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 of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Claims 1-9 are currently examined on the merits.
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, “a translation and rotating mechanisms” 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “…a emissivity...” which should read “…an emissivity...” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the Czochralski method," “the oriented crystal seed,” “the molten starting material,” “the crystal seed,” “the translation rate,” “the seed diameter,” “the melt,” “the predefined cylindrical length,” “the growth rate,” “the initial growth rate,” “the latent heat,” “the amount of the heat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 1 “…electrically conducting bulk β-Ga2O3 single crystals… a growing bulk β-Ga2O3 single crystal… a growing crystal… the Ga2O3 single crystal …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether electrically conducting bulk β-Ga2O3 single crystals, a growing bulk β-Ga2O3 single crystal and a growing crystal refers to a same crystal or not; it is not clear which crystal is referred as “the Ga2O3 single crystal.” Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-9 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The term “shallow” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shallow” 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.
The recited in claim 1 “…a pre-defined cylindrical diameter… a final cylindrical diameter… the cylindrical diameter …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the cylindrical diameter refers to the pre-defined cylindrical diameter or the final cylindrical diameter; it is not clear with respect to the relationship between a pre-defined cylindrical diameter and a final cylindrical diameter Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-9 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “crystal seed”, and the claim also recites “oriented crystal seed” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is also not clear what “oriented crystal seed” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-9 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galazka et al (US 20170263738 A1, “Galazka”), and further in view of Wang et al (US 20210230767 A1, “Wang”), Morioka et al (US 4783235 A, “Morioka”) and Sakano et al (US 20210214855 A1, “Sakano”).
Regarding claim 1, Galazka teaches a method for producing electrically conducting bulk ß-Ga₂O₃ single crystals by the Czochralski method having a pre-defined cylindrical diameter and a pre-defined cylindrical length, the method comprising providing, to a growth chamber, a growth furnace comprising a noble metal crucible 101/201 with a Ga2O3 starting material therein (abstract, 0009, 0019-0031, 0048, 0053, 0059, 0060, 0069-0073), a thermal insulation 103/203 surrounding the crucible from all sides with a free space to accommodate a growing bulk ß-Ga₂O₃ single crystal 110/210 (abstract, 0018, 0059, 0060), and an inductive heater for heating up the crucible and control a melt temperature during crystal growth (abstract, 0019, 0022, 0059, 0094), while the a growing crystal is fixed through a crystal seed 105/205, a seed holder 106/206, and a pulling rod 107/207 to a translation and rotating mechanisms (0005, 0006, 0020-0024, 0059, 0060); providing, to the Ga2O₃ starting material, a dopant forming a shallow donor in the Ga₂O₃ single crystal (0072); providing, to the growth chamber and thus to the growth furnace, a growth atmosphere containing oxygen mixed with at least one non-reducing gas (for example Ar) (0057, 0069-0073); heating up the crucible with the Ga₂O₃ starting material by the heater and subsequently melting the Ga2O3 starting material (abstract, 0022, 0059, 0062, 0069-0073); contacting (dipping) the oriented crystal seed into the molten starting material (0023, 0059); pulling the crystal seed up with the translation rate to achieve a predefined growth rate/speed while rotating at a rotation rate (0056, 0059, 0060); while pulling, expanding/increasing the seed diameter to a final cylindrical diameter of the single crystal (0059); pulling the single crystal with the cylindrical diameter to the predefined cylindrical length (0059, 0069-0073); separating the single crystal from the melt (0059), and cooling the growth furnace with the grown single crystal down to room temperature (0025, 0033, 0059, 0060, 0069-0073 and claim 1).
Galazka teaches the inductive heater and the growth furnace as addressed above but does not explicitly teach the inductive heater being an inductive radio frequency (RF) coil, the RF coil being powered by an RF generator, additionally comprising providing an inner thermal insulation. However, Wang teaches a method, wherein a heater is an inductive radio frequency (RF) coil, the RF coil is energized by electrical energy (RF generator) for heating up the crucible (0055, 0056, 0076, 0077, 0094, 0119, 0121), the growth furnace has an inner thermal insulation formed of zirconia, alumina or ceramics (0089). 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 Galazka per teachings of Wang in order to grow crystal having consistent performance and good repeatability (Wang abstract, 0108). As just addressed, Galazka/Wang teaches the growing single crystal, and the inner thermal insulation formed of zirconia, alumina or ceramics, same material of inner thermal insulation as recited in the instant PGPUB US 2025/0129515 A1 (for example paragraphs [0034], [0035], [0049]). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the inner thermal insulation has a radiative reflectivity lower than 0.4 in a near infrared spectral region of 1-3 µm to decrease reflections of heat back to the growing single crystal, and thus, to increase the heat dissipation from the growing single crystal. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Galazka/Wang teaches the single crystal had achieved the predefined cylindrical length and the steps of puling the single crystal from seeding to separation as addressed above, and further teaches a pulling speed/growth rate is between 0.5-10mm/h (Galazka 0059), or 0.01mm/h to 6mm/h (Wang 0018, 0084), overlapping the instantly claimed growth rate of 1-10 mm/h at the beginning of the growth and final growth rate of 0.2-1 mm/h. 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). Galazka/Wang further teaches that the growth rate is controlled during in different stages of the crystal growth from seeding/necking process (initial growth) to ending process (final growth) (Wang 0056, 0084, 0085) but does not explicitly teach a dynamic decrease of the growth rate from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate. However, Morioka teaches a method for pulling a crystal, wherein a pulling speed is reduced from an initial pulling to an end of the pulling (fig 3, col 12 lines 50-56). Thus, 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 Galazka/Wang per teachings of Morioka in order to provide improved crystal without additional cost (Morioka abstract, col 13 ln 56 to col 14 ln 2).
Galazka/Wang/Morioka teaches the growing single crystal as addressed above but does not explicitly teach dynamically decrease the latent heat of crystallization as the growth proceeds and the amount of the heat to be dissipated from the growing single crystal. However, Sakano teaches a method for pulling crystal, wherein the crystal is cooling while growing the crystal (0028 and claim 3), e.g., dynamically decrease the latent heat of crystallization as the growth proceeds and the amount of the heat to be dissipated from the growing single crystal. 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 Galazka/Wang/Morioka per teachings of Sakano in order to produce crystal with improved efficiency (Sakano 0031, 0035).
Regarding claim 2, as addressed above, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches the inner thermal insulation formed of zirconia, alumina or ceramics, same material of inner thermal insulation as recited in the instant PGPUB US 2025/0129515 A1 (for example paragraphs [0034], [0035], [0049]). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the inner thermal insulation has the radiative reflectivity lower than 0.4 has an emissivity in the near infrared spectral region of above 0.3 at room temperature. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 3, as addressed above, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches the inner thermal insulation formed of zirconia, alumina or ceramics, same material of inner thermal insulation as recited in the instant PGPUB US 2025/0129515 A1 (for example paragraphs [0034], [0035], [0049]). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the inner thermal insulation has the radiative reflectivity lower than 0.4 has a transmissivity in the near infrared spectral region of above 0.3 at room temperature. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 5, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches that the growth rate decreases from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate non-linearly (Morioka fig 3). It is also 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).
Regarding claim 6, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches that the growth rate decreases from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate at different rates (Morioka fig 3). It is also 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).
Regarding claim 7, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches that the growth rate decreases from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate continuously (Morioka fig 3). It is also 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).
Regarding claim 8, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches that the growth rate decreases from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate as addressed above, and further teaches a constant pulling/growth rate (Morioka fig 1, col 5 lines 50-60; col 6 lines 13-15), reading on the growth rate decreases from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate in blocks combining constant and decreasing growth rates. It is also 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).
Regarding claim 9, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches that the step of providing the growth atmosphere as addressed above, and further teaches in addition to oxygen, He in a concentration of 0-100 vol% (Morioka 0035, 0057, 0078), overlapping the instantly claimed 10 - 95 vol. %. 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). It is also 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galazka/Wang/ Morioka/Sakano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ammon et al (US 5487354 A, “Ammon”).
Regarding claim 4, Galazka/Wang/Morioka/Sakano teaches the growth rate decreases from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate as addressed above but does not explicitly teach that the growth rate decreases from the initial growth rate to the final growth rate linearly. However, Ammon teaches a method, wherein a pulling speed (growth rate) is reduced linearly during the pulling of the crystal (col 4 lines 1-3). 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 Galazka/Wang/ Morioka/Sakano per teachings of Ammon in order to improve the method for pulling crystal (Ammon col 2 lines 8-26). It is also 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