Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 23, 2026
Application No. 19/273,220

SIC SINGLE CRYSTAL, SIC SUBSTRATE AND SIC EPITAXIAL WAFER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Priority
Jul 22, 2024 — JP 2024-117184
Examiner
MULVANEY, ELIZABETH EVANS
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
RESONAC Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
890 granted / 1129 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1149
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1129 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 7/18/25 and 2/12/26 have been considered by the examiner. 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 1-15 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. In claim 1, the claim is drawn to “a SiC single crystal having a lattice surface…which is curved in a convex shape, wherein the lattice surface measured…” This is the only structure or property claimed. The rest of the claim is describing measuring the lattice surface, i.e. measured along six different lines. What is being measured? What property? What is the result? The measuring lines are not limiting or further defining the SiC single crystal. 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. 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. Claims 1-2, 14-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109957839 (FUKIJAWA ET AL). Regarding claim 1: The reference discloses a SiC single crystal having a convex lattice surface. See Figure 2. The reference does not disclose measuring the lattice surface in six lines at different angles. However, it does disclose measuring the diffraction peak in different lines at different angles across the surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure as many lines as necessary to determine an accurate assessment. See discussion of Figure 7. Regarding claim 2: The main surface has an offset angle with respect to the (001) plane. See {0112}. Regarding claims 14-16: The diameter is greater than 150mm. See [0102]. Regarding claims 20-12: The reference discloses a SiC substrate and epitaxial layer. See Background. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm M-F. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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. /ELIZABETH E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Oct 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12767067
LINING MATERIAL FOR MOLDED CEILING FOR VEHICLE AND MOLDED CEILING FOR VEHICLE
1y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12771017
Laminate and Process for Producing Same in a Multicomponent Process
1y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12760446
n-TYPE GaN CRYSTAL, GaN WAFER, AND GaN CRYSTAL, GaN WAFER AND NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PRODUCTION METHOD
1y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12749593
CONDUCTIVE FILM
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745379
SHEET
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 2m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1129 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month