DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 23 August 2021. By amendment received 3 August 2024; claims 1, 10, 14, and 17 through 20 are amended and claim 8 is cancelled. By amendment received 14 February 2025 and entered 14 March 2025; claims 1, 14, and 20 are amended. By amendment received 29 September 2025; claims 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14 are amended and claim 20 is cancelled. By amendment received 6 April 2026 and entered 9 April 2026; claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 12, 14, 17, and 19 are amended. Claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 19 are addressed by this 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the previous objection to the drawings is improper because, according to applicant, the separate views of Figure 15 are properly labeled. Specifically, applicant agrees that Figure 15A includes multiple views but sets forth that the labels "Side View", "Front View", and "Bottom View" constitute the required separate labeling of these views.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the manner in which the views are labeled does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Specifically, 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states "The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals" and "Partial views intended to form one complete view… must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter". The labels "Side View", "Front View", and "Bottom View" do not include an Arabic numeral and, as such, cannot comply with this requirement of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) regarding the labeling of views. Further, 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states "View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG."". The labels "Side View", "Front View", and "Bottom View" are not preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." and, as such, cannot comply with this requirement of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) regarding the labeling of views. Since the labeling of the separate views of Figure 15A does not contain Arabic numerals which are preceded by the abbreviation "FIG.", Figure 15A does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 6 overcomes the previous objection to that claim. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 5 and 19 overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 5 through 7 and 19.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the amendment does not resolve the conflict resulting in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Specifically, claim 5 continues to require "selective chemical etching" which is recognized as a different process than "CMP" which is described in parent claim 1. However, the original disclosure sets forth these techniques as alternative means of removing a substrate (see ¶90 of the original disclosure). The original disclosure makes no mention of employing both CMP and selective chemical etching at the same time to remove the substrate. Since the original disclosure only recites these techniques in the alternative, the original disclosure does not describe what is required by this claim in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Since claims 6 and 7 properly depend from claim 5 and inherit the requirements thereof, these claims also inherit this deficiency. Since claim 19 includes these features of claim 5, claim 19 also exhibits this deficiency. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is improper because, according to applicant, the noted feature is set forth in the original disclosure. Particularly, applicant indicates that the recitation of thinning the die to 20µm in ¶90 of the original disclosure sets forth a "predetermined thickness" to which to the die is thinned and that this thinning of the die to this thickness means that the epi layer has a predetermined thickness to which the material is removed. Applicant's argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 12 and 14 overcome the corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is improper because, according to applicant, the claim language thereof is definite. To support this argument, applicant contends that, because the epi layer is mounted in an inverted manner, the perspective of the claims is fixed and the term "beneath" strictly refers to the stop being positioned below the epi layer relative to the substrate which is above the epi layer in the inverted orientation of the holder assembly.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because acceptance of applicant's interpretation of the term "beneath" results in a non-functional arrangement. Specifically, the claim requires the mechanical stop to limit to the depth of the claimed polishing. Following applicant's interpretation, the arrangement includes the substrate at the top, the epi layer beneath the substrate, and the mechanical stop beneath the epi layer. In this arrangement, polishing to the depth of the mechanical stop would remove the epi layer because the mechanical stop is beneath the epi layer. Since at least some portion of the epi layer must remain, a reading of the claim that produces a functional product is sought. By interpreting the claim to mean that a mechanical stop was placed "beneath" the epi layer in the die (i.e., between the epi layer and the substrate), a functional product is produced. However, this interpretation causes the arrangement to be incapable of providing removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer since polishing is stopped prior to reaching the epi layer. Since both interpretations of the claim language are not viable, the claim language is unclear as to how the mechanical stop is arranged within the claimed device. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
It appears, from the present argument and the original disclosure, that the intent of this claim is to require a mechanical stop, attached to a polishing platform, in which the top surface of the mechanical stop is closer to the polishing platform than the interface between the epi layer and the substrate. The language of this claim cannot be interpreted in this manner because this interpretation is only supported by the original disclosure and applicant’s arguments and is unrelated to the text of the present claim and it is improper to import limitations from the disclosure into the claims.
The rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. Applicant's argument that the claim language is definite is not persuasive because acceptance of applicant's interpretation of the term "beneath" results in a non-functional arrangement.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong et al. (Wong, US Pub. 2003/0122141), Doan et al. (Doan, US Patent 7,687,322), and Yeh (US Pub. 2003/0031218) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The adhesive comprising] a heat sensitive bonding comprising at least one of a thermoplastic or thermal wax" because, according to applicant, Wong does not teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that 1) Wong does not teach that the waxes thereof are employed as heat sensitive adhesives for temporary bonding in the manner claimed and, instead, employs solvents to dissolve the adhesive and 2) the wax of Yeh is not informative of the wax in Wong because Wong relates to a cyanoacrylate-based process which is different from the wax-based process of Yeh.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it does relate to the claims (MPEP §2145VI). Specifically, the present claims require that the wax employed as an adhesive is removed by a solvent. Wong teaches that the adhesive thereof may be a wax (Wong, ¶24). It is understood that Wong's teachings regarding use of a wax are a suggestion by Wong to employ a process other than a cyanoacrylate-based process because cyanoacrylate is not a wax. It is also understood that waxes are defined by being heat sensitive as indicated by the ability to thermally dissolve a similarly employed wax in Yeh (Yeh, ¶57). As argued, Wong removes the adhesive thereof with a solvent. Since Wong teaches use of a wax as the adhesive, since waxes are heat sensitive, and since the adhesive of Wong is dissolved with a solvent, the use of wax in Wong is not differentiated from the claimed use of a heat sensitive wax. Further, the present claim does not remove the claimed wax by heat, so arguments centering on unclaimed processes by which the claimed adhesive could be removed are moot. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The adhesive comprising] a heat sensitive bonding comprising at least one of a thermoplastic or thermal wax" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh (see below). Applicant's argument that Wong does not teach the argued feature is not persuasive because it does relate to the claims (MPEP §2145VI).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Annealing the modified semiconductor chip to form a semiconductor-metal ohmic contact interface on the metallized backside" because, according to applicant, the Doan does not teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that the annealed ohmic contact of Doan is not applied to a metallized backside after substrate removal and transfer.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it addresses the physical arrangement of Doan rather than what the teachings thereof would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the other cited references (MPEP §2145III). Specifically, Wong teaches formation of an n-type ohmic metal contact along a processed epi layer that has been separated from its growth substrate (Wong, ¶25-¶27 discussing the removal of substrate 215 from epi layer 1110 and the application of ohmic contact 1118 to epi layer 1110). Doan teaches that it is advantageous to anneal an ohmic metal contact after application to improve contact resistance and adhesion (Doan, col. 4, lines 56-62 describing this process with respect to the p-side contact thereof). Since Wong teaches application of an ohmic metal contact in the claimed context and since Doan teaches that ohmic metal contacts are improved by annealing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to anneal the ohmic contact of Wong so as to achieve the advantage recited in Doan. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Annealing the modified semiconductor chip to form a semiconductor-metal ohmic contact interface on the metallized backside" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh (see below). Applicant's argument that the Doan does not teach this feature is not persuasive because it addresses the physical arrangement of Doan rather than what the teachings thereof would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the other cited references (MPEP §2145III).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Electroforming a bulk metal layer over the n-type ohmic contact metal to structurally replace the removed substrate" because, according to applicant, neither Wong nor Doan teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that Wong teaches direct electroplating of bulk copper without a preceding n-type ohmic contact layer serving as the seed whereas the seed layer of Doan is unrelated to substrate replacement.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it addresses the physical arrangement of Doan rather than what the teachings thereof would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the other cited references (MPEP §2145III). Specifically, Wong teaches electroplating a metal support to the ohmic metal contact which has been applied to a processed surface of the epi layer as a substrate replacement (Wong, ¶36 describing the growth of layer copper layer 1119 atop ohmic contact 1118). Wong does not explicitly state that the ohmic metal contact serves as a seed layer for the metal support in this formation process. Doan explicitly suggests employing an ohmic contact as seed layer when growing a thick metal layer (Doan, col. 6, lines 8-20). Since Wong electroplates a thick metal support atop an ohmic contact and since Doan suggests employing the ohmic contact as a seed layer when performing this operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the ohmic contact of Wong as a seed layer for the electroplated layer of Wong in a similar manner to how an ohmic contact is employed as a seed layer in Doan so as to facilitate the growth of the required layer. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Electroforming a bulk metal layer over the n-type ohmic contact metal to structurally replace the removed substrate" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh (see below). Applicant's argument that neither Wong nor Doan teach this feature is not persuasive because it addresses the physical arrangement of Doan rather than what the teachings thereof would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the other cited references (MPEP §2145III).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the thin film is deposited by at least one of sputtering, electron beam evaporation, thermal evaporation, and laser ablation" because, according to applicant, Doan is structurally unrelated to this claimed feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that the thin film of Doan is provided as a metal layer for the mirror of Doan rather than provided atop a processed epi layer from which a substrate was removed.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it addresses the physical arrangement of Doan rather than what the teachings thereof would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the other cited references (MPEP §2145III). Specifically, Wong teaches formation of an n-type ohmic metal contact along a processed epi layer that has been separated from its growth substrate (Wong, ¶25-¶27 discussing the removal of substrate 215 from epi layer 1110 and the application of ohmic contact 1118 to epi layer 1110). Doan teaches that an ohmic metal layer may be formed atop a semiconductor through several of the claimed processes (Doan, col. 6, lines 8-20). Since Wong teaches application of an ohmic metal contact in the claimed context and since Doan teaches suitable methods for forming the ohmic metal contacts, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the ohmic metal formation methods of Doan for forming the ohmic contact of Wong so as to enable the formation of the required layer. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the thin film is deposited by at least one of sputtering, electron beam evaporation, thermal evaporation, and laser ablation" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh (see below). Applicant's argument that Doan is structurally unrelated to this claimed feature is not persuasive because it addresses the physical arrangement of Doan rather than what the teachings thereof would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the other cited references (MPEP §2145III).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima et al. (Miyajima, US Pub. 2001/0004370) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein planarization is performed to a thickness that is on the order of a thickness of the epi layer" because, according to applicant, Yeh does not teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that Yeh does not teach equating the thinning endpoint to the epi layer thickness.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it is contradicted by the teachings of both Wong and Yeh. Specifically, Wong teaches separation of the epi layer from the substrate by decomposing a layer of GaN at the interface between the epi layer and the substrate (Wong, ¶25). Yeh teaches separation of the epi layer from the substrate by performing CMP until an etch stop buffer, which is at the interface between the epi layer and the substrate, is exposed (Yeh, ¶68 describing the process of Figures 6B and 6C in which substrate 904 is removed until buffer 904 is exposed). Since both Wong and Yeh teach removal of a substrate from an epi layer in a manner that halts removal at the interface between the epi layer and the substrate and since the process of Yeh involves planarization, the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima render obvious performing planarization to a thickness that is on the order of a thickness of the epi layer. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein planarization is performed to a thickness that is on the order of a thickness of the epi layer" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima (see below). Applicant's argument that Yeh does not teach this feature is not persuasive because it is contradicted by the teachings of both Wong and Yeh.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima do not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The 3D mechanical block] including at least one fully embedded cooling channel formed therein" because, according to applicant, Miyajima does not teach the claimed feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that the mechanical block of Miyajima is not monolithic.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the argued feature is not claimed (MPEP §2145VI). Specifically, the claims have been amended to delete the word monolithic such that the claims no longer require the mechanical block to be monolithic. Since the claims do not require the mechanical block to be monolithic, arguments relating to whether or not the mechanical block of Miyajima are monolithic are moot. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The 3D mechanical block] including at least one fully embedded cooling channel formed therein" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima (see below). Applicant's argument that Miyajima does not teach the claimed feature is not persuasive because the argued feature is not claimed (MPEP §2145VI).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima do not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The 3D mechanical block] including at least one fully embedded cooling channel formed therein" because, according to applicant, the teachings of Wong and Miyajima are incompatible. To support this argument, applicant contends that swapping the robust copper layer of Wong for the multilayer cooler of Miyajima would undermine Wong.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it does not address the combination set forth in the rejection. Specifically, Wong teaches that the laser epi layer, including the newly formed copper support structure, may be mounted atop a final substrate for conveying heat away from the laser (Wong, ¶29 describing Figure 1F in which epi layer 1111 atop copper support structure 1117 to form the combined structure 1300 is mounted to final substrate 1350 that includes thermally conductive substrate 1138). In this manner Wong teaches mounting an epi layer with a copper substrate atop a mechanical block (Wong, in which Figure 1F depicts an epi layer with a copper substrate 1300 mounted atop a mechanical block 1350). Miyajima teaches that a laser device may be mounted atop a multilayer cooler so as to enhance cooling of the laser device (Miyajima, ¶64 describing the general purpose of the cooler thereof). Since Wong and Miyajima are combined in such a manner that the multilayer cooler of Miyajima replaces the final substrate of Wong rather than the copper support of Wong, this argument does not address the combination on which the rejection is based. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The 3D mechanical block] including at least one fully embedded cooling channel formed therein" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima (see below). Applicant's argument that the teachings of Wong and Miyajima are incompatible is not persuasive because it does not address the combination set forth in the rejection.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Okuno et al. (Okuno, US Patent 5,654,583) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack" because, according to applicant, Okuno does not teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that Okuno does not disclose or suggest an etch stop layer within the epi at the substrate interface.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it is contradicted by the teachings of Okuno. Specifically, Okuno teaches a substrate on which an epi layer is grown and in which an etch stop layer is provided within the epi at the substrate interface (Okuno, col. 8, lines 7-29 describing Figure 11A in which an epitaxial structure including laser 192 and etch stop layers 10 and 11 are grown atop substrate 1a such that etching stop layer 10 is provided at the interface between substrate 1a and the epi layer and the removal of substrate 1a by performing an etching step that stops at etching stop layer 10). Since Okuno teaches every element of the argued limitation, the combination of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Okuno set forth in the rejection renders obvious this limitation within the context of the claims. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Okuno (see below). Applicant's argument that Okuno does not teach this feature is not persuasive because it is contradicted by the teachings of Okuno.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Okuno do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack" because, according to applicant, the teachings of Wong and Okuno are incompatible. To support this argument, applicant contends that modifying the process of Wong to employ the substrate removal process of Okuno would change the principle of operation of Wong and require substantial redesign of the arrangement of Wong.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because nothing in the prior art suggests modifying the process of Wong to employ the substrate removal step of Okuno would have resulted in an inoperable process (MPEP §2143.01V). Specifically, Wong teaches removal of an epi layer from a substrate (Wong, ¶26 describing Figure 1C in which substrate 215 is removed from epi layer 1110). Okuno also teaches removal of an epi layer from a substrate (Okuno, col. 8, lines 26-29 describing the removal of substrate 1a shown in Figures 11A and 11B). Both processes result in an epi layer that has been removed from a substrate and is available for further processing. Since Wong requires the substrate thereof to be removed and since the process of Okuno is capable of removing a substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to remove the substrate of Wong using the process of Okuno rather than the process of Wong (MPEP §2143IB). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Okuno (see below). Applicant's argument that the teachings of Wong and Okuno are incompatible is not persuasive because nothing in the prior art suggests modifying the process of Wong to employ the substrate removal step of Okuno would have resulted in an inoperable process (MPEP §2143.01V).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Shiota et al. (Shiota, US Patent 5,086,011) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer" because, according to applicant, Shiota does not teach this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that Shiota does not limit removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it is contradicted by the teachings of Shiota. Specifically, Shiota teaches polishing until a mechanical stop is reached in a manner which exposes a portion of the epi layer and thereby stops once a predetermined thickness of the epi layer, corresponding to the entire epi layer, is reached (Shiota, col. 7, lines 20-30 describing the polishing procedure depicted in Figure 17 in which substrate 20a is removed until stop 50 is reached and in which epitaxial layer 21 is exposed once stop 50 is reached). Since the polishing of Shiota employs a mechanical stop which limits removal to a particular thickness of the epitaxial layer, the combination of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Shiota set forth in the rejection reads on the requirements of this limitation. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Shiota (see below). Applicant's argument that Shiota does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because it is contradicted by the teachings of Shiota.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Shiota et al. (Shiota, US Patent 5,086,011) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein thickness control during a polishing is maintained by using a mechanical stop" because, according to applicant, the structure of Shiota is distinct from the claimed structure. To support this argument, applicant contends that the stop layers of Shiota are structures within the wafer itself whereas the mechanical stops of the claimed invention are elements of a polishing fixture.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the claims do not limit the structure of the claimed mechanical stops (MPEP §2145VI). Specifically, the claims only recite the presence of mechanical stops, but do not indicate that these stops are arranged on a polishing fixture. Since it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims, arguments relating to the arrangement of the mechanical stops on a polishing fixture are moot. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein thickness control during a polishing is maintained by using a mechanical stop" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Shiota (see below). Applicant's argument that the structure of Shiota is distinct from the claimed structure is not persuasive because the claims do not limit the structure of the claimed mechanical stops (MPEP §2145VI).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Figure 15A includes multiple views that are not separately labeled. Each view must be individually labeled.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 through 7 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, this claim requires "Wherein treating the backside comprises selective chemical etching, in which backside substrate removal is accomplished by chemical dissolution." However, the original disclosure makes no mention of employing both CMP and selective chemical etching at the same time to remove the substrate. At best, the original disclosure identifies these processes as alternatives to one another. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, this claim requires "Wherein treating the backside comprises selective chemical etching, in which backside substrate removal is accomplished by chemical dissolution." However, the original disclosure makes no mention of employing both CMP and selective chemical etching at the same time to remove the substrate. At best, the original disclosure identifies these processes as alternatives to one another. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, each of these claims depend properly from claim 5 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, this claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 10 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Regarding claim 10, this claim requires "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer." This requirement could mean either 1) the mechanical stop is arranged "beneath" the epi layer such that the epi layer is between the mechanical stop and the substrate or 2) the mechanical stop is arranged "beneath" the epi layer such that the mechanical stop is between the epi layer and the substrate. In the first interpretation, limiting material removal by the mechanical stop would result in the epi layer being removed and would destroy the product sought to be produced. In the second interpretation, limiting material removal by the mechanical stop would result in polishing stopping prior to reaching the epi layer. Accordingly, the second arrangement would interfere with removing material from the epitaxial layer to a predetermined depth. Since there are two competing interpretations of the meaning of this requirement and since neither interpretation is compatible with the remainder of the claim, the claim language is unclear as to how this requirement should be interpreted. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that material is removed from the wafer, that includes the epitaxial layer, to a predetermined depth of the wafer.
Regarding claim 17, this claim requires "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer." This requirement could mean either 1) the mechanical stop is arranged "beneath" the epi layer such that the epi layer is between the mechanical stop and the substrate or 2) the mechanical stop is arranged "beneath" the epi layer such that the mechanical stop is between the epi layer and the substrate. In the first interpretation, limiting material removal by the mechanical stop would result in the epi layer being removed and would destroy the product sought to be produced. In the second interpretation, limiting material removal by the mechanical stop would result in polishing stopping prior to reaching the epi layer. Accordingly, the second arrangement would interfere with removing material from the epitaxial layer to a predetermined depth. Since there are two competing interpretations of the meaning of this requirement and since neither interpretation is compatible with the remainder of the claim, the claim language is unclear as to how this requirement should be interpreted. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that material is removed from the wafer, that includes the epitaxial layer, to a predetermined depth of the wafer.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 through 4, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (Wong, US Pub. 2003/0122141), in view of Doan et al. (Doan, US Patent 7,687,322), and further in view of Yeh (US Pub. 2003/0031218).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses, "Mounting an epi layer of a semiconductor chip including a substrate onto a planar handle wafer with an adhesive" (p. [0025] and Fig. 1A, pts. 1105, 1106, and 1110). "[The adhesive] comprising a heat sensitive bonding comprising at least one of a thermoplastic or thermal wax" (p. [0024] and Fig. 1B, pt. 1106). "Wherein a backside of the substrate faces upward and away from the epi layer and the planar handle wafer" (p. [0025] and Fig. 1A, pts. 215 and 1110). "Treating the backside to substantially remove the substrate" (p. [0025]-[0026] and Figs. 1B and 1C, pts. 215 and 1110). "Leaving the epi layer" (p. [0025]-[0026] and Figs. 1B and 1C, pt. 1110). "Forming a metal on the treated backside resulting in a metallized backside" (p. [0027] and Fig. 1D, pts. 1110, 1117, and 1118). "Electroforming a bulk metal layer over the n-type ohmic contact metal to structurally replace the removed substrate" (p. [0027], [0036], and Fig. 2A, pts. 1118 and 1119). "Removing the planar handle wafer from the epi layer by dissolving the adhesive with a solvent" (p. [0024] and Figs. 1D and 1E, pts. 1105 and 1106). "Wherein a modified semiconductor chip remains" (p. [0028] and Fig. 1E, pts. 1110, 1117, and 1118). "Attaching the metallized backside to a mechanical block" (p. [0029] and Fig. 1F, pts. 1300 and 1350). Wong does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the forming comprises blanket-depositing an n-type ohmic contact metal on the polished backside." "Annealing the modified semiconductor chip to form a semiconductor-metal ohmic contact interface on the metallized backside." Doan discloses, "Wherein the forming comprises blanket-depositing an n-type ohmic contact metal on the polished backside" (col. 6, lines 8-20 and Fig. 9A, where the seed layer is part of or is the mirror layer and the electrode is formed as an n-type contact in the arrangement of Wong). "Annealing the modified semiconductor chip to form a semiconductor-metal ohmic contact interface on the metallized backside" (col. 4, lines 56-62, where the mirror layer corresponds to the device contact). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wong with the teachings of Doan. In view of the teachings of Wong regarding a semiconductor laser including a thick copper layer electroplated atop the epitaxial layer in place of the growth substrate, the additional inclusion of an annealing step applied to a metal layer contacting the semiconductor as well as the additional inclusion of a seed layer from which the copper may be electroplated as taught by Doan would enhance the teachings of Wong by improving contact between the semiconductor and the contact layer as well as providing a layer that facilitates the required electroplating.
The combination of Wong and Doan does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the treating comprises chemically-mechanically polishing the backside of the substrate to reduce a thickness of the substrate." Yeh discloses, "Wherein the treating comprises chemically-mechanically polishing the backside of the substrate to reduce a thickness of the substrate" (p. [0053] and Figs. 3C and 3D, pt. 300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong and Doan with the teachings of Yeh. In view of the teachings of Wong regarding a semiconductor laser including a thick copper layer electroplated atop the epitaxial layer in place of the growth substrate, the alternate removal process for removing some or all of the substrate by CMP as well as the alternate use of acetone to dissolve the adhesive bonding the device to the handle as taught by Yeh would enhance the teachings of Wong and Doan by indicating a suitably alternate mechanism for safely thinning or removing the substrate as well as by allowing the adhesive attaching the handle to be removed without risking damage to the device.
Regarding claim 2, Wong discloses, "[The deposition] followed by electroforming a bulk metal over the thin film to replace a portion of the substrate that was removed" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 1119). Wong does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the step of forming a metal on the treated backside comprises depositing a thin film metal seed layer directly on the thinned epi layer to provide a plating base." Doan discloses, "Wherein the step of forming a metal on the treated backside comprises depositing a thin film metal seed layer directly on the thinned epi layer to provide a plating base" (col. 6, lines 8-20 and Fig. 9A, where the seed layer is part of or is the mirror layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wong with the teachings of Doan for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Wong does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the thin film is deposited by at least one of sputtering, electron beam evaporation, thermal evaporation, and laser ablation." Doan discloses, "Wherein the thin film is deposited by at least one of sputtering, electron beam evaporation, thermal evaporation, and laser ablation" (col. 5, lines 48-64 and Fig. 9A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wong with the teachings of Doan for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Wong discloses, "Wherein the electroformed bulk metal comprises copper" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 1119). Wong does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the thin film comprises Ge, Au, Ni, Al, Ti and alloys thereof." Doan discloses, "Wherein the thin film comprises Ge, Au, Ni, Al, Ti and alloys thereof" (col. 6, lines 8-20 and Fig. 9A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wong with the teachings of Doan for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Wong and Doan does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the solvent is acetone." Yeh discloses, "Wherein the solvent is acetone" (p. [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong and Doan with the teachings of Yeh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Wong discloses, "Wherein the planar handle wafer comprises at least one of glass or silicon" (p. [0024] and Fig. 1B, pt. 1105).
Regarding claim 13, Wong discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor chip comprises a laser array" (p. [0009] and Fig. 1H, pt. 1301).
Claims 5 through 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, in view of Doan, in view of Yeh, and further in view of Okuno et al. (Okuno, US Patent 5,654,583).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein treating the backside comprises selective chemical etching." "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack." Okuno discloses, "Wherein treating the backside comprises selective chemical etching" (col. 8, lines 26-29 and Figs. 11A and 11B, pt. 1a). "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack" (col. 8, lines 26-29 and Figs. 11A and 11B, pt. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh with the teachings of Okuno. In view of the teachings of Wong regarding a semiconductor laser including a thick copper layer electroplated atop the epitaxial layer in place of the growth substrate, the additional inclusion of an etch-stop layer for use with the final etching step as taught by Okuno would enhance the teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh by allowing for a reduction in the risk of damaging the epitaxial layer when an etching step is used to remove the last portions of the substrate.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the etch stop layer is one of AlGaAs, InGaAs, InGaAsP, GaP, and GaInP." Okuno discloses, "Wherein the etch stop layer is one of AlGaAs, InGaAs, InGaAsP, GaP, and GaInP" (col. 8, lines 26-29 and Figs. 11A and 11B, pt. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh with the teachings of Okuno for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a chemical etchant used to accomplish the selective chemical etching comprises at least one of: NH4OH, H2O2, HNO3, and HCl." Okuno discloses, "Wherein a chemical etchant used to accomplish the selective chemical etching comprises at least one of: NH4OH, H2O2, HNO3, and HCl" (col. 8, lines 26-29 and Figs. 11A and 11B, pt. 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh with the teachings of Okuno for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, in view of Doan, in view of Yeh, and further in view of Shiota et al. (Shiota, US Patent 5,086,011).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein thickness control during a polishing is maintained by using a mechanical stop." "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer." Shiota discloses, "Wherein thickness control during a polishing is maintained by using a mechanical stop" (col. 3, lines 49-55). "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer" (col. 7, lines 20-30 and Figs. 14 and 17, pts. 20, 21, and 50, where stop layers 50 are provided below epitaxial layers 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh with the teachings of Shiota. In view of the teachings of Wong regarding a semiconductor laser including a thick copper layer electroplated atop the epitaxial layer in place of the growth substrate and the teachings of Yeh regarding the use of CMP to remove some or all of the substrate, the additional inclusion of mechanical stops for use with a CMP removal process as taught by Shiota would enhance the teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh by allowing the CMP removal process to be stopped at a desired depth.
Claims 12, 14 through 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, in view of Doan, in view of Yeh, and further in view of Miyajima et al. (Miyajima, US Pub. 2001/0004370).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mechanical block comprises at least one embedded channel formed therein." "[The embedded channel] is configured to accept cooling liquid therethrough." "A first tubular connection for providing cooling liquid to the at least one embedded channel." "A second tubular connection for removing cooling liquid from the at least one embedded channel." Miyajima discloses, "Wherein the mechanical block comprises at least one embedded channel formed therein" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 30). "[The embedded channel] is configured to accept cooling liquid therethrough" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 30). "A first tubular connection for providing cooling liquid to the at least one embedded channel" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 5). "A second tubular connection for removing cooling liquid from the at least one embedded channel" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh with the teachings of Miyajima. In view of the teachings of Wong regarding a semiconductor laser including a thick copper layer mounted atop a mounting structure, the alternate formatting of the mounting structure to include a liquid cooling loop as taught by Miyajima would enhance the teachings of Wong, Doan, and Yeh by allowing for powerful cooling of the laser device.
Regarding claim 14, Wong discloses, "Mounting an epi layer of a semiconductor chip including a growth substrate onto a planar handle wafer with an adhesive layer" (p. [0025] and Fig. 1A, pts. 1105, 1106, and 1110). "[The adhesive] comprising a heat sensitive bonding comprising at least one of a thermoplastic or thermal wax" (p. [0024] and Fig. 1B, pt. 1106). "Wherein a backside of the substrate faces upward and away from the epi layer and the planar handle wafer" (p. [0025] and Fig. 1A, pts. 215 and 1110). "Electroforming a bulk metal over the thin film seed layer to form a metallized backside" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 1119). "Removing the planar handle wafer from the epi layer by dissolving the adhesive with a solvent" (p. [0024] and Figs. 1D and 1E, pts. 1105 and 1106). "Wherein a modified semiconductor chip remains" (p. [0028] and Fig. 1E, pts. 1110, 1117, and 1118). "Attaching the metallized backside to a 3D mechanical block" (p. [0029] and Fig. 1F, pts. 1300 and 1350). Wong does not explicitly disclose, "Depositing a thin film metal seed layer on the treated backside." "Annealing the semiconductor chip to form a semiconductor-metal ohmic contact interface." Doan discloses, "Depositing a thin film metal seed layer on the treated backside" (col. 6, lines 8-20 and Fig. 9A, where the seed layer is part of or is the mirror layer). "Annealing the semiconductor chip to form a semiconductor-metal ohmic contact interface" (col. 4, lines 56-62, where the mirror layer corresponds to the device contact). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wong with the teachings of Doan for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Wong and Doan does not explicitly disclose, "Treating the backside by a combination of mechanical polishing and chemical etching to substantially remove the growth substrate." "Wherein planarization is performed to a thickness that is on the order of a thickness of the epi layer." Yeh discloses, "Treating the backside by a combination of mechanical polishing and chemical etching to substantially remove the growth substrate" (p. [0068] and Figs. 6B and 6C, pt. 600). "Wherein planarization is performed to a thickness that is on the order of a thickness of the epi layer" (p. [0068] and Figs. 6B and 6C, pt. 600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong and Doan with the teachings of Yeh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh does not explicitly disclose, "[The 3D mechanical block] including at least one fully embedded cooling channel formed therein." "[The embedded channel] configured to accept cooling liquid therethrough." "A first tubular connection coupled to the at least one embedded channel for providing cooling liquid." "A second tubular connection coupled to the at least one embedded channel for removing cooling liquid." Miyajima discloses, "[The 3D mechanical block] including at least one fully embedded cooling channel formed therein" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 30). "[The embedded channel] configured to accept cooling liquid therethrough" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 30). "A first tubular connection coupled to the at least one embedded channel for providing cooling liquid" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 5). "A second tubular connection coupled to the at least one embedded channel for removing cooling liquid" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, and Yeh with the teachings of Miyajima for the reasons provided above regarding claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, Wong discloses, "Wherein the metallized backside comprises an electroplated metal formed to replace the removed substrate" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 1119).
Regarding claim 16, Wong discloses, "Wherein the electroplated metal comprises copper" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 1119).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Wong and Doan does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a polish is chemically and mechanically executed." Yeh discloses, "Wherein a polish is chemically and mechanically executed" (p. [0068] and Figs. 6B and 6C, pt. 600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong and Doan with the teachings of Yeh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, in view of Doan, in view of Yeh, in view of Miyajima, and further in view of Shiota.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein thickness control during a polishing is maintained by using a mechanical stop." "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer." Shiota discloses, "Wherein thickness control during a polishing is maintained by using a mechanical stop" (col. 3, lines 49-55). "[The mechanical stop] disposed beneath the epi layer to limit material removal to a predetermined thickness of the epi layer" (col. 7, lines 20-30 and Figs. 14 and 17, pts. 20, 21, and 50, where stop layers 50 are provided below epitaxial layers 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima with the teachings of Shiota. In view of the teachings of Wong regarding a semiconductor laser including a thick copper layer electroplated atop the epitaxial layer in place of the growth substrate, the additional inclusion of mechanical stops for use with a CMP removal process as taught by Shiota would enhance the teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima by allowing the CMP removal process to be stopped at a desired depth.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, in view of Doan, in view of Yeh, in view of Miyajima, and further in view of Okuno.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein treating the backside comprises selective chemical etching." "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack." Okuno discloses, "Wherein treating the backside comprises selective chemical etching" (col. 8, lines 26-29 and Figs. 11A and 11B, pt. 1a). "Wherein an etch stop layer within the epi layer at the substrate interface blocks chemical attack" (col. 8, lines 26-29 and Figs. 11A and 11B, pt. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima with the teachings of Okuno. In view of the teachings of Wong regarding a semiconductor laser including a thick copper layer electroplated atop the epitaxial layer in place of the growth substrate, the additional inclusion of an etch-stop layer for use with the final etching step as taught by Okuno would enhance the teachings of Wong, Doan, Yeh, and Miyajima by allowing for a reduction in the risk of damaging the epitaxial layer when an etching step is used to remove the last portions of the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bouley et al. (Bouley, US Patent 4,441,187) is cited for teaching the use of an annealing process to improve the conduction of both p-type and n-type contacts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights