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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/24/2024. Currently, claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 14-16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PAN et al (CN 111809238 A). A machine English translation of PAN is provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 14, PAN disclose a method comprising: providing a crystalline material of silicon carbide (SiC); and thermally conditioning the crystalline material, wherein thermally conditioning the crystalline material comprises annealing the crystalline material at a temperature in a range from 1900° C. to 2200° C or 2100° C. to 2300° C (page 8 of English translation of PAN).
PAN does not explicitly teach that the temperature in a range from 1300° C. to 2600° C.
However, PAN teaches some example temperature in a range from 1900° C. to 2200° C or 2100° C. to 2300° C (page 8 of English translation of PAN), wherein the temperature range as taught by PAN lies within the claimed rang of 1300° C. to 2600° C. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, PAN disclose that the method of claim 14, further comprising slowly cooling to room temperature at 10 degrees centigrade per hour to 60 degrees centigrade per hour, such as 40 degrees centigrade per hour, filling inert gas to the growth furnace body 330 to 105Pa, taking out the silicon carbide crystal on the furnace door, finishing the manufacturing operation of the silicon carbide single crystal (page 8 of English translation of PAN).
PAN does not explicitly teach that the cooling the crystalline material down from the temperature at a rate in a range from 0.5° C. to 5° C. per minute when the temperature is in a range from 2000° C. to 2600° C.
However, PAN teaches slowly cooling to room temperature at 10 degrees centigrade per hour to 60 degrees centigrade per hour, such as 40 degrees centigrade per hour, filling inert gas to the growth furnace body 330 to 105Pa, taking out the silicon carbide crystal on the furnace door, finishing the manufacturing operation of the silicon carbide single crystal (page 8 of English translation of PAN), wherein the range and rate as taught by PAN lies within the claimed range and rate. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, PAN does not explicitly teach that the method of claim 14, further comprising cooling the crystalline material down from the temperature at a rate in a range from above 5° C. to 100° C. per minute, wherein the temperature is in a range from 1300° C. to 2000° C.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges based on the size and shape of the material in order to fabricate an improved device with lower cost since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, PAN does not explicitly teach that the method of claim 14, wherein the crystalline material comprises a diameter that is in a range from 145 mm to 305 mm.
However, PAN teaches a diameter of the seed crystal is from 100mm to 200mm (page 3 of English translation of PAN), wherein the range as taught by PAN overlaps the claimed range of diameter. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, PAN discloses that the method of claim 14, wherein the crystalline material comprises a SiC wafer that is separated from a SiC crystalline boule before thermally conditioning the crystalline material (Figure 3 and also page 5 of English translation of PAN, it is anticipated that the boule in Figure 3 is cut from a wafer).
Regarding claim 22, PAN discloses that the method of claim 14, wherein the SiC crystalline material comprises one of 4H—SiC, semi-insulating SiC, n-type SiC, and p-type SiC (page 5 of English translation of PAN).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vodakov et al (US 20020083890 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Vodakov discloses a method comprising: providing a crystalline material of silicon carbide (SiC); and thermally conditioning the crystalline material, wherein thermally conditioning the crystalline material comprises annealing the crystalline material at a temperature in a range from 2000° C. to 2300° C.
Vodakov does not explicitly teach that the temperature in a range from 1300° C. to 2600° C.
However, Vodakov teaches that the temperature in a range from 2000° C. to 2300° C ([0039]), wherein the temperature range as taught by PAN lies within the claimed range of 1300° C. to 2600° C. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 15-16, Vodakov does not explicitly teach that the method of claim 14, further comprising cooling the crystalline material down from the temperature at a rate in a range from 0.5° C. to 5° C. per minute when the temperature is in a range from 2000° C. to 2600° C. or
The method of claim 14, further comprising cooling the crystalline material down from the temperature at a rate in a range from above 5° C. to 100° C. per minute, wherein the temperature is in a range from 1300° C. to 2000° C.
However, Vodakov teaches that the cooling rate is less than 20° C. per minute ([0040]), wherein the cooling rate as taught by Vodakov lies within the claimed range. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claims 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of base claim 14 and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a method comprising: “thermally conditioning the crystalline material to provide the crystalline material with an absorption coefficient that is within an absorption coefficient range defined by a minimum value and a maximum value that are 0.15 reciprocal centimeters (cm−1) apart over a wavelength range from 420 nanometers (nm) to 700 nm”.
Regarding claims 2-12, these claims are allowed as they depend on an allowable claim.
Regarding claim 13, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a method comprising: “thermally conditioning a crystalline material of silicon carbide (SiC) to provide the crystalline material with an absorption coefficient that is within an absorption coefficient range defined by a minimum value and a maximum value that are 0.15 reciprocal centimeters (cm−1) apart over a wavelength range from 420 nanometers (nm) to 700 nm”.
Regarding claim 17, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a method comprising: “wherein following thermal conditioning, the crystalline material has an absorption coefficient that is within an absorption coefficient range defined by a minimum value and a maximum value that are 0.15 reciprocal centimeters (cm−1) apart over a wavelength range from 420 nanometers (nm) to 700 nm”.
Regarding claims 18-19, these claims are allowed as they depend on an allowable claim.
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights