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 .
Detailed Action
Drawings Objection
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 limitation “removing the plurality of temporary pillars further comprises releasing the superficial layer over an entire extent of the cavities” in Claim 25 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
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, 4, 16 and 18-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0336130) of record, in view of Shibata (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0194863) of record, in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2005303778) of record, in view of Yamauchi (JP H11126910) of record
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 5 of Turner discloses a method of transferring a superficial layer to a carrier substrate (520) containing cavities (540), the method comprising: providing a donor substrate (508); providing the carrier substrate, the carrier substrate being comprised of a single material and having a first sidand the carrier substrate via the first side of the carrier substrate; thinning the donor substrate (FIG. 5D), to form the superficial layer.
Turner is silent with respect to “after providing the carrier substrate containing the cavities, producing a plurality of temporary pillars in a least one of the cavities, the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions, the temporary pillars of plurality having upper surfaces that are coplanar with the first sid
FIG. 6 of Shibata discloses a similar method, comprising producing a plurality of temporary pillar (222) in a least one of the cavities (120,122, FIG. 5) after providing the carrier substrate (10) containing the cavities [0037], wherein the temporary pillars of plurality having upper surfaces that are coplanar with the first side of the carrier substrate of the carrier substrate (to ensure even load distribution and minimize stress concentration); the temporary pillars join at least one peripheral wall of the cavity; and removing the plurality of temporary pillars (FIG. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Turner, as taught by Shibata. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Turner in the above manner for purpose of improving performance by bridging cavity ([0007] of Shibata).
Turner as modified by Shibata is silent with respect “the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions”; “thinning the donor substrate to form the superficial layer comprises supporting the superficial layer with the plurality of temporary pillar during thinning”.
FIG. 10 of Yamaguchi discloses a similar method, comprising after providing the carrier substrate containing the cavities, producing at least one temporary pillar in a least one of the cavities; thinning the layer to form the superficial (existing or occurring at or on the surface) layer supported with the at least one temporary pillar during thinning; and removing the plurality of temporary pillars, wherein the temporary pillars join at least one peripheral wall of the cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Turner, as taught by Yamaguchi. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Turner in the above manner for purpose of reducing loss and ensuring mechanical strength (Abstract of Yamaguchi).
Turner as modified by Shibata and Yamaguchi is silent with respect “the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions”.
FIG. 22 of Yamauchi discloses a similar method, comprising producing plurality of temporary pillars (20a) in at least one of the cavities; the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Turner, as taught by Yamauchi. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Turner in the above manner for purpose of improving mechanical strength and reliability (text of Yamauchi).
Furthermore, the recitation “producing a plurality of temporary pillars in a least one of the cavities” and “the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions” are a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878). MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 4
Yamauchi discloses at least one mechanical grinding operation and/or at least one chemical-mechanical polishing operation and/or at least one chemical etching operation carried out on a back side thereof [0004].
Regarding Claim 16
Yamauchi discloses removing the plurality of temporary pillars comprises locally etching a second sid
Regarding Claim 18
FIG. 5 of Turner discloses the donor substrate (508) comprises at least one semiconductor or piezoelectric material [0051].
Regarding Claim 19
FIG. 10 of Yamaguchi discloses the at least one temporary pillar stiffens the superficial layer against a front side the carrier substrate.
Regarding Claim 20
FIG. 10 of Yamaguchi discloses supporting the superficial layer with the at least one temporary pillar during thinning comprises directly supporting the superficial layer with the at least one temporary pillar and the carrier substrate.
Regarding Claim 21
FIG. 15 of Shibata discloses some of the partitions form an array of parallel partitions that join the peripheral walls of the cavity.
Regarding Claim 22
FIG. 5 of Turner discloses the single material of the substrate is silicon [0047].
Regarding Claim 23
FIG. 13 of Shibata discloses each of the temporary pillars has a cross-sectional area that is smaller than a cross-sectional area each cavity.
Regarding Claim 24
FIG. 26 of Yamauchi discloses removing the plurality of temporary pillars further comprises completely removing the plurality of temporary pillars.
Claims 1-3 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benaissa (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0202688) of record, in view of Shibata, in view of Yamaguchi, in view of Chou (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0267516) of record
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 1 of Benaissa discloses a method of transferring a superficial layer to a carrier substrate (2) containing cavities (200), the method comprising: providing a donor substrate (3); providing the carrier substrate, the carrier substrate being comprised of a single material and having a first sid
Benaissa is silent with respect to “after providing the carrier substrate containing the cavities, producing a plurality of temporary pillars in a least one of the cavities, the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions, the temporary pillars of plurality having upper surfaces that are coplanar with the first sid
FIG. 6 of Shibata discloses a similar method, comprising producing a plurality of temporary pillar (222) in a least one of the cavities (120,122, FIG. 5) after providing the carrier substrate (10) containing the cavities [0037], wherein the temporary pillars of plurality having upper surfaces that are coplanar with the first side of the carrier substrate of the carrier substrate (to ensure even load distribution and minimize stress concentration); the temporary pillars join at least one peripheral wall of the cavity; and removing the plurality of temporary pillars (FIG. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Benaissa, as taught by Shibata. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Benaissa in the above manner for purpose of improving performance by bridging cavity ([0007] of Shibata).
Benaissa as modified by Shibata is silent with respect “the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions”; “thinning the donor substrate to form the superficial layer comprises supporting the superficial layer with the plurality of temporary pillar during thinning”.
FIG. 10 of Yamaguchi discloses a similar method, comprising after providing the carrier substrate containing the cavities, producing at least one temporary pillar in a least one of the cavities; thinning the layer to form the superficial (existing or occurring at or on the surface) layer supported with the at least one temporary pillar during thinning; and removing the plurality of temporary pillars, wherein the temporary pillars join at least one peripheral wall of the cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Benaissa, as taught by Yamaguchi. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Benaissa in the above manner for purpose of reducing loss and ensuring mechanical strength (Abstract of Yamaguchi).
Benaissa as modified by Shibata and Yamaguchi is silent with respect “the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions”.
FIG. 5 of Chou discloses a similar method, comprising producing a sacrificial supporter (116) in a least one of the cavities; the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions; thinning the donor substrate (122, FIG. 10) to form the superficial layer comprises supporting the superficial layer with sacrificial supporter during thinning; and removing the sacrificial supporter (FIG. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Benaissa, as taught by Chou. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Benaissa in the above manner for purpose of improving the structure strength and increasing yield ([0053] of Chou).
Furthermore, the recitation “producing a plurality of temporary pillars in a least one of the cavities” and “the plurality of temporary pillars forming partitions” are a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878). MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 2
FIG. 1 of Benaissa discloses implanting light species in the donor substrate to form a buried fragile region that lies between a first portion of the donor substrate, which portion is intended to form the superficial layer, and a second portion of the donor substrate, which portion is intended to form remainder of the donor substrate; and thinning the donor substrate comprises separating, via the buried fragile region, the superficial layer from the remainder of the donor substrate [0048].
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 1 of Benaissa discloses the first portion of the donor substrate has a thickness between 0.2 micron and 2 microns [0099].
Regarding Claim 6
FIG. 14 of Shibata discloses the upper surfaces of the temporary pillars of the plurality have circular, square, rectangular or cruciform outlines.
Claims 8-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benaissa, Shibata, Yamaguchi and Chou, in view of Kim (KR 100306718) of record.
Regarding Claim 8
Benaissa as modified by Shibata, Yamaguchi and Chou discloses Claim 1
Benaissa as modified by Shibata, Yamaguchi and Chou is silent with respect to “the upper surfaces of the temporary pillars of the plurality form a grid that joins the peripheral walls of the cavity”.
FIG. 3 of Kim discloses a similar method, comprising producing a plurality of temporary pillar (25) in a least one of the cavities, wherein the upper surfaces of the temporary pillars of the plurality form a grid that joins the peripheral walls of the cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Benaissa, as taught by Kim. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Benaissa in the above manner for purpose of improving manufacturing processes (Abstract of Kim).
Regarding Claim 9
FIG. 2 of Kim discloses the temporary pillars of the plurality comprises a plurality of temporary pillars form an array of parallel walls that join at their ends the peripheral walls of the cavity.
Regarding Claim 10
FIG. 1 of Benaissa discloses the joining comprises direct bonding, on the one hand, the donor substrate, and, on the other hand, the first side of the carrier substrate and the upper surfaces of the temporary pillars of the plurality.
Regarding Claim 11
FIG. 4 of Kishimoto discloses removing the plurality of temporary pillars comprises locally etching the superficial layer to form at least one through-aperture in the superficial layer, and chemically etching the at plurality of temporary pillars via the at least one through-aperture.
Claims 12-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benaissa, Shibata, Yamaguchi, Chou and Kim, in view of Boris (WO 2014197995) of record.
Regarding Claim 12
Benaissa as modified by Shibata, Yamaguchi, Chou and Kim discloses Claim 11.
Benaissa as modified by Shibata, Yamaguchi, Chou and Kim is silent with respect to “the at least one through-aperture is formed plumb with at least one temporary pillar of the plurality”.
FIG. 1 of Boris discloses a similar method, the at least one through-aperture (117) is formed plumb with the at least one temporary pillar (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Benaissa, as taught by Boris. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Benaissa in the above manner for purpose of fabricating an apertured microneedle (Para. 5 of Boris).
Regarding Claim 13
FIG. 14 of Chou discloses the at least one through-aperture has a cross-sectional area smaller than an area of an upper surface of the at least one temporary pillar of the plurality.
Regarding Claim 14
FIG. 1 of Boris discloses the at least one through-aperture has a cross-sectional area larger than an area of an upper surface of the at least one temporary pillar of the plurality.
Regarding Claim 15
FIG. 1 of Boris discloses the at least one through-aperture is formed in the superficial layer, outside of regions overhanging the at least one cavity.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benaissa, Shibata, Yamaguchi and Chou, in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0091888) of record.
Regarding Claim 17
Benaissa as modified by Shibata, Yamaguchi and Chou discloses Claim 1
Benaissa as modified by Shibata, Yamaguchi and Chou is silent with respect to “the plurality of temporary pillars comprises at least one material chosen from among silicon oxide, silicon nitride, single-crystal silicon, polysilicon, amorphous silicon and porous silicon”.
FIG. 17 of Lee discloses a similar method, wherein the plurality of temporary pillars comprises at least one material chosen from among silicon oxide, silicon nitride, single-crystal silicon, polysilicon, amorphous silicon and porous silicon [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Benaissa, as taught by Lee. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Benaissa in the above manner for purpose of etching selectivity ([0047] of Lee).
Claim Objection
Claim 25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Art
CN 106959106 discloses removing portion of the donor substrate with support of at least one pillar during thinning. CN 112701079 discloses producing at least one temporary pillar in at least one of the cavities of the carrier substrate. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200028482, and 20080024041 discloses at least one supporter pillar having an upper surface that is coplanar with the first side of the carrier substrate and joining at least one peripheral wall of the cavity. JP 2010131900 discloses thinning the donor substrate. Pertinent art also includes US 20220029604, 20180191322, 20090127978, Tang (CN 110445474), Kando (WO 2012073871) and Roy (WO 2019036214).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner respectfully submits that Shibata is used to modify Turner to produce a plurality of temporary pillar (222) in a least one of the cavities (120,122, FIG. 5) after providing the carrier substrate (10) containing the cavities [0037], wherein the temporary pillars of plurality having upper surfaces that are coplanar with the first side of the carrier substrate of the carrier substrate (to ensure even load distribution and minimize stress concentration); the temporary pillars join at least one peripheral wall of the cavity; and removing the plurality of temporary pillars. One of ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Turner/Benaissa for purpose of improving performance by bridging cavity (due to prevent deformation during process) ([0007] of Shibata). Yamaguchi is used to further modify Turner and Shibata to disclose after providing the carrier substrate containing the cavities, producing at least one temporary pillar in a least one of the cavities; thinning the layer to form the superficial (existing or occurring at or on the surface) layer supported with the at least one temporary pillar during thinning; and removing the plurality of temporary pillars. ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Turner/Benaissa for purpose of reducing loss and ensuring mechanical strength (Abstract of Yamaguchi). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to prevent deformation or cracking during the thinning process. The rationale for combining or modifying prior art does not have to be explicitly stated in the references. It can be reasoned from common knowledge in the art, scientific principles, art-recognized equivalents, or legal precedent MPEP § 2144.04. In ultra-thin wafer processing, especially when thinning to sub-100 μm, the superficial (backside) layer becomes mechanically fragile. As material is removed by backgrinding, subsurface damage (SSD) accumulates, creating micro-cracks and lattice strain, leading to bowing, warping, or cracking. In the art, using a supporter placed in a recessed area of the wafer or on its backside to provide mechanical support during thinning and subsequent handling to distribute stress, maintain flatness, reduce localized strain, and prevent warping and cracking is a common practice. The recess is designed to align with the support structure, ensuring even load distribution and minimizing stress concentration at the wafer’s edges or corners (Copilot).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights