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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 32 is 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.
As amended, claim 32 depends on claim 1 and recites “the release layer comprises a first release layer and wherein the epitaxial structure comprises a plurality of strain-balancing layers and a plurality of release layers between the epitaxial device layer and the substrate, and arranged in a pattern of alternating strain-balancing layers and release layers, the plurality of strain-balancing layers and release layers, the plurality of strain-balancing layers comprising the first strain-balancing layer and the second strain-balancing layer and the plurality of release layer comprising the first release layer”. It is unclear what is being claimed, for example it is unclear if “the release layer” is the same as or different from “a plurality of release layers”.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 15-18, 29-30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2011/0186910) in view of Forrest’ 214 (US 2013/0043214).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 33, Forrest et al. discloses a method (fig. 28, [0196-0205]) for forming an optoelectronic device (404/602) on a substrate (or growth substrate 102), comprising:
growing an epitaxial structure includes an epitaxial device layer (see epilayer 404), a release layer (see sacrificial layer 405), and protective layers (406 and 408) on the substrate (102) and between the substrate (102) and the release layer (405, see second diagram of fig. 28, [0196]);
depositing a metal contact layer 602 (see third diagram of fig. 28, [0200] and [0157]) on the epitaxial structure (404/405); and
selectively removing the epitaxial structure (or the epilayer 404) and the metal contact layer (602) from the substrate (102), thereby separating the optoelectronic device (610) from the substrate (102, see last diagram of fig. 28, [0196-0205], claim 1);
wherein the substrate (102) comprises a semiconductor material of InP (see [0153], claims 5-6), InP or indium phosphide is the same material as claimed in claim 16, which has a lattice constant between 5.7 and 6.0 Angstroms;
wherein the epitaxial structure (404) includes an epitaxial device layer ([0197], [0144-0152]); a release layer
wherein the metal layer (602) comprises a supportive metal (or the metal layer is being used as a support layer, see the last diagram of fig. 28) such that the optoelectronic device (404/602) that is separated from the substrate (102) comprises the epitaxial structure (404) being supported by the metal layer (602, see the last diagram of fig. 28).
Forrest et al. discloses using metals such as Au, Ag, Pt, or Pd for the contact layer (602) in the description of fig. 28 (see [0200]). Forrest et al. also discloses using metals comprising Au, Ti, Pt, Ge or stacks of metal layers such as Ti/Pt/Au or Ge/Au (see [0157]); and exemplifies using a stack of Ti/Pt/Au (see [0207]). In the Ti/Pt/Au stack, Au (or gold) is the reflective metal layer, and metal layers of Ti and Pt are supportive metal layer, e.g. supporting layers for the Au layer to be formed on.
Forrest et al. does not explicitly describe using a stack of metal layers such as Ti/Pt/Au for the metal contact layer (602) in paragraph [0200] of the description of the method shown in fig. 28.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a stack of metal layers such as Ti/Pt/Au, which comprises a reflective metal layer of Au and a supportive metal layer, e.g. Ti or Pt, different from the reflective metal layer (e.g. Au) for the metal contact layer (602) in the method shown in fig. 28; because Forrest et al. explicitly suggests and exemplifies using a stack layer of Ti/Pt/Au for a contact layer (see [0157] and [0207]).
Forrest et al. discloses using InGaAs for protection layers ([0186]). Forrest et al. does not disclose the protective layers (406 and 408) to be a (first) strain-balancing layer comprising aluminum indium arsenide (AlInAs) or aluminum arsenide antimonide (AlAsSb) and having lattice mismatch relative to the substrate such that the lattice mismatch between the first strain-balancing layer and the substrate places the first strain balancing layer in compressive strain or tensile strain with the substrate; nor do they teach a second strain-balancing layer between the release layer and the epitaxial device.
Forrest ‘214 discloses a method including a sub protection layer (fig. 1) between the release layer and the substrate (or wafer, fig. 1) and a device protection layer (fig. 1) between the release layer and the epitaxial device (or device layers, see fig. 1), wherein the sub protection layers and the device protection layer comprise the strained layers relative to the substrate InP such as InGaAs, AlInAs (see InAlAs) or AlAsSb (see [0051]). Forrest ‘214 discloses such protections layer would protect the substrate and the device structure to allow for fabrication of flexible high-efficiency thin-film solar cells and to allow for reuse of the substrate while avoiding loss of the material through re-polishing (see [0021-0022] and [0065]). The strained sub protection layer of Forrest ‘214 correspond to the claimed first strain-balancing layer having lattice mismatch relative to the substrate InP, and the strained device protection layer of Forrest ‘214 corresponds to the claimed second strain-balancing layer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Forrest et al. by using a first strain-balancing layer (or the sub protection layer) comprising aluminum indium arsenide (AlInAs or InAlAs) or aluminum arsenide antimonide (AlAsSb) having lattice mismatch relative to the substrate (InP) and incorporating a second strain-balancing layer comprising a strain-balancing material having a lattice mismatch with the substrate between the release layer and the epitaxial device layer as taught by Forrest ‘214, because Forrest ‘214 such (first and second) strain-balancing layer would protect the substrate and the device layer to allow for fabrication of flexible high-efficiency thin-film solar cells and allow for reuse of the substrate while avoiding loss of material through repolishing. In addition, using aluminum indium arsenide (AlInAs or InAlAs) or aluminum arsenide antimonide (AlAsSb) would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein Forrest et al. discloses the release layer comprising AlAs ([0178], [0190-0191], [0154]). AlAs is a material with a high aluminum content (or 50% aluminum content).
Regarding claim 3, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 2 above, wherein Forrest et al. discloses selectively removing the epitaxial structure (404) and the metal contact layer (602) from the substrate (102) occurs by epitaxial lift off – or liberation of growth substrate (102, see fig. 28).
Regarding claim 4, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 3 above, wherein Forrest et al. discloses the epitaxial lift off (ELO) comprises exposing the epitaxial structure to a hydrofluoric acid (HF) solution ([0202] and [0160]).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 4 above, wherein Forrest et al. shows the epitaxial device layer (404) and the metal contact layer (602) after being exposed to the HF solution (see last diagram of fig. 28). Therefore, the epitaxial layer (404) and each of the stack layer of the metal contact layer (602) are resistant to the HF solution.
Regarding claim 7, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein Forrest et al. discloses the method in fig. 28 is for preparation of PV devices (or photovoltaic devices) ([0196]). Thermophotovoltaic (TPV) device is still a photovoltaic device.
Regarding claim 10, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein the reflective metal layer is formed of gold (Au – see claim 1 above). Forrest et al. also teaches using reflective metal layer formed of silver (see [0200]).
Regarding claims 15 and 29-30, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above; wherein Forrest et al. further teaches placing the optoelectronic device (404/602) with the metal layer (602) on a carrier structure (or host substrate 604, see fig. 28, [0200-0204]), and bonding the carrier structure (or host substrate 604) to the epitaxial structure (or epilayer layer 404) after liberation of the growth substrate (102, see the last sentence of paragraph [0200]). In other words, Forrest et al. teaches after separating the optoelectronic device (404/602) from the substrate (or growth substrate 102), the separated optoelectronic device (404/602) comprises the epitaxial structure (404) supported by the stack of metal layers (602) not supported by a separate carrier structure (604) right after the removal/separation/liberation the substrate (or growth substrate 102); and after separating the optoelectronic device (404/602) from the substrate (102), placing (or bonding) the optoelectronic device (comprising the epitaxial structure supported by the stack of metal layers on a carrier structure (or host substrate 604) since Forrest et al. taches bonding the carrier structure (or host substrate 604) to the epitaxial structure (or epilayer 404) after liberation of the (growth) substrate (102).
Regarding claim 17, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein Forrest et al. teaches the substrate comprising post-processing the substrate for reuse ([0049], [0194] of Forrest et al.). Forrest ‘214 also teaches the same (see [0021-0022] of Forrest ‘214).
Regarding claim 18, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein Forrest et al. also teaches growing the epitaxial layer includes using one, or a combination, of metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD), molecular beam epitaxy (MBE), hydride vapor deposition (HVPE, see [0196] and [0143]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above; wherein a plurality of strain-balancing layer comprising the first-strain-balancing layer and the second strain-balancing layer, and the release layer and the plurality of strain-balancing layers arranged in a pattern of alternating layer and release layer (or the first strain-balancing layer is between the substrate and the release layer and the second strain-balancing layer is between the release layer and the epitaxial device layer, see claim 1 above. Forrest et al. also discloses the release layer (or sacrificial layer 405) comprising a plurality of release layers such as AlAs/AlAs (see figs. 21-24, [0191], [0219], [0150]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Forrest et al. (US 2011/0186910) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamikawa et al. (WO 2020/180785).
Regarding claim 8, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein Forrest et al. discloses using the method to form an optoelectronic device comprising a photovoltaic device (see fig. 28, [0196]).
Modified Forrest et al. does not explicitly teach using the method to form an optoelectronic device comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) device.
Kamikawa et al. discloses using the epitaxial lift off method (fig. 31) for forming an optoelectronic device such as photodiode or solar cells (or photovoltaic device) or vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSELs; page 38, lines 1-6; page 49, lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method of modified Forrest et al. (or epitaxial lift off) to form an optoelectronic device comprising a vertical cavity surface emitting laser device as taught by Kamikawa, because such use would involve nothing more than an intended use of the method of Forrest et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Forrest et al. (US 2011/0186910) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forrest ‘095 (US 2013/0037095).
Regarding claims 12, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein the metal contact layer comprising a reflective metal layer (Au) and supportive a metal layer of Ti or Pt.
Modified Forrest et al. does not explicitly disclose the metal contact layer (602) of a stack of metal layers comprising supportive metal formed from one, or a combination, of nickel, molybdenum, or copper.
Forrest ‘095 discloses a metal layer comprising a stack layer of Au-coating Cu foil or Ag-coating Cu foil (or Ag instead of Au) for additional cost reduction, less expensive, reduced consumption of HF, reduced protection layer thicknesses, and accelerating the lift-off process; or using Cu foils to increase resistance exposure to HF as their use may be simpler and exploit its high thermal conductivity for extracting heat from the concentrated cells ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Forrest et al. by using the metal contact layer (602) of a stack of metal layers comprising supportive metal such as Au-coating Cu foil, Ag-coating Cu foil or Cu foil for additional cost reduction, less expensive metals, reduced consumption of HF, reduced protection layer thicknesses, accelerating the lift-off process, increasing resistance exposure to HF and exploiting the high thermal conductivity for extracting heat from the concentrated cells as taught by Forrest ‘095.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Forrest et al. (US 2011/0186910) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US Patent 5,221,854).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Forrest et al. discloses a method as in claim 1 above, wherein Forrest et al. discloses using reflective metal for the metal layer (see [0200]).
Modified Forrest et al. does not disclose the metal layer comprises a dielectric material including one, or a combination, of arsenic trisulfide, arsenic triselenide, tantalum pentoxide, magnesium fluoride, SU-8, PermiNex®.
Banerjee et al. discloses including a dielectric material of magnesium fluoride as the protective layer (16 in fig. 16 or 30 in fig. 2; col. 9, lines 3-5) to provide protection of the reflective metal free from problems attendant upon diffusion of reflector material into the semiconductor and/or oxidation of the reflector by diffusion preventing buffer layer (see col. 6, lines 32-45; col. 8, line 65 through col. 9 line 17).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Forrest et al. by incorporating a dielectric material including magnesium fluoride to the (reflective) metal layer as taught by Forrest et al., because Forrest et al. teaches such incorporation would protect the metal free from problems attendant upon diffusion of metal (or reflector material) into the semiconductor and/or oxidation of the metal layer by diffusion preventing buffer layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-18, 29-30 and 32-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Forrest (US 2011/0186910) does not teach the first strain-balancing layer comprising aluminum indium arsenide (AlInAs) or aluminum arsenide antimonide (AlAsSb) layers as claimed. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726