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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, in the reply filed on 14 July 2026 is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 July 2026.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaoka et al. (US 2016/0204023) in view of Ushijima et al. (WO2021060513 using US 2022/0341054 as an English language equivalent).
Considering claim 1, Imaoka teaches a composite semiconductor substrate (abstract) for integrated circuits (Paragraph 2). An embodiment is taught of a support substrate of polycrystalline SiC bonded to a single crystalline SiC layer directly and by covalent bonding (Paragraph 42). However, Imaoka does not teach the resistivity of the polycrystalline SiC.
In a related field of endeavor, Ushijima teaches a polycrystalline SiC body (abstract) for semiconductor circuits (Paragraph 25). An embodiment is taught where a polycrystalline SiC substrate is bonded to a single crystal SiC substrate and where this requires the polycrystalline substrate to have a low resistivity (Paragraph 8) and a resistivity of 0.050 Ωcm achieves this (Paragraph 10) which suppresses a potential barrier in the joint surfaces (Paragraph 30).
As both Imaoka and Ushijima teach composite SiC materials for semiconductors they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Imaoka with the resistivity taught by Ushijima as this is known to suppress a potential barrier and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the resistivity of modified Imaoka overlaps that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 2, Imaoka teaches where the polycrystalline substrate is disc shaped, which applicant indicates as a wafer shape in paragraph 26 of the originally filed specification, and where the circumference of the polycrystalline substrate and contour thereof is substantially identical to the single crystal portion (Paragraph 26; Fig. 2) and where they are bonded by the joined surface (Paragraph 43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imaoka et al. (WO2015/174252) and Imaoka et al. (US 2017/0213735) teach similar polycrystalline and single crystal bonded SiC bodies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights