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 1-8 in the reply filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-8 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 281, 282, 381, 382, 310, 320, 330, 340, 350, 355, 370, 380, 400, 420, 430, 450, 455, 480, 481, 482. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A method of producing single crystal AIN … causing deposition of single crystal AIN … causing deposition of the single crystal AlN...” which should read “A method of producing single crystal AIN … causing deposition of the single crystal AIN … causing the deposition of the single crystal AlN ...”
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 2-4 and 7 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.
The recited in claim 2 “…when activity of Al in the melt when a reaction for formation of the single crystal A1N expressed by formula (A), shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
23
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is taken to be
PNG
media_image2.png
9
62
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image3.png
10
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what activity of Al means, what
PNG
media_image2.png
9
62
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
48
86
media_image4.png
Greyscale
mean. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected because they depend on claim 2.
The recited in claim 4 “…heating the high-temperature portion to a temperature of higher than To and lower than T₀+30 K…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. Parent claim 3 already recites “heating the high-temperature portion to a temperature of T0+30 K or higher;” It is not clear whether heating the high-temperature portion to a temperature of higher than T0 and lower than T₀+30 K or heating the high-temperature portion to a temperature of T0+30 K or higher is performed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 4 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 7 “… (10-12) planes of the C-plane single crystal AIN…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is known that C-plane single crystal AlN is represented by (0001); It is not clear what “(10-12) planes of the C-plane single crystal AIN” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 7 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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 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.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihisa et al (JP 2006306638 A, machine translation, “Yoshihisa”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshihisa teaches a method of producing single crystal AIN comprising a melt formation step of heating and melting an alloy containing Al/raw material to form a solution/melt of the alloy (abstract, 0033, 0038, 0044); and a growing/ deposition step of cooling a portion of the melt and providing a temperature gradient in the melt/solution while causing deposition of single crystal AIN (abstract, 0024, 0034), wherein in the deposition step, a nitrogen-containing gas is brought into contact with a high-temperature portion of the melt/solution (0011, 0013, 0021, 0024, 0036), and a single crystal AIN seed crystal or a substrate for crystal growth is held in a low-temperature portion of the melt (abstract, 0011, 0017, 0021, 0024, 0026, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0042, claims 1 and 7), so as to continue to take nitrogen (from nitrides disintegrates/decomposition at the high temperature portion) into the melt in the high-temperature portion while causing deposition of the single crystal AlN on the AIN seed crystal or the substrate and continuous growth of the single crystal AlN in the low-temperature portion (Fig 2, abstract, 0013, 0014, 0023, 0024, 0039).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshihisa teaches that the alloy containing Al is a Ni-Al alloy (abstract).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihisa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masayoshi et al (JP 2019194133 A, machine translation, “Masayoshi”).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshihisa teaches a same/similar process of producing single crystal AlN as addressed above, and further teaches the nitrogen-containing gas (atmospheric nitrogen gas and/or nitrogen disintegrated from nitrides) (0011, 0023), and a temperature of growth of the single crystal AlN (0024). Therefore, it would be reasonably expected that when activity of Al in the melt when a reaction for formation of the single crystal A1N expressed by formula (A), shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
23
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is taken to be
PNG
media_image2.png
9
62
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, an equilibrium constant of formula (A) is taken to be K, the Boltzmann constant is taken to be k, absolute temperature is taken to be T, and partial pressure of N₂ of the nitrogen-containing gas during deposition is taken to be PN2, and when a temperature at which driving force µ of growth of the single crystal A1N expressed by formula (B), shown below: [Math. 1]
PNG
media_image3.png
10
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(B) has a value of 0 is taken to be T0, a temperature of the high-temperature portion is set as higher than T0 and a temperature of the low-temperature portion is set as not lower than a temperature of a liquidus of the alloy and lower than T0, because a same/similar method/process is expected to produce same/similar results/effects. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Furthermore, Masayoshi teaches a method of producing aluminum nitride crystal, wherein when activity of Al in the melt when a reaction for formation of the single crystal A1N expressed by formula (A), shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
23
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is taken to be
PNG
media_image2.png
9
62
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, an equilibrium constant of formula (A) is taken to be K, the Boltzmann constant is taken to be k, absolute temperature is taken to be T, and partial pressure of N₂ of the nitrogen-containing gas during deposition is taken to be PN2, and when a temperature at which driving force µ of growth of the single crystal A1N expressed by formula (B), shown below: [Math. 1]
PNG
media_image3.png
10
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(B) has a value of 0 is taken to be T0, a temperature of the high-temperature portion is set as higher than T0 and a temperature of the low-temperature portion is set as not lower than a temperature of a liquidus of the alloy and lower than T0 (0014-0017, 0023-0029, and claims 1-5). 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 Yoshihisa per teachings of Masayoshi in order to produce aluminum nitride crystal capable of preventing penetration dislocation, misfit dislocation, and deformation from occurring in a crystal (Masayoshi abstract). Furthermore, it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357, 553 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75. It is also well established that Nor can one patent "a novel and useful mathematical formula," Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshihisa/Masayoshi teaches that the melt formation step includes a high-temperature heating step of heating the high-temperature portion to a temperature of T0+30 K or higher (Masayoshi fig 1, 0017, 0028 and claim 5). Further it is 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 4, Yoshihisa/Masayoshi teaches that the melt formation step includes a low-temperature heating step of, after the high-temperature heating step, heating the high-temperature portion to a temperature of higher than T0 and lower than T₀+30 K (Masayoshi figure 1). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process (e.g., Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). Further, it is 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).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihisa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuyama et al (US 20130187170 A1, “Fukuyama”).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshihisa teaches the temperature gradient being provided in the melt and bringing the holder into contact with the melt in the deposition step as addressed above, and further teaches a support jig (holder) that holds the single crystal AIN seed crystal or the substrate for crystal growth (0027, 0032, 0034, 0037, 0039, 0043), but does not explicitly teach the holder including a cooling mechanism. However, Fukuyama teaches a method of producing aluminum nitride, wherein seed substrate attached to a gas introducing pipe (cooling mechanism) is brought into contact with the melt in a growth/ deposition step and a temperature gradient is formed (fig 3, 0044). 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 Yoshihisa per teachings of Fukuyama in order to provide AlN crystal having good quality at a reduced cost (Fukuyama abstract, 0001, 0010, 0013, 0044).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshihisa teaches the seed/substrate is sapphire or SiC coated with AlN films crystal growth (0017), but does not explicitly teach the substrate being an AIN template substrate having single crystal A1N epitaxially grown on single crystal sapphire. However, Fukuyama teaches a method of producing aluminum nitride, wherein seed substrate comprises AlN on sapphire (0035, 0050-0053). 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 Yoshihisa per teachings of Fukuyama in order to provide AlN crystal having good quality at a reduced cost (Fukuyama abstract, 0001, 0010, 0013, 0035). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshihisa/Fukuyama teaches the AIN template substrate is an AIN template substate having C-plane single crystal AIN epitaxially grown on C-plane single crystal sapphire, and an X-ray rocking curve for (10-12) planes of the C-plane single crystal AIN has a full width at half maximum of 300 arcsec or less (0048, 0054-0058)
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