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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02 FEB 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 02 FEB 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner has not demonstrated serious burden. This is not found persuasive because with regards to Applicant’s argument that searching Invention I will yield the most relevant art for Invention II, Examiner notes that Invention II requires additional search in that Invention I does not recite or require a control system compatible with the invention of Invention II (e.g. non-transitory CRM containing and causing the execution of the method of Invention I), thereby requiring additional search and consideration to determine if the components of art found to reject Invention I are compatible with Invention II. Further, Invention II requires higher thermal capacity than that which is ever expressly required in Invention I (Invention II requires withstanding temperatures of approximately 2000 degrees, while Invention I has a highest required recitation of approximately 1850 degrees). Therefore, the most relevant art that reads on Invention I does not necessarily serve as art that reads on Invention II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘068 (U.S. PGPub 2012/0037068).
Claim 1 - US ‘068, which is considered to be the closest prior art to the subject matter of claim 1, discloses a method for processing an optically transparent substrate (102), comprising: providing the substrate (102) with a front surface and a back surface; and depositing a thermally-conducting layer (112) onto an entirety of the back surface of the substrate (102) (see paragraphs [0024]-[0032], figures 1A-1B). Claim 1 differs from US ‘068 in that an opaque thermal layer is approximately uniform in thickness and withstands thermal processing in excess of approximately 900 degrees Celsius. However, these features are considered to be obvious based on the disclosure of US ‘068, considering that the high thermal conductivity of the thermally-conducting layer (112) allows for a uniform temperature profile within the substrate (102); and the thermally-conducting layer (112) is capable of withstanding elevated temperatures used in an epitaxial growth process without contaminating an epitaxial growth chamber, such as about 1200 degrees Celsius or less (see paragraphs [0024]-[0032], figures 1A-1B). It would have been obvious to modify the cited invention of US ‘068 to use materials suited to the processing conditions in the process chamber.
Claim 3 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising:
processing the optically nonopaque substrate with the opaque thermal layer, (PG 0032-0033; the thermal layer absorbs radiant energy and is therefore necessarily opaque to the wavelengths it absorbs), wherein the optically nonopaque substrate undergoes thermal processing in excess of approximately 1300 degrees Celsius (PG 0055, 1300 degrees Celsius) and wherein structures are formed on the structure side of the optically nonopaque substrate (PG 0024, topography present); and
backgrinding the optically nonopaque substrate to remove the opaque thermal layer (PG 0034, grinding to remove composite substrate 110 which is distinct from thermal layer 112).
Claim 4 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 3, wherein at least one structure of the structures includes a gate of a power transistor (claim 22, substrate configured to receive layers of e.g. LED).
Claim 5 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the thermal processing is approximately 1650 degrees Celsius or greater. PG 0029 renders obvious the desire for the thermally conducting layer to withstand epitaxial growth processes; selecting a thermally conducting layer sufficient to withstand the required process temperatures is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 6 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the opaque thermal layer is comprised of amorphous carbon (e.g. claim 26, polysilicon carbide).
Claim 12 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the thermal processing includes radiant energy from at least one lamp-based energy source (PG 0025, lamp 108).
Claim 13 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the thermal processing is approximately 1850 degrees Celsius or greater. PG 0029 renders obvious the desire for the thermally conducting layer to withstand epitaxial growth processes; selecting a thermally conducting layer sufficient to withstand the required process temperatures is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim(s) 2, 7-11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘068 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US ‘185 (U.S. Patent 9,455,185).
Claim 2 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the optically nonopaque substrate is a silicon carbide substrate. US ‘185 is drawn to thermal processing e.g. annealing of semiconductor substrates (Abstract) and discloses that said semiconductor substrates may desirably be comprised of transparent material e.g. silicon carbide (Column 5 Lines 54-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘068 to utilize e.g. a transparent silicon carbide substrate; selection of a material shown to be suitable for a desired purpose is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 7 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the opaque thermal layer is comprised of multiple layers of amorphous carbon material and wherein adjacent layers of the multiple layers have different optical properties. US ‘185 is drawn to thermal processing e.g. annealing of semiconductor substrates (Abstract) and discloses that said absorbing material regions, intended to absorb radiation and generate and diffuse heat throughout the absorbing material, may be comprised of amorphous carbon material e.g. SiGeC or SiC and may comprise multiple layers thereof (Column 5 Lines 23-43, thicknesses of up to 50 micrometers disclosed which is multiple atomic layers of thickness of the desired material.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘068 to utilize the opaque thermal layer as disclosed by US ‘185; the thickness of the material is shown to be result-effective to the annealing result as discussed in the above citation of US ‘185.
Claim 8 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the opaque thermal layer is comprised of alternating layers of different materials. US ‘185 is drawn to thermal processing e.g. annealing of semiconductor substrates (Abstract) and discloses that said absorbing material regions, intended to absorb radiation and generate and diffuse heat throughout the absorbing material, may be comprised of multiple materials (e.g. Claim 3) and may comprise multiple layers thereof (Column 5 Lines 23-43, thicknesses of up to 50 micrometers disclosed which is multiple atomic layers of thickness of the desired materials.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘068 to utilize the opaque thermal layer as disclosed by US ‘185; the thickness of the material is shown to be result-effective to the annealing result as discussed in the above citation of US ‘185. Selection of material combinations to obtain the desired thermal effects is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection given the teachings of US ‘185 Column 3 Lines 48-51 disclosing material selection as routine experimentation in the field.
Claim 9 – US ‘068 / US ‘185 renders obvious the method of claim 8, wherein a first layer of the alternating layers is tuned to absorb a first range of wavelengths and wherein a second layer of the alternating layers underneath the first layer is tuned to reflect the first range of wavelengths back into the first layer. Selection of material combinations to obtain the desired thermal effects is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection given the teachings of US ‘185 Column 3 Lines 48-51 disclosing material selection as routine experimentation in the field.
Claim 10 – US ‘068 / US ‘185 renders obvious the method of claim 8, wherein a first layer of the alternating layers is comprised of an amorphous carbon material and wherein a second layer of the alternating layers is comprised of an amorphous silicon (Si)-based material. Selection of material combinations to obtain the desired thermal effects is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection given the teachings of US ‘185 Column 3 Lines 48-51 disclosing material selection as routine experimentation in the field.
Claim 11 – US ‘068 / US ‘185 renders obvious the method of claim 10, wherein the amorphous silicon (Si)-based material is amorphous SiCxNyHz (US ‘185 Claim 3, SiC where y and z are 0).
Claim 14 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the opaque thermal layer is comprised of multiple layers, each of the multiple layers is tuned to absorb different ranges of wavelengths. US ‘185 is drawn to thermal processing e.g. annealing of semiconductor substrates (Abstract) and discloses that said absorbing material regions, intended to absorb radiation and generate and diffuse heat throughout the absorbing material, may be comprised of multiple materials (e.g. Claim 3) and may comprise multiple layers thereof (Column 5 Lines 23-43, thicknesses of up to 50 micrometers disclosed which is multiple atomic layers of thickness of the desired materials.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘068 to utilize the opaque thermal layer as disclosed by US ‘185; the thickness of the material is shown to be result-effective to the annealing result as discussed in the above citation of US ‘185. Selection of material combinations to obtain the desired thermal effects is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection given the teachings of US ‘185 Column 3 Lines 48-51 disclosing material selection as routine experimentation in the field.
Claim 15 – US ‘068 / US ‘185 renders obvious the method of claim 14, wherein the different ranges of wavelengths overlap. Selection of material combinations to obtain the desired thermal effects is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection given the teachings of US ‘185 Column 3 Lines 48-51 disclosing material selection as routine experimentation in the field.
Claim 16 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the opaque thermal layer is tuned to absorb a first range of wavelengths that is less than but within a second range of wavelengths emitted by an infrared emitter of a process chamber. US ‘185 is drawn to thermal processing e.g. annealing of semiconductor substrates (Abstract) and discloses that said absorbing material regions, intended to absorb radiation and generate and diffuse heat throughout the absorbing material, may be comprised of multiple materials (e.g. Claim 3) and may comprise multiple layers thereof (Column 5 Lines 23-43, thicknesses of up to 50 micrometers disclosed which is multiple atomic layers of thickness of the desired materials.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘068 to utilize the opaque thermal layer as disclosed by US ‘185; the thickness of the material is shown to be result-effective to the annealing result as discussed in the above citation of US ‘185. Selection of material combinations to obtain the desired thermal effects is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection given the teachings of US ‘185 Column 3 Lines 48-51 disclosing material selection as routine experimentation in the field.
Claim 17 – US ‘068 renders obvious the method of claim 1, but does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the opaque thermal layer is tuned to absorb a range of wavelengths emitted by an infrared emitter of a process chamber. US ‘185 is drawn to thermal processing e.g. annealing of semiconductor substrates (Abstract) and discloses that choice of laser wavelength and commensurate materials to absorb it falls within routine experimentation in the art (Column 3 Lines 48-51), and further discloses that said absorbing material regions, intended to absorb radiation and generate and diffuse heat throughout the absorbing material, may be comprised of multiple materials (e.g. Claim 3) and may comprise multiple layers thereof (Column 5 Lines 23-43, thicknesses of up to 50 micrometers disclosed which is multiple atomic layers of thickness of the desired materials.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘068 to utilize the opaque thermal layer as disclosed by US ‘185; the thickness of the material is shown to be result-effective to the annealing result as discussed in the above citation of US ‘185. Selection of material combinations to obtain the desired thermal effects is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights