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 .
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, and 8, the phrase "when" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or an optional step/feature. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-13 are indefinite due to their dependance on indefinite 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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’852 (WO 2015/0978521, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, WO’852 discloses a silicon carbide epitaxial substrate comprising: a silicon carbide substrate; a silicon carbide epitaxial layer located on the silicon carbide substrate and having a main surface (page 2, column 70-74); an internal line-shaped stacking fault (page 2, column 47-53; note: TSD) located inside the silicon carbide epitaxial layer and separated from the main surface (page 2, column 80- page 3, column 88); and a carrot defect (page 2, lines 47-53) exposed at the main surface, wherein the main surface is a plane inclined with respect to a {0001} plane (page 2, line 80- page 3, line 95; page 3, lines 119-123; Figs,. 1-7) and the number of the internal line-shaped stacking faults is less than the number of carrot defects (page 2, lines 70-80),
WO’852 does not disclose when a length of the carrot defect in a <1-100> direction is defined as a first length, a width of the carrot defect in a <11-20> direction is defined as a first width, a length of the internal line-shaped stacking fault in the <1-100> direction is defined as a second length, and a width of the internal line-shaped stacking fault in the <11-20> direction is defined as a second width as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the main surface, a value obtained by dividing the first length by the first width is more than 0.5, a value obtained by dividing the second length by the second width is 0.5 or less.
WO’582 however discloses that the number of epitaxial defects caused of internal line-shaped stacking fault is decreased (page 2, column 70-80).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was field to have a length and width of defects in the claimed range for the purpose of decreasing the number of epitaxial defects.
Regarding claim 2, WO’582 discloses wherein when photoluminescence light generated from the internal line-shaped stacking fault by applying excitation light to the internal line-shaped stacking fault is expressed in an HSV color space, H is 1500 or more and 220° or less, S is 30 or more and 100 or less, and V is 205 or more and 255 or less( see 112 rejections above, note also the recitation “when photoluminescence light generated from the internal line-shaped stacking fault by applying excitation light to the internal line-shaped stacking fault,” is a product-by-process step. ).
Regarding claim 3, WO’582 discloses wherein when photoluminescence light generated from the carrot defect by applying excitation light to the carrot defect is expressed in an HSV color space, H is 800 or more and 2350 or less, S is 25 or more and 90 or less, and V is 180 or more and 255 or less (see 112 rejections above, note also the recitation “when photoluminescence light generated from the carrot defect by applying excitation light to the carrot defects,” is a product-by-process step. And according to MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, WO’582 does not disclose wherein a value obtained by dividing the number of the internal line-shaped stacking faults by the number of the carrot defects is 0.55 or less.
WO’582 however discloses that the number of epitaxial defects caused of internal line-shaped stacking fault is decreased (page 2, column 70-80).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the time the invention was field to have a length and width of defects in the claimed range for the purpose of decreasing the number of epitaxial defects.
Regarding claim 5, WO’582 discloses wherein the main surface is a plane inclined with respect to a (000-1) plane (page 3, lines 119-123).
Regarding claim 6, WO’582 discloses [wherein an off angle of the main surface with respect to the (000-1) plane is more than 0° and 8° or less (page 3, lines 119-123).
Regarding claim 8, WO’582 discloses wherein when measured by a white light microscope, a step of a portion of the main surface that the internal line-shaped stacking fault faces is 9 nm or less (see 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 9, WO’582 does not disclose wherein the internal line-shaped stacking fault has an upper end surface facing the main surface, and a distance between the main surface and the upper end surface is 0.1 µm or more in the direction perpendicular to the main surface.
WO’582 however discloses reducing TSD density in the epitaxial layer (page 2, lines 70-75).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the internal line-shaped stacking fault has an upper end surface facing the main surface, and a distance between the main surface and the upper end surface to be in the claimed range for the purpose of reducing TSD density in the epitaxial layer.
Regarding claim 11, WO’582 discloses wherein the internal line-shaped stacking fault includes a Frank-type fault (page 8, line 325).
Regarding claim 13, WO’582 discloses a method of manufacturing a silicon carbide semiconductor device, the method comprising: preparing the silicon carbide epitaxial substrate according to claim 1; and processing the silicon carbide epitaxial substrate (page 2, lines 70-80).
Claim(s) 7 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’582 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urakami (US 2012/0060751).
Regarding claim 7, WO’582 does not disclose wherein the internal line-shaped stacking fault extends in a form of a line from a first end portion toward a second end portion opposite to the first end portion as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the main surface, and a length of the first end portion in the <1-100> direction is 0.8 times or more and 1.2 times or less as large as a length of the second end portion in the <1-100> direction.
Urakami however discloses adjusting end portions of the internal line shaped staking faults (TSD) to reduce TSD density ([0161]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a length of the end portions to be in the claimed range for the purpose of reducing TSD density (Urakami, [011]).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’582 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2023/0060866).
Regarding claim 10, WO’582 does not disclose wherein a region between the main surface and the upper end surface is a region having a polytype of 4H.
Anderson however discloses a region between the main surface and the upper end surface is a region having a polytype of 4H ([0006]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify WO’582 with Anderson to have a region between the main surface and the upper end surface is a region having a polytype of 4H because it is typical polytype of a silicon carbide.
Regarding claim 12, WO’582 does not disclose wherein the silicon carbide epitaxial layer has a polytype of 4H.
Anderson however discloses the silicon carbide epitaxial layer has a polytype of 4H ([0006]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify WO’582 with Anderson to have the silicon carbide epitaxial layer has a polytype of 4H because it is typical polytype of a silicon carbide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights