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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 4-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses “annealing the structure including the carrier substrate and the thinned substrate of piezoelectric material” (lines 12-13; emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis for the newly added recitation of “the structure” or of a structure “including the carrier substrate and the thinned substrate of piezoelectric material”. Further, it is not clear if the “structure” is held to be one which is being annealed during an intermediate step of the claimed method, given that the “dielectric bonding layer” is not included as part of “the structure”, which is especially problematic, given that the “dielectric bonding layer” is deposited before the “substrate of piezoelectric material” and the “carrier substrate” are bonded to one another and that the “dielectric bonding layer” required as being sandwiched between the “substrate of piezoelectric material” and the “carrier substrate”. As best understood, the claim should apparently recite something akin to: “annealing [[the]] a structure including the carrier substrate, the dielectric bonding layer, and the thinned substrate of piezoelectric material”, or “annealing the piezoelectric structure for a radiofrequency device, including the carrier substrate, the dielectric bonding layer, and the thinned substrate of piezoelectric material”. Either interpretation is currently held to be reasonable.
Claims 2-3, 4-14 and 16-20 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 14 disclose “the joining comprises a molecular bonding between the dielectric bonding layer and the carrier substrate or between the dielectric bonding layer and a dielectric bonding layer formed on the carrier substrate” (lines 2-5; emphasis added). The first issue with this recitation is it leaves the reader to guess what may be the intended method. Is it bonding the dielectric and carrier substrate, or is it bonding the dielectric and a[nother] dielectric? The second issue is that the language leaves the reader to wonder whether “a dielectric bonding layer” in this claim is another dielectric layer, and if so, the claim should disclose as much. Or if the recitation of “a dielectric bonding layer” is a mistake. The claims do not provide any clarity to these issues and are thus indefinite.
Claims 5-9 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 3.
Claims 8 and 19 are further rejected as indefinite, because the claims disclose “providing a dielectric bonding layer on the carrier substrate” (lines 2-3; emphasis added). Is this a second dielectric bonding layer? Is this a third dielectric bonding layer (dependent upon claim 3)? The claims provide no answers to these questions and are thus found to be indefinite.
Claim 9 is also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of its dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 8.
Claim 13 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “forming a dielectric bonding layer on a main face of the final substrate and/or on the layer of piezoelectric material prior to the bonding” (lines 1-3; emphasis added). Is this a new dielectric bonding layer, or is it referring to the original bonding layer of claim 1? Which method is intended, forming the dielectric on the final substrate, or on the piezoelectric material? Is the piezoelectric material the “substrate of piezoelectric material” or the “layer of piezoelectric material” (from claim 1)? The claim provides no answers to these questions and is thus found to be indefinite.
NOTE: Claims 3-9, 13-14 and 19 have each been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
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 1-3, 5-6, 10-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (US 2004/0224482 A1), in view of Deguet et al. (US 2009/0246933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kub discloses a method of manufacturing a piezoelectric structure for a radiofrequency device, 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); depositing a dielectric bonding layer (17) at a *deposition temperature less than or equal to 300°C on a single face of 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); thinning the substrate of piezoelectric material while the substrate of piezoelectric material is joined to the carrier substrate (fig. 1b; pars. 0049-0050); and annealing the structure including the carrier substrate and the thinned substrate of piezoelectric material (pars. 0030 and 0053).
*In Kub it is evident to POSITA that the recitation that “the technique used for bonding have a maximum temperature of approximately 150 C.-200 C. [sic]” is referring to all of the steps of bonding the plurality of layers given that Kub expressly states that this is done “[b]ecause of limitations of the flexible substrate materials in withstanding heat”. That being so, the reader is left to decide if Kub is explicitly reciting deposition bonding of the dielectric (17) at a temperature less than or equal to 300°C. However, Kub does expressly state that the dielectric “is deposited at a low temperature” (in par. 0045) and that “it is generally required that the technique used for bonding have a maximum temperature of approximately 150 C.-200 C. [sic]” As such, POSITA would know that the dielectric bonding could be readily and predictably performed at a known low temperature such as between 150 °C and 200 °C. Accordingly, this technique would have been performed with reasonable expectations of success. Kub, does not explicitly disclose that the annealing is performed at a temperature below the deposition temperature.
Deguet teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of manufacturing a piezoelectric structure, comprising: providing a substrate (2) of piezoelectric material, providing a carrier substrate (100); depositing a dielectric bonding layer (layer, 26) at a temperature less than or equal to 300°C on a single face of the substrate of piezoelectric material (pars. 0059 and 0084; 200°C: par. 0109); joining the substrate of piezoelectric material to the carrier substrate by way of the dielectric bonding layer (par. 0059); and annealing the structure including the carrier substrate and the thinned substrate of piezoelectric material at a temperature below the deposition temperature (par. 0057: 20°C to 199.9°C are temperatures below 200°C).
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 Kub to incorporate the low temperature anneal of Deguet. POSITA would have realized that low temperature annealing can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired “purpose of increasing the bonding energy (Deguet: par. 0057) and in order to ensure that the flexible substrate materials of Kub are capable of “withstanding heat” (Kub: par. 0047), thereby predictably avoiding damage in the manufacturing process. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special annealing step or temperature was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Kub with the well-known low temperature anneal of Deguet. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, Kub in view of Deguet teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kub further discloses that the dielectric bonding layer comprises a layer of silicon oxide deposited on the substrate of piezoelectric material (par. 0019). Kub, however, does not explicitly disclose that the dielectric bonding layer was deposited by plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition.
Deguet teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of manufacturing a piezoelectric structure, comprising: providing a substrate (2) of piezoelectric material, providing a carrier substrate (100); depositing a dielectric bonding layer (SiO2) at a temperature less than or equal to 300°C on a single face of the substrate of piezoelectric material (pars. 0059, 0084 and 0110); and a step of joining the substrate of piezoelectric material to the carrier substrate by way of the dielectric bonding layer (par. 0059); wherein the dielectric bonding layer comprises a layer of silicon oxide deposited on the substrate of piezoelectric material by plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition (par. 0084).
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 Kub to incorporate the use of PECVD of Deguet. POSITA would have realized that PECVD can be easily and readily substituted for sputtering, evaporation, chemical vapor deposition, etc. (par. 0045) of Kub to achieve the desired precision placement and depth formation of the dielectric layer. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special PECVD technique was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Kub with the well-known PECVD of Deguet. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 3, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 2 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses that the joining comprises a molecular bonding between the dielectric bonding layer and the carrier substrate or between the dielectric bonding layer and a dielectric bonding layer formed on the carrier substrate (par. 0047). Deguet further teaches that it is well known to use molecular bonding between the dielectric bonding layer and the carrier substrate (par. 0059).
Regarding claim 5, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 3 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses that the thinning is performed at a temperature (≤150 °C) below the deposition temperature (200 °C) of the dielectric bonding layer (pars. 0045, 0047 and 0049).
Regarding claim 6, Kub in view of Deguet and further in view of Hori teaches the method of claim 5 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses that the substrate of piezoelectric material has a rough surface configured to reflect a radiofrequency wave. The term “rough” is not necessarily indefinite, but it is entirely subjectively defined. 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 Kub is understood to be rough to some degree and to be capable of reflecting at least one frequency of radio wave.
Regarding claim 10, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses providing a piezoelectric structure obtained by implementing the method of claim 1; 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, at a temperature less than or equal to the deposition temperature of the dielectric bonding layer (par. 0049).
Regarding claim 11, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 10 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses that the weakened zone is formed by implanting atomic species (hydrogen ion) in the layer of piezoelectric material (par. 0044).
Regarding claim 12, Kub discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Kub, however does not apparently disclose that the final substrate and the carrier substrate have identical coefficients of expansion
Deguet teaches that it is well known 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.
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 Kub to incorporate the silicon substrates having identical COE of Deguet. POSITA would have realized that COE matching can be easily and readily employed in manufacture of multilayered devices to achieve the desired resistance to peeling and cracking otherwise caused by thermal mismatch. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special materials or COE property was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Kub with the well-known matched silicon substrates of Deguet. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 13, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 10 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses forming a dielectric bonding layer (17) on a main face of the final substrate and/or on the layer of piezoelectric material prior to the bonding (fig. 1a; par. 0045).
Regarding claim 14, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses that the joining step comprises a molecular bonding between the dielectric bonding layer and the carrier substrate or between the dielectric bonding layer and a dielectric bonding layer formed on the carrier substrate (par. 0047).
Regarding claim 16, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses that the thinning is performed at a temperature(≤150 °C) below the deposition temperature (200 °C) of the dielectric bonding layer (pars. 0045, 0047 and 0049).
Regarding claim 17, Kub in view of Deguet teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kub further discloses that the substrate of piezoelectric material has a rough surface configured to reflect a radiofrequency wave. The term “rough” is not necessarily indefinite, but it is entirely subjectively defined. 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 Kub is understood to be rough to some degree and to be capable of reflecting at least one frequency of radio wave.
Regarding claim 19, Kub discloses the method of claim 1 as detailed above. Kub, however does not disclose providing a dielectric bonding layer on the carrier substrate.
Deguet teaches that it is well known to perform a step of providing a dielectric bonding layer (SiO2) on the carrier substrate (par. 0062).
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 Kub to incorporate the additional dielectric layer bonded on the carrier substrate of Deguet. POSITA would have realized that the dielectric layer would predictably aid in bonding as disclosed in Kub for the dielectric applied to the piezoelectric layer. It would have been evident that another dielectric can be easily and readily attached to the substrate in the same manner as to the piezoelectric to achieve the desired adhesion, COE, and/or peelability. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special dielectric bonding was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Kub with the well-known dielectric layer on the substrate of Deguet. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 20, Kub discloses the method of claim 1 as detailed above. Kub, however does not disclose that the thinning comprises etching and/or chemical mechanical polishing.
Deguet teaches that it is well known that the thinning step comprises etching and/or chemical mechanical polishing (par. 0055).
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 Kub to incorporate the polishing of Deguet. POSITA would have realized that polishing can be easily and readily incorporated to achieve the desired thickness and planarity. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special polishing step or device was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Kub with the well-known polishing of Deguet. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claims 7-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub in view of Deguet, and further in view of Hori (WO 2019/130852).
Regarding claim 7, Kub in view of Deguet and further in view of Hori teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Deguet further teaches that a dielectric layer having a thickness of 500 nm (just outside of the claimed range) is obvious (par. 0084). The modified Kub, however, does not appear to teach 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 Kub 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 Kub 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 8, Kub in view of Deguet and Hori teaches the method of claim 7 as detailed above, and Deguet further teaches that it is well known to perform the step of providing a dielectric bonding layer on the carrier substrate (par. 0062).
Regarding claim 9, Kub in view of Deguet and Hori teaches the method of claim 8 as detailed above, and Deguet further teaches that it is well known that the thinning comprises etching and/or chemical mechanical polishing (par. 0055).
Regarding claim 18, Kub in view of Deguet teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kub, 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).
Regarding the rationale for combination, please refer to claim 7, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Amendments to claim 1 have overcome the previously applied 112b rejection as asserted by the Applicant. However, the amendments also introduced new indefiniteness issues as noted above. The amendments/arguments also did not directly address the 112b rejections of claims 3, 5-9 or 13-14, which remain rejected.
With respect to the previously applied 102 rejection to Kub, Applicant has argued that Kub does not disclose: “any method that includes "depositing a dielectric bonding layer at a deposition temperature less than or equal to 300°C["]” or “annealing the structure including the carrier substrate and the thinned substrate of piezoelectric material at a temperature below the deposition temperature”.
Applicant expands on the above assertions by stating: “According to the Examiner, the carrier substrate could be interpreted as substrate 18. However, substrate 18 is described as an optional adhesive layer (Kub, [0048])”. This argument is simply not relevant. First, if it is optional, then there is the option of using the layer, and thus it is positively recited. Second, this argument conveniently ignores the explicit recitation of layer 16 as also being a substrate, as was clearly cited by the examiner. Applicant further argues that they don’t see layer 18 as being a substrate. Respectfully, the Applicant has not in any manner acted as their own lexicographer to define what is or is not a substrate (it is very broadly disclosed in the instant application), and as such the common and plain meaning is used. According to that understanding, it is quite clear that layer 18 can be a substrate, despite the Applicant’s preference (opinion, not factual evidence) to the contrary.
Applicant then inexplicably outlines other possible rejections which were not applied nor are they applied currently. It is not relevant that layer 18 is not a dielectric, because it was never cited as anticipating or teaching a dielectric layer. This is a logical fallacy argument known as a false dilemma and is simply not germane, nor is it compelling.
Subsequently, Applicant argues that:
According to the Examiner, Kub would suggest to the person of ordinary skill in the art depositing the dielectric bonding layer at a temperature less than or equal to 300°C with reasonable expectations of success, based on paragraphs [0045] and [0047] of Kub. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0047] relates to the maximum temperature of the bonding technique, and does not concern the temperature at which a dielectric bonding layer is deposited on the piezoelectric material.
It is acknowledged that paragraph [0045] indicates that the layer 17 is deposited at a low temperature, below the splitting temperature for the hydrogen ion implanted layer. Kub does provide examples of splitting temperature. For example, splitting may occur at room temperature (§49), or at up to approximately maximum 150°C.
This argument is impossible to logically follow. Applicant argues that the dielectric bonding layer is not deposited “at a temperature less than or equal to 300°C” and then in the next breath states that “the layer 17 is deposited at a low temperature, below the splitting temperature for the hydrogen ion implanted layer. Kub does provide examples of splitting temperature. For example, splitting may occur at room temperature (§49), or at up to approximately maximum 150°C.” If the layer is deposited below the splitting temperatures of room temperature, up to 150°C, then it is clearly deposited at a temperature below 300°C. Accordingly this argument is not compelling. Further, Kub is applied as indicating that this feature is obvious to POSITA, who would readily understand that the low temperature bonding in Kub must be employed with each layer based upon the expressly disclosed concern for avoiding damage to the flexible substrate. If any of the layers is deposited at too high a temperature, then it would destroy the invention, and thus this limitation is obvious as proven above.
With regards to the Applicant’s assertion that Kub does not disclose that the annealing is performed at a temperature below the deposition temperature, Kub is not relied upon to teach this limitation, and thus this argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Currie (US 7,307,273 B2) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
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