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 with traverse of Group II, claim 6, in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for the elected invention will necessarily require a search for the non-elected invention. These are not found persuasive. As indicated in the requirement for restriction/election dated 06/18/2026, Groups I and II are related as process of making and product made and drawn to distinct inventions. The groups of claims differently classified; thus, the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/ subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), which does introduce an additional search burden. Furthermore, while the field of search for one group of claims may overlap with the field of search for the other group of claims, there is no reason to expect that said fields of search would be co-extensive. Specifically, the search is not directed only to 102-type anticipatory art, but also to 103-type art pointing to the obviousness of the claimed invention. The search for 103-type art for each group of claims would cause the fields of search to diverge, creating a serious burden on the Examiner to examine all of the claims together.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/10/2026. Claim 6 is currently examined on the merits.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the group 13 nitride single crystal substrate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto et al (JP 2016000694 A, machine translation, “Makoto”), and further in view of Dwilinski et al (US 20100327292 A1, “Dwilinski”).
Regarding claim 6, Makoto teaches a method of producing the group 13 nitride crystal substrate, said method comprising immersing a seed substrate into a flux containing manganese and growing said group 13 nitride crystal on said seed substrate by a flux method to provide said group 13 nitride crystal substrate (fig 1, abstract, 0017-0023, claim 2). Also, it is conventionally known in the prior art that various impurity-doped GaN including Zn-doped GaN as described by Makoto (0002). 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 produced Zn-doped GaN in order to produce a material which becomes possible to apply a high voltage and generate a large current, making it suitable for increasing power output as is taught by the prior art described in Makoto (0002). Also, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, it is a known practice that manganese and zinc are used for growing doped gallium nitride single crystals as taught by Dwilinski (0010, 0011, 0017, 0035, 0109, claim 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 Makoto per teachings of Dwilinski in order to provide high quality nitride single crystal for manufacturing electronic and opto-electronic devices (Dwilinski 0040, 0109-0112).
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