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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 13-14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deguet et al. (US 2009/0246933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deguet discloses a method of manufacturing a piezoelectric structure for a radiofrequency device, the method comprising: providing a substrate of piezoelectric material (“thin layer of piezoelectric material”, disclosed as being comprised of quartz) (figs. 4-5; pars. 0104-0105, 0108-0109); providing a carrier substrate (28) (fig. 5; par. 0109); providing a dielectric bonding layer (a deposited “oxide”) comprising a layer of silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride (SiO2) on the substrate of piezoelectric material by plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition at a temperature less than or equal to 300°C (pars. 0084 and 0110: “a deposit of SiO2 at a temperature <200°C”); joining the substrate of piezoelectric material to the carrier substrate by way of the dielectric bonding layer (fig. 5; par. 0112); and thinning (“the quartz is next thinned out”) the substrate of piezoelectric material to form the piezoelectric structure comprising a layer of piezoelectric material joined to the carrier substrate by way of the dielectric bonding layer (figs 4-6; par. 0110).
Regarding claim 2, Deguet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the dielectric bonding layer comprises a layer of silicon oxide (SiO2) (par. 0110).
Regarding claim 3, Deguet discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the joining step comprises a molecular bonding between the dielectric bonding layer and the carrier substrate (pars. 0059, 0084 and 0110).
Regarding claim 4, Deguet discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the substrate of piezoelectric material has a rough surface (2’ or 2”) designed to reflect a radiofrequency wave (par. 0059). Note: The term “rough” is not necessarily indefinite, but it is entirely subjectively defined. Virtually all, if not all known surfaces are understood to have some degree of roughness and are understood to naturally reflect at least one radiofrequency wave. Accordingly, the piezoelectric material of Deguet is understood to be rough to some degree and to be capable of reflecting at least one frequency of radio wave.
Regarding claim 13, Deguet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the joining step comprises a molecular bonding between the dielectric bonding layer and the carrier substrate (par. 0059).
Regarding claim 14, Deguet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate of piezoelectric material has a rough surface designed to reflect a radiofrequency wave (see claim 4 rejection to Deguet, above).
Regarding claim 16, Deguet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the carrier substrate further comprises a trapping layer (26) joined to the dielectric bonding layer (by way of piezoelectric layer) (pars. 0109-0110).
Regarding claim 19, Deguet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the thinning step comprises etching and/or chemical mechanical polishing (pars. 0055-0056, 0060-0063 and 0110).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 5-6, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguet, in view of Hori (WO 2019/130852).
Regarding claim 5, Deguet discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Deguet, however, does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of the dielectric bonding layer is between 200 nm and 500 nm.
Hori teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method (Title; Abstract); including forming the dielectric layer such that the thickness of the dielectric bonding layer is between 200 nm and 500 nm (250 nm) (pg. 6, lines 14-16).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Deguet to incorporate the desired dielectric thickness of Hori. POSITA would have realized that any preferred dielectric thickness can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired adhesion, robustness, capacitance, etc.. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special dielectric layer was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Deguet with the well-known preferred thickness of Hori. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 6, Deguet in view of Hori teaches the method of claim 5 as detailed above, and Deguet further discloses that the carrier substrate further comprises a trapping layer joined to the dielectric bonding layer (pars. 0060-0063).
Regarding claim 9, Deguet in view of Hori teaches the method of claim 6 as detailed above, and Deguet further discloses that the thinning step comprises etching and/or chemical mechanical polishing (pars. 0055-0056 and 0060).
Regarding claim 15, Deguet discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Deguet, however, does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the dielectric bonding layer is between 200 nm and 500 nm.
Hori teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method (Title; Abstract); including forming the dielectric layer such that a thickness of the dielectric bonding layer is between 200 nm and 500 nm (250 nm) (pg. 6, lines 14-16). Regarding the rationale for combination, please refer to claim 5, above.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguet, in view of Kub et al. (US 2004/0224482 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Deguet discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above, including providing a piezoelectric structure obtained by implementing the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1). Deguet, however, does not explicitly disclose forming a weakened zone in the layer of piezoelectric material so as to delimit the piezoelectric layer to be transferred; providing the final substrate; bonding together the layer of piezoelectric material and the final substrate; and breaking and separating the piezoelectric structure along the weakened zone.
Kub teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of manufacturing a piezoelectric structure for a radiofrequency device, the method comprising: providing a substrate of piezoelectric material (11, which can be InP or GaAs, both of which are piezoelectric); providing a carrier substrate (16 and/or 18) (fig. 1a; pars. 0006, 0018, 0043, 0046 and 0048); providing a dielectric bonding layer (17) on the substrate of piezoelectric material (fig. 1a; pars. 0019, 0045 and 0047); joining the substrate of piezoelectric material to the carrier substrate by way of the dielectric bonding layer (fig. 1b; pars. 0046-0047); and thinning to form the piezoelectric structure comprising a layer of piezoelectric material joined to a carrier substrate by way of the dielectric bonding layer (fig. 1b; pars. 0049-0050); further comprising: providing the piezoelectric structure, forming a weakened zone (14) in the layer of piezoelectric material so as to delimit the piezoelectric layer to be transferred (par. 0044); providing the final substrate (16, with 18 being the carrier substrate in this embodiment); bonding together the layer of piezoelectric material and the final substrate (pars. 0046-0048); and breaking and separating the piezoelectric structure along the weakened zone (par. 0049).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Deguet to incorporate the continuation of the method of Kub. POSITA would have realized that forming a weakened zone in the piezoelectric, separating at the weakened zone and applying a final substrate can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired piezoelectric thickness and bonding to a preferred substrate material. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special steps were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Deguet with the well-known additional steps of Kub. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 11, Deguet in view of Kub teaches the method of claim 10 as detailed above, and Kub further teaches that it is well known that the weakened zone is formed by implanting atomic species (hydrogen ions) in the layer of piezoelectric material (par. 0044).
Regarding claim 12, Deguet in view of Kub teaches the method of claim 10 as detailed above, and Deguet further discloses that the final substrate (20) and the carrier substrate (100) have identical coefficients of expansion. Both are disclosed as being made of silicon, and therefore are naturally expected to share identical coefficients of expansion properties (pars. 0062 and 0070). The applicant is respectfully advised that it has been held by the courts that where a prior art apparatus is identical or substantially identical in structure, claimed properties or functional characteristics are presumed to be inherent, and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguet, in view of Block et al. (WO 2017/052646 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Deguet discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Deguet, however, does not explicitly disclose that the trapping layer is polycrystalline silicon.
Block teaches that it is well known to perform a method (Title Abstract), including providing a carrier substrate (104) having a trapping layer (107), wherein the trapping layer is polycrystalline silicon (fig. 2; pg. 7, lines 22-24; pp. 7-8, lines 32-33 and 1-7).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Deguet to incorporate the trap material selected to be polycrystalline silicon of Block. POSITA would have realized that Deguet discloses that the trap layer is formed on a silicon substrate (pars. 0060-0063), which can be easily and readily provided with polycrystalline to achieve the desired thinning depth. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special trap layer was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Deguet with the well-known polycrystalline silicon material selection of Block. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 18, Deguet discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Deguet, however, does not explicitly disclose that the trapping layer is obtained by implanting heavy species such as argon.
Block teaches that it is well known to perform a method (Title Abstract), including providing a carrier substrate (104) having a trapping layer (107), wherein the trapping layer is obtained by implanting heavy species such as argon (fig. 2; pp. 7-8, lines 32-33 and 1-7). Regarding the rationale for combination, please refer to claim 17, above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguet in view of Hori, further in view of Block.
Regarding claim 7, Deguet in view of Hori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6. The modified Deguet, however, does not appear to teach that the trapping layer is polycrystalline silicon..
Block teaches that it is well known to perform a method (Title Abstract), including providing a carrier substrate (104) having a trapping layer (107), wherein the trapping layer is polycrystalline silicon (fig. 2; pg. 7, lines 22-24; pp. 7-8, lines 32-33 and 1-7).
Regarding the rationale for combination, please refer to claim 17, above.
Regarding claim 8, Deguet in view of Hori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6. The modified Deguet, however, does not appear to teach that the trapping layer is obtained by implanting heavy species such as argon.
Block teaches that it is well known to perform a method (Title Abstract), including providing a carrier substrate (104) having a trapping layer (107), wherein the trapping layer is obtained by implanting heavy species such as argon (fig. 2; pp. 7-8, lines 32-33 and 1-7). Regarding the rationale for combination, please refer to claim 17, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection to Kub have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Kub for a 102 rejection of argued claim 1, as applied in the prior rejection of record, or for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument against Kub.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 with respect to Deguet have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, Applicant has asserted that Deguet does not disclose the newly added limitation of “providing a dielectric bonding layer (a deposited “oxide”) comprising a layer of silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride (SiO2) on the substrate of piezoelectric material by plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition at a temperature less than or equal to 300°C”. However, this argument is unpersuasive, because Deguet explicitly discloses that silicon oxide is deposited by PECVD and that the temperature of deposition is “<200°C”, which is clearly less than 300°C.
Applicant subsequently argues that “Deguet generally mentions the possibility of using a bonding layer, such as a thin layer of SiO2, to facilitate molecular bonding”, which is an unnecessary strawman argument and which is no compelling in any event. While it is entirely irrelevant if a prior art discloses a feature “generally” or not, the argument is simply not germane, because Deguet does not “generally” disclose the deposition of SiO2, but instead explicitly, expressly and specifically discloses the deposition of SiO2 by way of the claimed technique of PECVD and at a temperature in the claimed range.
Applicant further argues that Deguet “does not disclose thinning the piezoelectric substrate, but rather thinning the initial substrate 100 (silicon) that has been bonded to the piezoelectric substrate”. This argument is not compelling, as the newly applied rejection clearly shows that Deguet explicitly recites thinning the quartz layer.
Next, Applicant argues that “Even if Deguet mentions that the SiO2layer is deposited via PECVD at a temperature "not too high" to guarantee the integrity of the electrodes, it does not disclose the deposition temperature is less than or equal to 300°C .” This argument is not persuasive, as it has been expressly demonstrated that Deguet discloses depositing the silicon oxide at a temperature of <200°C, which is clearly <300°C.
Finally, with respect to Deguet, Applicant has argued that the prior art does not disclose the purported benefits and/or advantages perceived by the Applicant regarding their own disclosure. Applicant asserted:
“This distinguishing characteristic ensures a high bonding energy to prevent delamination during subsequent thinning steps. Deguet doesn't seek to obtain this effect at all. On the contrary, Deguet seeks to obtain a temporary bonding, by suggesting that the oxide may be slightly roughened in order to produce a detachable bond.
Deguet does not solve the problem encountered during the step of thinning a piezoelectric substrate. The method of claim 1 is specifically designed to prevent delamination during the subsequent thinning step, which comprises thinning the piezoelectric substrate, after bonding.”
The purported benefits of the instant invention are simply not germane to the applicability of the prior art rejection, and are not compelling. Additionally, they are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., preventing delamination, high bonding energy, and thinning the piezoelectric substrate after bonding) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
The thinning of the piezoelectric substrate is claimed as being a step employed “to form the piezoelectric structure”, however this does not mean that it must occur after the bonding step. Every step in the claim is expressly intended “to form the piezoelectric structure”, as is clearly and explicitly stated in the preamble of the claim. As such, simply stating that the thinning is intended “to form the piezoelectric structure” does not automatically necessitate the order of operations. If the Applicant wishes for the thinning step to be performed after the bonding step, then they are strongly encouraged to amend the claim to disclose as much.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Tong et al. (US 2003/0211705 A1) is found to be particularly relevant to at least claim 1 (see, e.g., figs. 1-4E).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571)272-0993. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights