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 .
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8 to 23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10,14 and 20 to 22 of copending Application No. 18/707,810 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sole difference between the instant claims and the copending claims in the nucleation gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copending application to use a carbon only gas in the nucleation step in order to increase control over the nucleation reaction and sites controlling the growth, noting the parameters for this step are similar..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 8 to 23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 to 26 of copending Application No. 18/692,926 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sole difference between the instant claims and the copending claims in the nucleation gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copending application to use a carbon only gas in the nucleation step in order to increase control over the nucleation reaction and sites controlling the growth, noting the parameters for this step are similar..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 8 to 23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 to 14 of copending Application No. 18/695,073 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sole difference between the instant claims and the copending claims in the nucleation gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copending application to use a carbon only gas in the nucleation step in order to increase control over the nucleation reaction and sites controlling the growth, noting the parameters for this step are similar..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 8 to 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 4313000 in view of GB 2540608 and Won et al (KR 20130142415).
The Jp 4313000 reference teaches a method of growing a silicon carbide layer, note entire translation. The base layer is a silicon substrate, which is first cleaned to remove any native oxides, para 0023. Then a first layer of silicon carbide is deposited onto the silicon substrate at a temperature below 950c, note para 0015. Then a second layer of silicon carbide is deposited by chemical vapor deposition onto the first layer and substrate at a high temperature, note, para 0016. The differences between the instant claim and the prior art are the deposition pressure and separation of the grown layers. However, GB 2540608 reference teaches using low pressures under the limit claimed to deposit silicon carbide, note page 1. The Won et al reference teaches growing a nucleation site using only a carbon source and reacting with the silicon, note translation, page 3 and then growing 3c-SiC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Jp 4313000 reference by the teachings of the GB 2540608 and Won et al references to deposit at lower pressures and use only carbon source in order to create silicon carbide wafer for further uses in device formations with desired lattices 3C-SiC.
With regards to claim 9, the Won et al reference teaches a carbon source which can include acetylene, note page 2.
With regards to claims 10 and 11, the Jp 4313000 reference teaches monomethyl silane, note para 0007.
With regards to claims 12 to 15 the Jp 4313000 reference teaches oxide removal step in hydrogen at a temperature of 1000c note para 0023.
Claim(s) 16 to 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 4313000 in view of GB 2540608 and Won et al .
The Jp 4313000, GB 2540608 and Won et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the temperature change during the second and third steps. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable temperature increase during the second and third steps in the combined references as the temperatures are within the range of the art in order to increase deposition rates after nucleation.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in SiC growth.
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