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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "GaN seen crystal" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference characters "1" and "11" have both been used to designate "a seed crystal substrate".
reference characters "2" and "12" have both been used to designate "a substrate".
reference characters "3" and "13" have both been used to designate "an adhesion layer".
reference characters "5" and "15" have both been used to designate a carbon film.
reference characters "21”, “23", "31", "33", “41” and "43" have both been used to designate “a graphite susceptor”.
reference characters "25", "35" and "45" have both been used to designate a fixing layer.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein the substrate includes a GaN single crystal substrate or a sapphire substrate with a GaN film”. This claim language is considered indefinite because it does not make clear if the GaN single crystal substrate includes or excludes a GaN film (e.g. "with a GaN film" could be read as solely be applicable to the sapphire substrate). For purposes of examination, the claim language is interpreted as meaning that the GaN substrate does not also include a GaN film. This is consistent with the parameters set forth in the specification as per paragraph 36, which distinctly does not mention the presence of a GaN film, while paragraph 37 does mention the presence of a GaN film on the Sapphire substrate embodiment of the invention.
Claim 4 states “an expanded graphite sheet disposed on a back surface side of the carbon film”. This claim language is considered indefinite because there is no indication of what would make the graphite sheet particularly "expanded". For purposes of examination the claim language is interpreted as meaning the presence of a graphite sheet. This is consistent with the parameters set forth in the specification in paragraph 45, as there is no elaboration on the meaning of the term "expanded". In order to address the issue of indefiniteness, the applicant should take into consideration the following unsettled questions: Are there any specific structural specifications to the graphite sheet that necessarily make it "expanded"?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an absolute value of a difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate and the graphite susceptor is 0.5×10-6 K-1 or less" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is unclear as to whether the substrate is referring to a GaN or Sapphire (with a GaN film) substrate as stated in claim 1, or the entirety of the seed crystal substrate structure (which includes carbon layers) referenced in other instances in claim 6. For purposes of examination, “the substrate” is the GaN or Sapphire (with a GaN film) substrate as stated in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "an absolute value of a difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate and the graphite susceptor is 0.5×10-6 K-1 or less" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is unclear as to whether the substrate is referring to a GaN or Sapphire (with a GaN film) substrate as stated in claim 1, or the entirety of the seed crystal substrate structure (which includes carbon layers) referenced in other instances in claim 9. For purposes of examination, “the substrate” is the GaN or Sapphire (with a GaN film) substrate as stated in claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1, 4-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehrentraut et al. (US 20230340695 A1). Claim 1 is anticipated by Ehrentraut et al., which teaches:
A seed crystal substrate , said seed crystal substrate is anticipated by the structure shown in figs. 19B and 19E.
a substrate having a GaN seed crystal on a front surface thereof, said seed crystal is anticipated by part of 370 as shown in annotated figs. 19B and 19E. Furthermore, “seed crystals 370, such as substrates 101, which can be used during a crystal growth process” (paragraph 94) teaches that seed crystals can be considered interchangeable with substrates. Therefore, part of 370 is considered the seed crystal and part of 370 is considered the substrate. The (not necessarily planar) surface that forms the boundary between the seed crystal and the substrate is considered the front surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
309
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 19B (Annotated)
an adhesion layer formed on a back surface of the substrate, said adhesion layer is anticipated by an “adhesion layer”, which “may be deposited on […] the back side of [370]” (paragraph 125). This adhesion layer is located as shown in annotated figure 19B and thus is on a back surface of the GaN substrate.
PNG
media_image2.png
502
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 19E(1) (Annotated)
and a carbon film covering the adhesion layer, said carbon film is anticipated by 1921 which “may include or consist of one or more of graphite [and] pyrolytic graphite” (paragraph 107 and Fig. 19E). As seen in annotated Fig. 19E(1), the adhesion layer is covered on one side by the carbon film 1921.
"wherein the substrate includes a GaN single crystal substrate or a sapphire substrate with a GaN film", said GaN substrate is anticipated by 370, which is made of a GaN crystal (paragraph 107 and Fig. 19E).
"the adhesion layer contains Si", said adhesion layer is anticipated by the teaching: “The adhesion layer may include one or more of […] Si” (paragraph 125).
Claim 4 is anticipated by Ehrentraut et al., which teaches:
Claim 1.
an expanded graphite sheet disposed on a back surface side of the carbon film, said graphite sheet is anticipated by 1921b, which “may include or consist of one or more of graphite [or] pyrolytic graphite” (paragraph 96 and Fig. 19E). Annotated figure 19E(2) shows how the graphite sheet 1921b is deposited on a back surface side of the carbon film 1921a.
a joining layer that joins the carbon film and the expanded graphite sheet, said joining layer is anticipated by 1921c. 1921 may coat “a backside and, optionally, one or more edges and/or front side” of 370 (paragraph 96), thereby joining the carbon film and expanded graphite sheet as shown in annotated figure 19E(2).
PNG
media_image3.png
465
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 19E(2) (Annotated)
Claim 5 is anticipated by Ehrentraut et al., which teaches:
Claim 4.
the joining layer comprises: graphite particles, said graphite particles are anticipated by 1921, which “may include or consist of one or more of graphite [or] pyrolytic graphite[…] and is deposited by one or more of spraying particles suspended in a slurry […] or the like” (paragraph 96 and Fig. 19E).
a carbon layer interposed between the graphite particles, said interposed carbon layer is anticipated by 1921 , which “may include or consist of one or more of graphite [or] pyrolytic graphite […] and is deposited by one or more of spraying particles suspended in a slurry […] or the like. In certain embodiments [1921] is subjected to a heat treatment process” (paragraph 96 and Fig. 19E). The suspension of particles means that there is carbon interposed between the graphite particles. The heating treatment process of a slurry is consistent with the fixing layer outlined in the specification.
Claim 8 is anticipated by Ehrentraut et al., which teaches:
Claim 4.
A graphite susceptor with a seed crystal substrate, said graphite susceptor is anticipated by structure shown in figure 19E and described in paragraphs 106 and 107.
a graphite susceptor disposed on a back surface side of the seed crystal substrate, said graphite susceptor is anticipated by 1910, which is a susceptor that may be made of graphite (paragraph 106 and Fig. 19E). Annotated figure 19E(2) shows how susceptor 1910 is on a surface of the back end of the graphite sheet 1921b and thus on a back surface of the substrate 370.
a fixing layer that fixes the seed crystal substrate to the graphite susceptor, said fixing layer is anticipated by is anticipated by 1923, which as shown in Fig. 19E connects the graphite susceptor 1910 with the graphite sheet 1921b (the base part of the seed crystal substrate).
Claim 10 is anticipated by Ehrentraut et al., which teaches:
Claim 8.
the fixing layer comprises: graphite particles, said graphite particles are anticipated by 1923, which “may include or consist of […] graphite and is deposited by one or more of spraying particles suspended in a slurry […] or the like” (paragraph 106 and Fig. 19E).
a carbon layer interposed between the graphite particles, said interposed carbon layer is anticipated by 1923, which “may include or consist of […] graphite […] and is deposited by one or more of spraying particles suspended in a slurry […] or the like” (paragraph 106 and Fig. 19E). The suspension of carbon particles in a slurry means that there is carbon interposed between the graphite particles.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claim 2-3, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrentraut et al. (US 20230340695 A1) in view of D’Evelyn et al. (US 10400352 B2).
In reference to claim 2, Ehrentraut et al. does not specifically teach the claimed range of "the adhesion layer has a thickness of 10 nm or more and 200 nm or less". However, Ehrentraut et al. makes reference to D’Evelyn et al. (paragraph 125) that teaches “[t]he thickness of adhesion layer 113 may [… be] between about 10 nanometers and about 1 micron” (C10 L63-66).
Claim 2 is made obvious by Ehrentraut et al. in view of D’Evelyn et al. because It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the thickness of the adhesion layer is a known result effective variable that would directly impact the level of “good join” as desired by the use of the claimed adhesion layer width. D’Evelyn et al. teaches an adhesion layer that would ideally fall in the taught range. Applicant narrows that range to ensure “good join” above the 50% threshold. However, as the purpose of an adhesion layer is “good join” between given components. Therefore, varying the width of the adhesion layer would be a result effective variable that would impact the percentage of “good join” exhibited by the adhesion layer, and is clearly ascertainable through routine experimentation.
In reference to claim 3, Ehrentraut et al. does not teach the particular thickness of the carbon film " 5 nm or more and 100 nm or less". However, Ehrentraut et al. provides guidance on a carbon film (1921) that “is configured to accommodate any extrinsic or intrinsic stresses formed between […] the deposited layers without the […] deposited layers undergoing cracking or other failure” (paragraph 96).
Claim 3 is made obvious by Ehrentraut et al. in view of its guidance on minimizing stress in the carbon layer because It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the width of the carbon film is a result effective variable that would have direct impact on the structural integrity of the carbon film as desired by the claimed layer width. Ehrentraut et al. recognized that the carbon film (1921) is designed to reduce stress within the entirety of the structure, and thus would reduce peeling within the layer itself. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the carbon film is a result effective variable that would reduce peeling in the carbon layer, and is clearly ascertainable through routine experimentation.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrentraut et al in view of its guidance on minimizing stresses of the carbon layer. Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under Ehrentraut et al., which teaches:
Claim 4.
the expanded graphite layer 1921b is optional, thus the susceptor 1910 would be on a surface on the back end of the substrate 370.
the fixing layer comprises: graphite particles, said graphite particles are anticipated by 1921, which “may include or consist of one or more of graphite [or] pyrolytic graphite […] and is deposited by one or more of spraying particles suspended in a slurry […] or the like” (paragraph 96 and Fig. 19E).
a carbon layer interposed between the graphite particles, said interposed carbon layer is anticipated by 1921, which “may include or consist of one or more of graphite [or] pyrolytic graphite […] and is deposited by one or more of spraying particles suspended in a slurry […] or the like. In certain embodiments [1921] is subjected to a heat treatment process” (paragraph 96 and Fig. 19E). The suspension of particles means that there is carbon interposed between the graphite particles. The heating treatment process of a slurry is consistent with the fixing layer outlined in the specification.
Ehrentraut et al. does not teach an absolute value of a difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate and the graphite susceptor is 0.5×10-6 K-1 or less. Claim 6 is made obvious by Ehrentraut et al. because It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate structure and graphite susceptor is relating to a characteristic of the materials used as the substrate and the susceptor. Ehrentraut et al. discloses the same materials as applicant: a GaN substrate and a graphite susceptor. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate and the graphite susceptor is
0.5
*
10
-
6
K
-
1
or less when using identical materials.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrentraut et al. as applied to claim 8. The structure of claim 9 is identical to that of claim 8, except of the restrictions on the difference in the average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate and the graphite susceptor.
Ehrentraut et al. does not teach an absolute value of a difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate and the graphite susceptor is
0.5
*
10
-
6
K
-
1
or less . However, claim 9 is made obvious by Ehrentraut et al. in view of its guidance on minimizing stress in the carbon layer because It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate structure and graphite susceptor is relating to a characteristic of the materials used as the substrate and the susceptor. Ehrentraut et al. discloses the same materials as applicant: a GaN substrate and a graphite susceptor. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a difference in average coefficient of thermal expansion between the substrate and the graphite susceptor is
0.5
*
10
-
6
K
-
1
or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD CHAPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0147. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9am to 5pm.
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.
/JAMES E CHAPMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights