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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on July 15, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 15, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Method for growing a gallium oxide single crystal from molten raw material provided in a crucible containing iridium
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 2, 6, and 8 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.
Claim 2 recites that the preset partial pressure of the carbon dioxide is “40% or more and 60% or less.” However, the claim does not clearly specify what the recited percentage is derived from. Is it 40 to 60% of the total pressure during crystal growth or is it 40 to 60% of the amount of carbon dioxide present during crystal growth? For examination purposes it is assumed that the recited 40 to 60% is the fraction of carbon dioxide in the crystal growth atmosphere.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the single crystal growth method” in l. 1 and “the one-time performance” in l. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. With respect to the former, it is assumed applicants intended to refer to “the method for growing the gallium oxide single crystal” or just “the method.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the single crystal growth method” in l. 1 and “the one-time performance” in ll. 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. With respect to the former, it is assumed applicants intended to refer to “the method for growing the gallium oxide single crystal” or just “the method.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a publication to Galazka, et al. entitled “Czochralski growth and characterization of b-Ga2O3 single crystals,” Cryst. Res. Technol., Vol. 45, No. 12, pp. 1229-36 (2010) (hereinafter “Galazka”).
Regarding claim 1, Galazka teaches a method for growing a gallium oxide single crystal (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and entire reference which teach a method of growing a Ga2O3 single crystal by the Czochralski method), comprising:
providing a gallium oxide raw material in a crucible containing iridium (see Section 3 at p. 1231 which teaches providing Ga2O3 raw material in an iridium crucible);
injecting carbon dioxide so that a preset partial pressure of the carbon dioxide is formed to suppress the loss of the iridium (see Section 3 at pp. 1231-32 and Tables 2-3 which teach the growth under a 50% CO2 atmosphere which necessarily suppresses the loss of iridium from the crucible);
melting the gallium oxide raw material provided in the crucible (see Section 3 at p. 1231 which teaches that the growth furnace is heated by an amount which is necessarily sufficient to produce a melt); and
producing a gallium oxide single crystal from the melt (see Fig. 2 and Section 3 at pp. 1231-33 which teach the growth of a Ga2O3 single crystal from the melt).
Regarding claim 2, Galazka teaches that the preset partial pressure of the carbon dioxide is 40% or more and 60% or less (see Section 3 at pp. 1231-32 and Tables 2-3 which teach growth under an atmosphere comprised of 50% CO2).
Regarding claim 3, Galazka teaches that the injecting of the carbon dioxide includes injecting the carbon dioxide at a pressure of less than 2.4 bar (see Section 3 at pp. 1231-32 and Tables 2-3 which teach growth under an atmosphere comprised of 50% CO2 at a pressure of 1 bar).
Regarding claim 4, Galazka teaches that the injecting of the carbon dioxide includes injecting argon (see Section 3 at pp. 1231-32 and Tables 2-3 which teach growth under an atmosphere comprised of 50% Ar and 50% CO2).
Regarding claim 5, Galazka teaches that the injecting of the argon includes injecting the argon at a pressure of less than 4.5 bar (see Section 3 at pp. 1231-32 and Tables 2-3 which teach growth under an atmosphere comprised of 50% Ar and 50% CO2 at a pressure of 1 bar).
Regarding claim 9, Galazka teaches that the producing of the gallium oxide single crystal includes producing the gallium oxide single crystal from the melt through any one of edge-defined film-fed growth (EFG) and Czochralski (CZ) growth (see Section 3 at p. 1231 which teaches the growth of Ga2O3 by the Czochralski method).
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.
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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galazka.
Regarding claim 6, Galazka does not teach that after the single crystal growth method is performed once, a mass of a solid iridium metal contained in the crucible is 99.75% or more of the mass of the solid iridium metal contained in the crucible before the one-time performance. However, since the method of Galazka performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely that 99.75% or more of the mass of the solid iridium crucible remains after performing crystal growth. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, retention of 99.75% or more of the mass of the iridium crucible, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galazka in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2010/0107965 to Fukui, et al. (“Fukui”).
Regarding claim 7, Galazka does not teach that a mass of the produced gallium oxide single crystal is 90% or more of the mass of the provided gallium oxide raw material. However, the fraction of the gallium oxide raw material that is consumed is determined by, inter alia, the duration of crystal growth and the size of the resulting single crystal that is produced therefrom. This is exemplified by at least Fig. 4, ¶¶[0072]-[0077], Example 1 in ¶¶[0108]-[0113], and Chart 1 Fukui teaches an analogous method of growing a semiconductor single crystal from a melt by the Czochralski method. In Chart 1 and ¶[0111]-[0112] Fukui specifically teaches that a higher yield from a given amount of melt is preferable in order to maximize the usage efficiency of the raw material with a yield of 80% or more being favorable. In Examples A3-A5 Fukui specifically teaches that a high quality single crystal with a yield of 90% may be attained using a crucible with a particular thickness range for the natural glass layer. Accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize routine experimentation to determine the specific growth conditions, including the duration of crystal growth which permits the growth of a gallium oxide single crystal in the method of Galazka which utilizes at least 90% of the mass of the raw material provided in the crucible in order to produce a larger single crystal and to more efficiently utilize a larger fraction of the raw material that has been added to the crucible.
Regarding claim 8, Galazka does not teach that after the single crystal growth method is performed once, a mass of the provided gallium oxide raw material remaining in the crucible is less than 10% of the mass of the gallium oxide raw material provided in the crucible before the one-time performance. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 7, the fraction of the gallium oxide raw material that is consumed is determined by, inter alia, the duration of crystal growth and the size of the resulting single crystal that is produced therefrom. This is exemplified by at least Fig. 4, ¶¶[0072]-[0077], Example 1 in ¶¶[0108]-[0113], and Chart 1 Fukui teaches an analogous method of growing a semiconductor single crystal from a melt by the Czochralski method. In Chart 1 and ¶[0111]-[0112] Fukui specifically teaches that a higher yield from a given amount of melt is preferable in order to maximize the usage efficiency of the raw material with a yield of 80% or more being favorable. In Examples A3-A5 Fukui specifically teaches that a high quality single crystal with a yield of 90% may be attained using a crucible with a particular thickness range for the natural glass layer. Accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize routine experimentation to determine the specific growth conditions, including the duration of crystal growth which permits the growth of a gallium oxide single crystal in the method of Galazka which utilizes more than 90% of the mass of the raw material provided in the crucible such that less than 10% of the melt remains in order to produce a larger single crystal and to more efficiently utilize a larger fraction of the raw material that has been added to the crucible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights