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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that if the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the standard for U.S. national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371 is the requirement for unity of invention, the basis of which is determining a special technical feature between the groups. It is noted the existence of the common technical feature in both groups I and II, however, there is no contribution of this feature over the prior art, as discussed in the Requirement for Restriction. Examiner notes that while Applicant argues that there is no search burden on the examiner, serious search burden is a requirement for US applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), not for the national stage entry applications. Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/19/2026. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-5 are currently examined on the merits.
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.
The recited in claim 1 “A method of manufacturing a silicon epitaxial substrate, comprising: a step of growing a silicon single crystal by the Czochralski method the electrical resistivity of which is adjusted to 0.6 to 1.0 mΩ-cm by adding phosphorus as a dopant…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. While reciting “A method of manufacturing a silicon epitaxial substrate,” claim 1 also recites “silicon single crystal by the Czochralski method.” Claim 1 embraces “method of manufacturing a silicon epitaxial substrate” and “Czochralski method” limitations in the same claim, thus failing to clearly indicate which method is sought for protection. It is also not clear what “the Czochralski method the electrical resistivity of which is adjusted to 0.6 to 1.0 mΩ-cm” means, what “which” refers to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 1 “…growing a silicon single crystal… slicing a silicon single crystal and placing it in an epitaxial growth furnace…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether “a silicon single crystal” (in a step of slicing) refers to the previously recited “silicon single crystal” (in a step of growing) or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 1 “…placing it in an epitaxial growth furnace…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “it” refers to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 1 “…at the above temperature range…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “the above temperature range” refers to, since several temperature ranges are recited. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Czochralski method," “the electrical resistivity,” “the furnace temperature” and “the low-temperature holding step”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “low” in claims 1-4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3 and 4 recites the limitation "the step of holding at low temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the length,” “the tail,” “the ingot” and "the last stage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima et al (US 20160102418 A1, “Narushima”), and further in view of Sato Hideki (JP 2019186449 A, machine translation, “Hideki”).
Regarding claim 1, Narushima teaches a method of manufacturing a silicon epitaxial substrate comprising a step of growing a silicon single crystal by pulling a seed silicon brought into a molten of silicon (Czochralski method) the electrical resistivity of which is adjusted to 0.7 to 0.9 mΩ-cm by adding phosphorus as a dopant (abstract, 0027, 0029, 0091, 0093, 0094, 0102, 0105, 0140, 0143, claims 1 and 5); a step of controlling (monitoring) a tube/residence (passage) time from 640 °C to 500 °C (570±70 degree C) (overlapping 700°C to 600°C) when the silicon single crystal is cooled (0027, 0084, 0085, 0089, 0097-0100, 0150-0153, 0170, 0186, 0199); a step of cutting (slicing) a silicon single crystal and placing it in a CVD for epitaxial growth (an epitaxial growth furnace) (0031, 0102, 0103, 0106, 0189, 0191, 0193), a step of holding the furnace temperature of the epitaxial growth furnace (CVD prebaking period) for 30 seconds or more (overlapping 120 S to 300 S) (0161-0162), when the passage time (tube/ residence time) is 200 minutes or less, or 200 minutes or more, at 640 °C to 500 °C 570±70 degree C) (overlapping 700°C to 600°C) (0087, 0090, 0091, 0100, 0150, 0154, 0169, 0170, 0175, 0177, 0179, 0180, 0189, 0193). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Narushima teaches the step of holding the furnace temperature when the passage time is 200 minutes or less, or 200 minutes or more as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach holding the furnace temperature at a temperature of 750°C or more and 900°C or less, or a temperature of 900°C or more and 1000°C or less. However, Hideki teaches a method, wherein a silicon single crystal substrate is treated at a temperature of 750°C or higher and less than 1050°C for 30 seconds or more (abstract, 0014-0016, 0018-0025, 0034, 0035, 0040, 0042, 0044, 0050-0052, 0061, 0063-0065, claims 1 and 4-7). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Narushima per teachings of Hideki in order to provide an epitaxial wafer with decreased lamination defects (Hideki abstract).
Regarding claim 2, as addressed above, Narushima/Hideki teaches in the step of holding at low temperature, the furnace temperature of the epitaxial growth furnace is held for 30 seconds or more at a temperature of 750°C or higher and less than 1050°C when the passage time is at 200 minutes or less, or 200 minutes or more, at 640 °C to 500 °C, overlapping the instantly claimed in the step of holding at low temperature, the furnace temperature of the epitaxial growth furnace is held for 120 S to 300 S at a temperature of 750°C or more and 875°C or less when the passage time is less than 200 min at 700°C to 600°C, or at a temperature of 825°C or more and 900°C or less when the passage time is 200 min or more and less than 300 min. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima/Hideki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikari et al (US 6548886 B1, “Ikari”).
Regarding claim 3, Narushima/Hideki teaches between the step of holding at low temperature and the step of epitaxial growth, a hydrogen heat treatment is performed at a temperature of from 1150 to 1200 degrees C. (Narushima 0161), but does not explicitly teach that etching is performed with hydrogen chloride at a temperature of 1150°C or more and less than 1200°C. However, Ikari teaches a method, wherein a silicon substrate is etched with hydrogen chloride at a temperature of 900°C to 1200°C (col 17 lines 50-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Narushima/Hideki per teachings of Ikari in order to provide a single crystal surface layer of high quality necessary for the formation of semiconductor devices at a lower cost (Ikari col 55 line 45 to col 56 line 55).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima/Hideki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al (US 6600189 B1, “Sato”).
Regarding claim 4, Narushima/Hideki teaches the step of holding at low temperature (heat treatment) as addressed above, and further teaches an oxidation film being formed before the heat treatment step (0051-0052), but does not explicitly teach that a chemical oxide film having a thickness of 0.5 nm or more is formed with ozone water. However, Sato teaches a method, wherein an oxide film having a thickness of about 1.5 nm is formed with ozone aqueous solution (ozone water) (col 14 lines 54-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Narushima/Hideki per teachings of Sato in order to provide suitable substrate for manufacturing semiconductor device (Sato col 1 lines 10-20, col 3 line 5 to col 8 line 62 and col 14 lines 54-60).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima/Hideki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Togawa et al (US 20100116194 A1, “Togawa”).
Regarding claim 5, Narushima/Hideki teaches forming a tail portion of the silicon single crystal (ingot) at the last stage of the step of single crystal growth (figs 18-19, 0027, 0074, 0084, 0089, 0091, 0098, 0150, 0152, 0153, 0186, 0190), but does not that a length of the tail portion of the ingot produced at the last stage of the step of single crystal growth is 0 to 50 mm. However, Togawa teaches a method, wherein a length of the tail portion of the ingot produced at the last stage of the step of single crystal growth is 50 mm (0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Narushima/Hideki per teachings of Togawa in order to provide a silicon single crystal at low cost (Togawa abstract, 0001, 0012-0023, 0032, 0080 and 0081). Furthermore, it is well-established that “[W]here 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights