm to 0.3 µm, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a film thickness of 0.025 µm to 0.3 µm. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 44, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 40, but does not explicitly teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1.0 x 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less, hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a carbon concentration in the range of 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 1021 atoms/cm3. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 45, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 40, but does not explicitly teaches wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or less.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1021 atoms/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or less. Hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 48, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 46, but does not teach wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1021 atoms/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less. Hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a carbon atomic concentration of 1.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or more and 5.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 49, Lee teaches all limitations of the epitaxial wafer according to claim 46, but does not teach wherein the gettering epitaxial film has a carbon atomic concentration of 3.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or more and 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less.
However, as described in Best Mode section paragraph #6, the gettering layer 30 is formed with carbon concentration in the range of 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1021 atoms/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or more and 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less. Hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the gettering epitaxial film with a carbon atomic concentration of 3.0 x 1020 atoms/cm3 or more and 1.0 x 1021 atoms/cm3. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0406. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-9am, 10am-6pm 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/Tuan A Hoang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights