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 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(s) 1 to 3, 5, and 15 to 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo et al (jp2011063504).
(see paragraphs [0101], [0140] and [0149]-[0157] and fig. 6 and 7 in particular)
The Kubo et al reference teaches a substrate of gallium nitride, note entire reference. The substrate is grown by arranging three (10-10) plane gallium nitride seed substrates having an off-angle of -4.71° to -5.28° in the [0001] direction and a length of 25 mm in the [11-20] direction and 5 mm in the [0001] direction on a susceptor. Om that growing a GN crystal by a HVPE method followed by slicing and polishing, note examples 2. The GaN crystal grown has a main surface with an angle between the normal line of the main surface and the m-axis of 0° to 20° inclusive. A dark spot (corresponding to dislocation) densities observed by CL measurements at 2.5x10⁶ cm and 7.5x10 cm² levels, respectively, in the region above the seed substrate, positions 50 um or more away in the vertically left and right directions relative to the longitudinal direction of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region from the center of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region. In the region above the boundary region between a seed substrate and a seed substrate ,the center of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region, note para 0140 and 149-157. The dislocation density of the grown GaN has a dislocation density at the center of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region of 7.5x10⁶ cm², and that the dislocation densities in the region (Y) 15 um away from the center of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region and in the region (2) 50 µm away from the center of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region are both less than 7,5x10⁶ cm, (instant claim 5).
Also, note, (see paragraphs [0101], [0140] and [0149]-[0157] and fig. 6 and 7 )
With regard to claims 2 and 3, the densities in a region above the boundary region between a seed substrate and a seed substrate (the center of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region) are 2.5x10⁶ cm² and 7.5x10 om and the dislocation density in a region (Z) 50 µm away from the center of the band-shaped dislocation aggregate region is 2.5x10⁶ cm to 7.5x10⁶ cm 2.
With regards to claim 15, the Kubo reference teaches a GaN wafer, note claims.
With regards to claim 16, the Kubo reference teaches a wafer with the orientations, note examples.
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) s 4 and 6 to 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al in view of D’Evelyn (20120323490)
The Kubo et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the specific dislocation placement, sizes and amounts. However, the D’Evelyn reference teaches that changes to the process and substrates do create changes it the grown GaN and the dislocations, note para 0088. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kubo et al product by the teachings of the D’Evelyn reference to make changes to the growth process in order to produce a known difference in the dislocations of the gallium nitride.
Claim(s) s 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al in view of D’Evelyn (20120323490)
The Kubo et al and D’Evelyn references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the dislocation limits in a rectangular area. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined reference to select an area, rectangle in the GaN and measure the dislocations and be below a set value in order to have a more uniform product, noting the GaN of the prior art is similar to that as claimed.
Claim(s) s 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al in view of D’Evelyn (20120323490)
The Kubo et al and D’Evelyn references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the carbon amounts. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a set carbon amount in order to the desired properties, noting the art teaches similar processing.
Claim(s) s 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al in view of D’Evelyn (20120323490)
The Kubo et al and D’Evelyn references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the absorption coefficients. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a set absorption coefficient in order to the desired properties, noting the art teaches similar processing.
Claim(s) s 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al in view of D’Evelyn (20120323490)
The Kubo et al and D’Evelyn references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the ammonothermal growth on seeds. However, the D’Evelyn reference further teaches growing GaN using the ammonothermal growth method in place of HVPE on multiple seeds and orientations, note examples. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kubo reference by the teachings of the D’Evelyn reference to grow by ammonothermal methods in order to increase the growth rate.
Claim(s) s 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al in view of D’Evelyn (20120323490)
The Kubo et al and D’Evelyn references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the seed preparation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to remove parts of the seed in order to grow in only one direction making a purer product.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in gallium nitride growth techniques.
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