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 .
This office action is a response to the election of species filed on 6/26/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species Am claims 1-4, 7-17, 21-23 and 26, in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be conducted without undue burden on the Examiner, thus avoiding delay and expense to Applicant. This is not found persuasive because these separate species would require a separate search each, and some of the disclosed limitations are incompatible with each other and clearly each have different mode of operations functions and effect. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5, 6, 18-20, 24 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/26/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A COMPOSITE SUBSTRATE--.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akiyama et al. (PGPub 2019/0288661 A1) .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Akiyama et al. teach a process of making a composite substrate, comprising steps of: forming a first intermediate layer (6, Fig. 16, paragraph [0053]) including thermally synthesized silica on a surface of a support substrate (2, Fig. 16, paragraph [0051]); forming a second intermediate layer including an inorganic material (6, Fig. 16, paragraph [0055]) on a surface of a piezoelectric single crystal substrate (1, Fig. 16, paragraph [0055]; flattening a surface of the second intermediate layer (Fig. 16); and bonding a surface of the first intermediate layer to the flattened surface of the second intermediate layer as shown in Fig. 16 (paragraph [0055]).
Re. claim 2: The surface of the first intermediate layer is flattened as shown in Fig. 16
Re. claim 3: Irregularities are formed on the surface of the piezoelectric single crystal substrate as shown in Fig. 16.
Re. claim 4: The first intermediate layer is a layer of thermally synthesized silica in which a silica layer deposited by chemical vapor deposition is sintered at a temperature of 800°C or more (paragraph [0064]).
Re, claim 7: A material of the support substrate is selected from silicon, sapphire, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, and silica glass (paragraph [0053]).
Re. claim 8: A material of the support substrate is silicon, and the first intermediate layer is formed by thermal oxidation of the support substrate (paragraph [0064]).
Re. claim 14: An activation process is applied to at least one surface of the first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer, and then the surface of the first intermediate layer is bonded to the surface of the second intermediate layer (paragraphs [051] and [0108]).
Re. claim 15: The surface activation process is any one of ozone water treatment, UV ozone treatment, ion beam treatment, and plasma treatment (paragraph [0051]).
Re. claim 17: A material of the second intermediate layer is SiO2 or Al2O3 (paragraph [0053]).
Re. claim 26: Grinding and/or polishing is performed the piezoelectric single crystal substrate to reduce a thickness after the bonding (paragraph [081]).
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.
Claims 9, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al.
Akiyama et al. teach all limitations as set forth above (including paragraph [0067], It is difficult to heat-treat the intervening layer 3 formed on the surface of the piezoelectric single crystal substrate 1 at a high temperature due to the Curie temperature of the piezoelectric single crystal and the difference in thermal expansion coefficient between the piezoelectric single crystal and the intervening layer 3. Therefore, outgas is generated in the subsequent step including operation such as heating and cooling, and thus there is a concern that peeling may occur at the bonded interface), but silent heating the second intermediate layer at a highest temperature lower than a Curie temperature of the piezoelectric single crystal. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify heating the second intermediate layer at a highest temperature lower than a Curie temperature of the piezoelectric single crystal as recited in the claimed invention in order to prevent cracking the piezoelectric single crystal substrate while heating. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter to modify heating the second intermediate layer at a highest temperature lower than a Curie temperature of the piezoelectric single crystal of Akiyama et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Therefore, as per claim 10, since such a modification of heating the second intermediate layer would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of obtaining desirable composite structure.
Re. claim 16: The surface of the first intermediate layer and/or the surface of the second intermediate layer is flattened (paragraph [0059]), but silent a chemical-mechanical polishing. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the polishing of Akiyama et al. obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogihara et al. (PGPub 2004/0120015 A1).
Akiyama et al. teach all limitations as aet froth above, but silent an amorphous silicon layer deposited on at least one of the surface of the first intermediate layer and the surface of the second intermediate layer. Ogihara et al. teach a process of making an electrical device including a process of bonding layers (i.e. The adhesion layer 104 is a semiconductor layer such as a polycrystalline silicon layer or an amorphous silicon layer. The adhesion layer 104 is formed, for example, by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Since the adhesion layer 104 has a high affinity with the first interdielectric layer 103, a high bonding strength can be provided between the adhesion layer 104 and the first interdielectric layer 103) in paragraph [0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a composite substrate of Akiyama et al. by providing an amorphous silicon layer as taught by Ogihara et al. in order to provide an enhance bonding strength between the first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer.
As per claim 13, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable a total thickness of the amorphous silicon layer involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). Even though applicant’s modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwamoto et al. (PGPub 2012/0073099 A1).
Akiyama et al. teach all limitations as aet froth above, but silent processes of performing a process of ion implantation into the piezoelectric single crystal substrate prior to the bonding; and performing peeling at an interface in a region in which the ion is implanted after the bonding. Iwamoto et al. teach a process of making a piezoelectric device including processes of performing a process of ion implantation into the piezoelectric single crystal substrate prior to the bonding (S101); and performing peeling at an interface in a region in which the ion is implanted after the bonding (S107) as shown in Fig. 1 (paragraphs [0010] and [0039]-[0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a composite substrate of Akiyama et al. by processes of performing a process of ion implantation into the piezoelectric single crystal substrate prior to the bonding; and performing peeling at an interface in a region in which the ion is implanted after the bonding as taught by Iwamoto et al. in order to produce a desired piezoelectric device.
Re. claims 22 and 23: Iwamoto et al. teach the ion implantation process into the piezoelectric single crystal substrate, but silent an amount of a hydrogen molecule ion. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). Therefore, since such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of obtaining desirable piezoelectric single crystal substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayashi et al. (PGPub 2012/0086312 A1) is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a method for manufacturing a composite substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights