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 .
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on August 24, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the boule as claimed can be grown by several different methods than the one instantly claimed. The search for the boule is not coextensive with the search for the claimed process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15 to 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 26, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 to 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Nakabayashi (2018/0282902).
The Nakabayashi reference teaches a silicon carbide boule, note entire reference. The reference teaches the upper limit of the diameter of the ingot is 300 mm or less (paragraph 0028, 0043). The height of the ingot is 35 mm or more and 100 mm is the upper limit value in paragraphs 0043, 0056 to 0059, 0063, 0081, 0086 and Table 2.
With regards to claim 2, the Nakabayashi reference teaches the width range of 195-205mm, note table 2
With regards to claim 3, the Nakabayashi reference teaches the boule height range of 100-300mm para 0028.
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) 12 to 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi (2018/0282902).
The Nakabayashi reference is relied on for the same reason as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the type of face of the boule. However, it 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 though routine experimentation the optimum, operable growth face or type of face of the silicon carbide boule in the Nakabayashi process in order to grow and cut the boule to obtain the desired face and orientation of the wafer, noting, different types of faces or orientations for silicon carbide are known in the art.
Claims 4 to 11 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 specific orientation of the boule and the basal plane dislocation amounts of the radius.
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