DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Akiyama does not teach the amended limitation of the interlayer ‘consisting of’ the claimed materials. The applicant argues that if the substrate of Akiyama was as claimed (as it is in para 0072), then the stress relaxing interlayer would necessarily have to be 310 in Fig. 6, not 320, and therefore the limitations defining the interlayer are not met. However, the claim language does not define that the stress relaxing interlayer is on the substrate with no other intervening layers. It only requires that it be between the supporting substrate and a single crystal substrate, and that it remains therebetween when the two substrates are laminates.
As shown in Figs. 5a-5d of Akiyama, there is one interlayer deposited on the single crystal substrate that consists of the materials claimed (para 0078). As shown in Fig. 6, the single crystal substrate with the interlayer is then bonded to the support substrate 310/100 then the single crystal substrate is thinned as claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not eliminate having another layer on such a substrate, as the claim steps are still ‘comprising’ and the support substrate and stress relaxing interlayer are not defined in way that eliminates any intervening layers. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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 and 6-9 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, there is a forming step for an interlayer between two substrates then bonding the substrates. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would read the claim as the two substrates being bonded for the first time during the bonding step, as they are not claimed to be in any sort of position to have a layer deposited between them. It is unclear what the forming step is implying regarding the positioning of the two substrates, is the layer deposited when they are next to each other? Is the layer formed by pressing the two substrates together? Are there separate layers on both substrates that are both made of the same intermediate material? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiyama et al. (WO 2018/088093 A1; with citations taken from US 2020/0058842 A1 used as a translation).
As to claim 1, Akiyama et al. teaches a method for producing a composite substrate (abstract) having a supporting substrate of that claimed (100 in Fig. 4-7, para 0070), a stress relaxing interlayer (320 in Fig. 6-7, paras 0072, 0078), and an oxide single-crystal thin film (piezoelectric film 200 in Fig. 6-7, para 0077) stacked in the listed order as shown in Figs 6-7, comprising the steps of:
forming a stress relaxing interlayer between a supporting substrate and an oxide single- crystal substrate at least as broadly claimed (para 0020, 0072 and 0078), the stress relaxing interlayer having a thermal expansion coefficient between that of the supporting substrate and that of the oxide single-crystal substrate (the intermediate layer is AIN or SiN, as explained in para 0078 and is the made of the same materials as that in the instant specification paras 0007-0010, thus has the required physical features); bonding the supporting substrate and the oxide single-crystal substrate to each other with the stress relaxing interlayer therebetween to obtain a laminate (Fig 6a, para 0083); and thinning the oxide crystal substrate of the laminate into an oxide crystal thin film (Fig 6b, para 0084).
The stress reducing interlayer is as claimed in Akiyama et al. para 0078. As shown in Figs. 5a-5d, there is one interlayer deposited on the single crystal substrate that consists of the materials claimed (para 0078). As shown in Fig. 6, the single crystal substrate with the interlayer is then bonded to the support substrate 310/100 then the single crystal substrate is thinned as claimed.
As to claim 6, the single crystal substrate is as claimed in Akiyama et al. para 0077.
As to claim 7, The interlayer 310 and stress relaxing layer 320 of Akiyama et al. are formed by CVD or PVD (paras 0072, 0078).
As to claim 8, the thinning in Akiyama et al. is performed by polishing, for example, in para 0084.
As to claim 9, Akiyama et al. teaches an ion implantation step as claimed in para 0053. The oxide crystal substrate is then thinned by releasing a portion of the oxide single crystal substrate as described in paras 0139, 0141 (in particular, the wedge-shaped blade used in para 0139 is the same as instant para 0049).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights