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
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 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.
(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.
Claim 1-2, 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Faure et al (US 2009/0321884).
With respect to Claim 1, Faure et al discloses a method of fabricating a substrate for epitaxial growth of a layer of gallium nitride (GaN) of aluminum gallium nitride (AlGaN) or of indium gallium nitride (In GaN) (Figures 1-9, paragraphs 133-141) comprising the following successive steps; providing a single-crystal semi-insulating silicon carbide donor substrate (Figure 1, 2, paragraph 81) , implanting ionic species into the donor substrate (Figure 1, 230) so as to form a weakened region (Figure 1, 22) defining a thin layer of single-crystal semi-insulating SiC to be transferred (Figure 1, 22-23); bonding (Figure 2) the donor substrate to a first receiver substrate (Figure 1, 1) via a bonding layer (Figure 2, 32); detaching (Figures 2- 3, paragraph 99) the donor substrate along the weakened region (Figure 2, 22) so as to transfer the thin layer of single-crystal semi-insulating SiC to the first receiver substrate (Figure 1, 1); forming an additional layer (Figure 5, 5 and paragraphs 80-81 and 108) of semi-insulating SiC on the transferred thin layer of semi-insulating SiC; bonding the additional layer of semi-insulating SiC (Figure 5, 5) to a second receiver substrate (Figure 7, 6, and paragraphs 127-129) having a high electrical resistivity (same materials are used) ; and removing at least one portion of the bonding layer so as to detach the first receiver substrate and uncover the transferred thin layer of semi-insulating SiC (Figures 8-9, layers 5 and 6 are removed uncovering layer 23). See Figures 1-9 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 80-99 and 112-124.
With respect to Claim 2, and the limitation wherein the first receiver substrate and the donor substrate have a difference in coefficient of thermal expansion smaller than or equal to 3 x 10 (-6) K (-1), Faure et al disclose the use of the same materials. See paragraphs 80-83.
With respect to Claim 5, Faure et al wherein the bonding layer is formed from a material that remains thermally stable during formation of the additional layer of semi-insulating SiC and that is capable of being removed from an interface between the transferred thin layer of single-crystal semi-insulating SiC and the first receiver substrate. See paragraph 62, silicon nitride bonding layer.
With respect to Claim 6, Faure et al discloses wherein the bonding layer is a layer of silicon nitride or gallium nitride. See paragraph 62.
With respect to Claim 7, Faure et al discloses wherein removing the at least one portion of the bonding layer comprises a chemical etch, a delamination laser and/or application of a mechanical stress. See paragraph 124
With respect to Claim 11, Faure et al discloses that the second receiver substrate is a polycrystalline SiC substrate, See paragraphs 118 and 127-129.
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.
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.
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 12, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faure et al (2009/0321884).
Faure et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Faure et al does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the Claims at hand.
With respect to Claim 3, and the limitation “wherein the first receiver substrate is an SiC substrate having a crystal quality lower than that of the donor substrate”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to determine the optimum crystal quality of the substrates. Official Notice of this fact is taken by the Examiner. For example one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a carrier substrate having a lower crystal quality, as the substrate is ultimately removed.
With respect to Claim 4, and the limitation “wherein a thickness of the transferred thin layer of semi-crystal semi-insulating SiC transferred to the first receiver substrate is smaller than 1 micron”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed dimension as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459,(CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 8, and the limitation “wherein the additional layer of semi-insulating SiC is formed simultaneously by depositing silicon, carbon and vanadium”, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the formation method of SiC is well known in the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a process of simultaneously depositing silicon, carbon and vanadium, for its known benefit in the art of forming SiC.
With respect to Claim 9, and the limitation “wherein the second receiver substrate is a silicon substrate having an electrical resistivity of greater than 100 ohm cm”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed dimension as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459,(CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 10, and the limitation, “wherein the additional layer of semi-insulating SiC has a thickness between 1 and 5 microns”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed dimension as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459,(CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 12, and the limitation “wherein the additional layer of semi-insulating SiC has a thickness smaller than or equal to 80 microns”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed dimension as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459,(CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 14, and the limitation “further comprising a step of recycling a segment of the donor substrate detached from the transferred thin layer”, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the recycling of substrates is well known in the art, for its benefit in reducing costs. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective date of the invention, to recycle donor substrates for its known benefit in the art of reducing costs.
With respect to Claim 18, and the limitation “the first receiver substrate is an SiC substrate having a crystal quality lower than that of the donor substrate”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to determine the optimum crystal quality of the substrates. Official Notice of this fact is taken by the Examiner. For example one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a carrier substrate having a lower crystal quality, as the substrate is ultimately removed.
With respect to Claim 19, and the limitation “ wherein a thickness of the transferred thin layer of single-crystal semi-insulating SiC transferred to the first receiver substrate is less than 1 micron” , it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed dimension as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459,(CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 20, Faure et al wherein the bonding layer is formed from a material that remains thermally stable during formation of the additional layer of semi-insulating SiC and that is capable of being removed from an interface between the transferred thin layer of single-crystal semi-insulating SiC and the first receiver substrate. See paragraph 62, silicon nitride bonding layer.
Claims 13 and 15- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faure et al (2009/0321884) as applied to claims 1-12, 14-16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Guiot (US 2023/0411140).
Faure et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Faure et al does not disclose the use of a silicon face on the donor substrate or the formation of HEMT devices, as required by the Claims at hand.
Guiot et al is relied upon to disclose the use of silicon interfaces on SiC substrates in a epitaxial growth GaN process, and the use of silicon interfaces to reduce cost (paragraph 9); and the use of the epitaxial GaN device to form HEMT devices (figure 10 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 100-105).
With respect to Claims 13 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a silicon interface on the silicon carbide substrate in the process of Faure et al, for its known benefit in the art of reducing costs as disclosed by Guiot et al.
With respect to Claim 16, and the limitation “wherein the layer of gallium nitride has a thickness between 1 and 2 microns” , it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed dimension as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459,(CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the process of forming gallium nitride of Faure et al, for its known benefit in the art of forming a HEMT device as disclosed by Guiot et al. The use of a known process, for its known benefit of forming a known device, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 depends on itself. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 has been examined as depending on independent Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
March 12, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812