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 .
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.
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 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation "patterned layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 5-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravi et al. (US 20220189761).
As to claim 1 discloses a semiconductor die having one or more devices comprising: a layer comprising a patterned layer and an epitaxial layer grown by epitaxial lateral overgrowth wherein the patterned layer and the epitaxial layer merge to form a first surface of the layer; one or more epitaxial layers grown overlying the first surface of the layer wherein the one or more devices are formed in or overlying the one or more epitaxial layers; and a metal layer (Schottky barrier) coupled to a second surface of the layer (Fig. 3A-3F, 7A- 7C, 8A-8B; ¶15, 46, 63-65).
As to claim 2, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the patterned layer comprises a plurality of trenches wherein the epitaxial layer is merged with the patterned layer (Fig. 3A).
As to claims 5 and 6, the product of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the pattern layer comprises of a plurality of pillars and the epitaxial layer merges in between adjacent pillars (Fig. 3A-3F).
As to claims 7 and 8, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the layer can comprise of silicon such as silicon carbide (¶36).
As to claim 9, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Ravi disclose that the one or more devices comprises of Schottky Barrier Diodes (¶22; Fig. 3A-3F).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1-2 and 7-8 above.
As to claim 12 the product of claim 10 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that a metal layer is coupled to a second surface of the layer of pillars (¶46).
As to claim 13, the product of claim 10 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the epitaxial layers may be single crystal (Abstract; ¶35-36).
As to claim 14, the product of claim 10 is taught as seen above. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
As to claim 15, the product of claim 10 is taught as seen above. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 and 8 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 7 and 13.
As to claim 17, the product of claim 16 is taught as seen above. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
As to claim 18, the product of claim 16 is taught as seen above. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 12.
As to claim 19, the product of claim 16 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the epitaxial layers may comprise of silicon carbide (¶5, 41).
As to claim 20, the product of claim 16 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the patterned layer may be formed by etching (Abstract; ¶57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US 20220189761) in view of Singh et al. (US 20110221039).
As to claim 3, product of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the epitaxial layers can be 5-20 microns thick which falls within the recited thickness range (¶16). Ravi discloses that the epitaxial layer can be grown by lateral overgrowth (¶15) but fails to specifically teach or disclose that it comprises of vertical overgrowth as well. Singh discloses a method of making an epitaxial article (Abstract). Singh discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to make an epitaxial layer through vertical growth, lateral growth, or combinations thereof (¶37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the vertical epitaxial growth of Singh in the product taught by Ravi because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional epitaxial layer in an epitaxial article. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 4, the product of claim 3 is taught as seen above. Ravi discloses that the epitaxial layers may be single crystal (Abstract; ¶35-36).
As to claim 11, the product of claim 10 is taught as seen above. Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
