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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinquin et al (wo 2021/019137) in view of Jp 2012146695
The Sinquin et al reference teaches a method of creating a composite substrate of silicon carbide, note entire reference. The method comprises a step of providing an initial substrate of monocrystalline silicon carbide, a first deposition at a temperature greater than 1000°C to form an intermediate layer of polycrystalline silicon carbide on the initial substrate, note abs. The intermediate layer having a thickness greater than or equal to 1.5 micrometers, page 10. Then a step of ion implantation of hydrogen (ionic species) through the intermediate layer to form a fragile plane embedded in the single crystal substrate. This forms a boundary of the thin layer between the embedded plane and the intermediate layer. Then second deposition step at a temperature greater than 1000°C to form an additional layer of polycrystalline silicon carbide on the intermediate layer, the intermediate layer and the additional layer forming the carrier substrate, a separation along the embedded fragile plane being carried out during the second deposition step, note fig 2a to 2f. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the bonding of a polycrystalline substrate. However, the Jp 2012146695 reference teaches bonding a polycrystalline silicon carbide substrate to the implanted single crystal silicon carbide substrate by means of an intermediate layer, note translation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Sinquin et al process by the teachings of the Jp 2012146695 reference to use a substrate in order to have a steadier base on which to use in further processing.
With regards to claim 3, the Sinquin et al reference teaches depositing the polycrystalline SiC layer, note abs.
With regards to claim 4, the Sinquin et al reference teaches the deposition by chemical vapor deposition, note abs.
With regards to claim 7, the Sinquin et al reference teaches growing the polycrystalline layer in the claimed thickness range, note abs.
Claim(s) 2, and 14 to 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinquin et al (wo 2021/019137) in view of Jp 2012146695
The Sinquin et al and Jp 2012146695 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the specific polytype of the SiC. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable polytype of both substrate of silicon carbide in the combined references in order to have a lattice matched composite substrate.
With regards to claim 15, the Sinquin et al reference teaches depositing the polycrystalline SiC layer, note abs.
With regards to claim 16, the Sinquin et al reference teaches the deposition by chemical vapor deposition, note abs.
With regards to claim 14, the Sinquin et al reference teaches growing the polycrystalline layer in the claimed thickness range, note abs.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinquin et al (wo 2021/019137) in view of Jp 2012146695
The Sinquin et al and Jp 2012146695 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the deposition temperature. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable deposition temperature in the combined references in order to deposit a uniform polycrystalline layer, preventing further crystallization.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinquin et al (wo 2021/019137) in view of Jp 2012146695
The Sinquin et al and Jp 2012146695 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the deposition of an amorphous SiC and then annealing. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable means of growing a polycrystalline SiC layer in the combined references in order to increase control over the crystallization.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinquin et al (wo 2021/019137) in view of Jp 2012146695 and Jp2015119062
The Sinquin et al and Jp 2012146695 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the polishing step. However, the Jp2015119062 reference teaches polishing the two substrates prior art bonding, note translation page 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Sinquin et al reference by the teachings of the Jp2015119062 reference to polish the surfaces in order to increase the strength of the bonding of the substrates.
Claims 9 to 13 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach nor render obvious the instant claims with regards to the additional bonding layer added to both silicon carbide substrates.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning the Jp 2012146695 reference has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The reference does in fact teach and is admitted too in the response that an intermediate layer can be used to aid in attaching a polycrystalline substrate to a single crystal substrate both of silicon carbide. The fact that the reference goes on to teach another embodiment does not remove such teachings from the knowledge and skill of one in the art. The teaching is found in the art of record and clearly known.
Applicants’ argument concerning the combination of references is noted. However, the combination of reference does in fact teach the claimed invention of claim 1. The art does teach the implantion of an ionic specifics into a single crystal silicon carbide substrate and attaching a polycrystalline silicon carbide substrate. With an intermediate layer in between. Claim 1 is not as limited in scope as to the figured set forth in the response on page 9.
Since the rejection of claim 1 is maintain, the rejections over the other claims are also maintained as applicants argue that the claims stand and fall with claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is 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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights