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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a {0001} plane in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is unclear what the “ <11−20> direction” or what the “<11−20>” means. Similarly, it is unclear what the “<1−100> direction” or what the “<1−100>” means. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 are 1-18 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a structure of a SiC ingot, however, it is unclear whether the “minimum area” refers to the virtual rectangle or the facet.
Claim 1, it is unclear what the “ <11−20> direction” or what the “<11−20>” means. Similarly, it is unclear what the “<1−100> direction” or what the “<1−100>” means.
Claim 1, the phrase “a <1−100> direction is drawn” is unclear whether this direction “is drawn” is part of the ingot or a draw for calculating something by a user. Please note that this invention is directed to a structure of a SiC ingot, whatever of “a <1−100> direction is drawn” is not a structure of the Ingot. What are structures of the ingot actually being claimed.
Claim 2, as this is written “0.05 < Lx/D < 0.3” is confusing since it is unclear whether Lx/D refers to the Lx/D in claim 1 or a new Lx/D. For examining purpose, claim 2 is interpreted as “…wherein the Lx/D is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.3 (0.3 < Lx/D < 0.3) which is satisfied at the first end”. Other dependent claims have the similar issue.
Claims 7-10 “a range of 90° ± 1°” is unclear what this range refers to. For examining purpose, it is interpreted as a z direction or a thickness of the ingot.
Claim 11 “a {0001} plane” is unclear what it refers to.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nomoto et al (US 2022/0395931) hereinafter Nomoto.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Nomoto shows a SiC ingot (Figure 1) comprising a facet (21), wherein, when a diameter of the SiC ingot is represented as D (see the “D” in Figure 7 below) and in a plan view in a crystal growth direction (the thickness direction of the ingot in Figure 1), a “minimum” area of a virtual rectangle (see the rectangle around the facet 21 in Figure 7 below) surrounds the facet, such that all sides of the rectangle are tangent with sides of the facet and wherein the rectangle includes a first side “parallel to a <11−20> direction” (X side or short length of the virtual rectangle) and a second side “parallel to a <1−100> direction is drawn” (Y side or long side of the virtual rectangle), and a length of the first side of the virtual rectangle (the length of X side) is represented as Lx, Lx/D < 0.3 is satisfied at a first end which is a terminal of the crystal growth direction (see the length of X side/the diameter D is less 0.25 or less 0.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3, as best understood, Nomoto shows the Lx/D is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.3 (0.05 < Lx/D < 0.3) which is satisfied at the first end (see the discussion in claim 1 above) and wherein Lx/D ≤ 0.2 is satisfied at the first end (see Figure 7 above).
Regarding claims 5-6, as best understood, Nomoto shows the Lx/D < 0.3 is satisfied at a second end opposite to the first end (see Figures 13-14).
Regarding claims 7-8, as best understood, Nomoto shows that the Lx/D < 0.3 is satisfied in one cut surface that intersects with the crystal growth direction within “a range of 90° ± 1°” a Z-direction or the thickness of the ingot direction (see the discussion in claim 1 and see figures 13-14) and wherein the Lx/D < 0.3 is satisfied in two or more cut surfaces that intersect with the crystal growth direction “within a range of 90° ± 1°”.
Regarding claims 9-10, as best understood, Nomoto shows that the Lx/D < 0.3 is satisfied in five or more cut surfaces that intersect with the crystal growth direction “within a range of 90° ± 1°” (see Figure 13, for examples top 5 wafers 30-1…30-n) and wherein the Lx/D < 0.3 is satisfied in any cut surface that intersects with the crystal growth direction “within a range of 90° ± 1°” (see Figure 13 and the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Nomoto shows that the SiC ingot comprises a portion having an offset angle of 3.5° or more and 4.5° or less with respect to a {0001} plane (see the issue above and it is unclear what the {0001} plane refers to, therefore the plane 19 having a normal such that the off angle 20 of the ingot 10 in the embodiment is set to 1°, 4°, or 6° and meet the claimed invention as discussed in Para. 36) .
Regarding claims 15-16, as best understood, Nomoto shows that a length of the second side of the virtual rectangle is represented as Ly, 0.5 > Ly/D is satisfied at the first end (see Figure 7 above) and wherein, when a length of the second side of the virtual rectangle is represented as Ly, 0.5 > Ly/D is satisfied in any cut surface that intersects with the crystal growth direction “within a range of 90° ± 1°” (see Figures 13-14).
Regarding claims 17-18, as best understood, Nomoto teaches a method for manufacturing a SiC substrate comprising: a step of preparing and producing the SiC ingot according to claim 1; and a step of slicing the SiC ingot (see all discussions in claim 1 above).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto in view of Sato (EP 3228733, art of record).
Regarding claim 4, Nomoto shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the Lx/D ≤ 0.1 is satisfied at the first end.
Sato show a short length of a facet (13a, Figure 8) is 10mm (Para. 55 “a minor axis of about 10mm) and a diameter of an ingot is 100mm (Para. 55 “about 100mm”) therefore, Lx/D ≤ 0.1 is satisfied at the first end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the size of the ingot of the Nomoto to have a short length of a facet being 10mm and a diameter of an ingot being 100mm or Lx/D ≤ 0.1 is satisfied at the first end, as taught by Sato, in order to allow the screw dislocation reduced region to be ensured un a wide range, so that a high-quality SiC device can be obtained with good yield (Para. 22 of Sato).
Since Applicant had not pointed out or demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation such as the size of the facet relative with a diameter of ingot, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the ingot to be claimed sizes (Lx/D ≤ 0.1), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) for producing properly sizes of wafers for different purposes so that a high-quality SiC device can be obtained with good yield.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto in view of Ma (US 2021/0395919).
Regarding claims 12-14, Nomoto shows all of the limitations as stated above except a size of the ingot having a height in the crystal growth direction is 20 mm or more; a diameter is 145 mm or more or 195 mm or more.
Ma shows an ingot having a height in the crystal growth direction is 20 mm or more (Para. 54 “8 mm to 30 mm”); a diameter is 145 mm or more or 195 mm or more (Para. 45 “the diameter … less than or equal to 200 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the size of the ingot of the Nomoto to have a side of an ingot, as taught by Ma, in order to allow producing properly sizes of wafers for different purposes.
Since Applicant had not pointed out or demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation such as the size of the ingot, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the ingot to be claimed sizes (diameter and height), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) for producing properly sizes of wafers for different purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights