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 .
Response to Election/Restriction
In response to election/restriction, applicant elected claims 1, 3-12 and 14-24 without traverse.
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.
Claim 1, 6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Silva et al. (US 4,933,567, hereinafter Silva).
With respect to claim 1, Silva discloses a method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer (Col. 2; lines 35-40; Col. 3; lines 20-25; measuring crystalline damage/defects), comprising: a measurement step of measuring an intensity of a scattered light (Col. 3; lines 20-29; measuring the density and orientation of crystalline or other micro defects directly below the surface of a material which allows penetration of electromagnetic radiation by measuring the radiation scattered from the subsurface defect sites) which is scattered by causing a laser light to enter the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Col. 3; lines 61-65; measuring the processing induced defects in single crystal semiconductor materials); and an evaluation step of evaluating the subsurface damaged layer based on the intensity of the scattered light (Col. 3; lines 20-29 – measuring the density and orientation of crystalline or other micro defects directly below the surface of a material which allows penetration of electromagnetic radiation by measuring the radiation scattered from the subsurface defect sites).
With respect to claim 6, Silva discloses wherein the measurement step is a step of includes scanning the semiconductor single crystal substrate with the laser light while rotating the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Fig. 4; Col. 4; lines 33-36 – beam is scanned over the material while the material rotates – Col. 3; lines 63-65- single crystal semiconductor material).
With respect to claim 8, Silva discloses wherein the measurement step is a step of includes causing the laser light to be incident at an incident angle of inclination with respect to a normal line of a surface of the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Fig. 1; Col. 4; lines 53-67).
With respect to claim 10, Silva discloses a cleaning step of cleaning the surface of the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Col. 4; lines 64-65; Col. 7; lines 5-8 – cleaning).
With respect to claim 11, Silva discloses wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is a compound semiconductor single crystal substrate (Col. 3; lines 63-66).
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.
Claims 3, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva in view of Tomita et al. (US 6,256,092, hereinafter Tomita).
With respect to claim 3, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 1.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation step includes:
an area setting step of setting a plurality of arbitrary areas obtained by dividing the
semiconductor single crystal substrate into arbitrary sizes and a statistic calculation step of calculating a statistic of the intensity of the scattered light for each of the arbitrary areas.
In an analogous art, Tomita discloses wherein the evaluation step includes:
an area setting step of setting a plurality of arbitrary areas obtained by dividing the
semiconductor single crystal substrate into arbitrary sizes (Fig. 5; Col. 8; lines 39-49; defects existing in each of divided unit regions) and a statistic calculation step of calculating a statistic of the intensity of the scattered light for each of the arbitrary areas (Col. 4; lines 45-67; Col. 8; lines 47-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Tomita’s disclosure in order to improve the accuracy of defect isolation process by identifying a specific problem region speedily and taking the prompt corrective measures.
With respect to claim 5, Silva/Tomita discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 3.
Silva does not explicitly disclose a threshold setting step of setting a threshold for determining a quality of the subsurface damaged layer and a mapping step of mapping the arbitrary areas where the statistic exceeds the threshold.
In an analogous art, Tomita discloses a threshold setting step of setting a threshold for determining a quality of the subsurface damaged layer (Col. 4; lines 25-30; 50-54; Col. 5; lines 32-35; if scattered light intensity exceeds the preset threshold, it indicates the defect in the subsurface)
and a mapping step of mapping the arbitrary areas where the statistic exceeds the threshold (Col. 4; lines 26-30; lines 52-60; Col. 5; lines 32-37 – isolating the damaged surface by analyzing data from different detectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Tomita’s disclosure in order to improve the accuracy of defect isolation process by identifying a specific problem region speedily and taking the prompt corrective measures.
With respect to claim 21, Silva discloses wherein the measurement step includes scanning the entire surface of the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Fig. 4; Col. 4; lines 33-36 – beam is scanned over the material while the material rotates – Col. 3; lines 63-65- single crystal semiconductor material) and measuring an intensity of a scattered light which is scattered by causing a laser light to enter the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Col. 3; lines 20-29; measuring the density and orientation of crystalline or other micro defects directly below the surface of a material which allows penetration of electromagnetic radiation by measuring the radiation scattered from the subsurface defect sites).
Silva does not explicitly disclose that the evaluation step includes dividing all the measurement data of the intensity of the scattered light measured by the measurement step into sections for the entire surface of the semiconductor single crystal substrate and calculating the statistic of the intensity of the scattered light for each of the sections.
In an analogous art, Tomita discloses that the evaluation step includes dividing all the measurement data of the intensity of the scattered light measured by the measurement step into sections for the entire surface of the semiconductor single crystal substrate sizes (Fig. 5; Col. 8; lines 39-49; defects existing in each of divided unit regions) and calculating the statistic of the intensity of the scattered light for each of the sections (Col. 4; lines 45-67; Col. 8; lines 47-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Tomita’s disclosure in order to improve the accuracy of defect isolation process by identifying a specific problem region speedily and taking the prompt corrective measures.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva in view of Hoshino (TW 201505080, hereinafter Hoshino).
With respect toc claim 9, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 1.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser light is at a wavelength having a photon energy greater than a band gap of the semiconductor single crystal substrate.
In an analogous art, Hoshino discloses wherein the laser light is at a wavelength having a photon energy greater than a band gap of the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Page 05; Para 03).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Hoshino’s disclosure in order to reduce energy consumption and to reduce defects in the wafer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva/Tomita in view of Worster et al. (US 6,288,782, hereinafter Worster).
With respect to claim 4, Silva/Tomita discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 3.
Silva/Tomita does not explicitly disclose wherein the statistic calculation step includes:an integration step of integrating the intensity of the scattered light in the arbitrary areas and a division step of dividing an integrated value obtained in the integration step by a number of acquired data in the arbitrary areas.
In an analogous art, Worster discloses wherein the statistic calculation step includes:an integration step of integrating the intensity of the scattered light in the arbitrary areas and a division step of dividing an integrated value obtained in the integration step by a number of acquired data in the arbitrary areas (Col. 3; lines 40-50 – determining average intensity – average includes integration/summation and division).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva/Tomita’s device by having Worster’s disclosure in order to summarize large complex data into a more manageable representative value.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva in view of Tsuneta et al. (US 2012/0287258, hereinafter Tsuneta)
With respect to claim 7, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 1.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement step is a step of measuring includes the scattered light including elastic scattering.
In an analogous art, Tsuneta discloses wherein the measurement step is a step of measuring includes the scattered light including elastic scattering (Para 0043; 0061 and 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Tsuneta’s disclosure in order to improve the accuracy of the measurements to generate more reliable results.
Claims 12, 14-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva in view of Nagaya (WO 2020/022391, hereinafter Nagaya).
With respect to claim 12, Silva discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor single crystal substrate (Col. 3; lines 61-65; single crystal semiconductor materials), the method comprising: a measurement step of measuring an intensity of a scattered light (Col. 3; lines 20-29; measuring the density and orientation of crystalline or other micro defects directly below the surface of a material which allows penetration of electromagnetic radiation by measuring the radiation scattered from the subsurface defect sites) which is scattered inside a semiconductor single crystal substrate (Col. 3; lines 20-29) by causing a laser light (16 of Fig.-1) to be incident from a surface of the semiconductor single crystal substrate (Fig. 1& Fig. 1A); an evaluation step of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer of the semiconductor single crystal substrate based on the intensity of the scattered light (Col. 3; lines 20-29 – measuring the density and orientation of crystalline or other micro defects directly below the surface of a material which allows penetration of electromagnetic radiation by measuring the radiation scattered from the subsurface defect sites).
Silva does not explicitly disclose a subsurface damaged layer removal step which is performed to remove the subsurface damaged layer after the evaluation step.
In an analogous art, Nagaya discloses a subsurface damaged layer removal step which is performed to remove the subsurface damaged layer after the evaluation step (Page 09; Para 02-03; Page 46; last para; Page 56; Para 01-02 – removing the damaged layer happens after measuring the damage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Nagaya’s disclosure in order to reduce failures in the semiconductor device.
With respect to claim 14, Silva/Nagaya discloses the method of manufacturing a semiconductor single crystal substrate according to claim 12.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the subsurface damaged layer removal step is chemical mechanical polishing.
In an analogous art, Nagaya discloses wherein the subsurface damaged layer removal step is chemical mechanical polishing (Page 46; last Para – chemical mechanical polishing to remove the damaged layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Nagaya’s disclosure in order to reduce failures in the semiconductor device.
With respect to claim 15, Silva/Nagaya discloses the method of manufacturing
a semiconductor single crystal substrate according to claim 12.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the subsurface damaged layer removal step is etching.
In an analogous art, Nagaya discloses wherein the subsurface damaged layer removal step is etching (Page 51; Para 03 – etching to remove the damaged layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Nagaya’s disclosure in order to reduce failures in the semiconductor device.
With respect to claim 16, Silva discloses wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is a compound semiconductor single crystal substrate (Col. 3; lines 63-66).
With respect to claim 17, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 1.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the subsurface damaged layer has crystal strain.
In an analogous art, Nagaya discloses wherein the subsurface damaged layer has crystal strain (Page 04; Para 03; Page 51; Para 03 – Strained layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Nagaya’s disclosure in order to reduce failures in the semiconductor device.
With respect to claim 18, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 1.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is made of a silicon carbide and the laser light is at a wavelength to be equal to or shorter than 380 nm.
In an analogous art, Nagaya discloses wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is made of a silicon carbide (Page 03; Para 02; Page 15; Para 04 – SiC) and the laser light is at a wavelength to be equal to or shorter than 380 nm (Page 07; Para 01- 300 nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Nagaya’s disclosure in order to provide a device with better efficiency with reduced power consumption.
With respect to claim 24, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 11.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is made of a silicon carbide.
In an analogous art, Nagaya discloses wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is made of a silicon carbide (Page 03; Para 02; Page 15; Para 04 – SiC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Nagaya’s disclosure in order to provide a device with better efficiency with reduced power consumption.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva in view of Dmitriev et al. (US 2005/0142391, hereinafter Dmitriev) and further in view of Nagaya.
With respect to claim 19, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 1.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is made of a GaN; and the laser light is at a wavelength to be equal to or shorter than 365 nm.
In an analogous art, Dmitriev discloses wherein the semiconductor single crystal substrate is made of a GaN (Para 0007; and 0030; GaN substrate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Dmitriev’s disclosure in order to provide a device with superior performance with wide bandgap and higher power density.
Silva/Dmitriev does not explicitly disclose that the laser light is at a wavelength to be equal to or shorter than 365 nm.
In an analogous art, Nagaya discloses that the laser light is at a wavelength to be equal to or shorter than 365 nm (Page 07; Para 01- 300 nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva/Dimitriev’s device by having Nagaya’s disclosure in order to provide a device with better efficiency with reduced power consumption.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva in view of Takanashi (US 2010/0175611, hereinafter Takanashi).
With respect to claim 20, Silva discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 1.
Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein a step of defining an inspection area of the laser light using a slit.
In an analogous art, Takanashi discloses wherein a step of defining an inspection area of the laser light using a slit (Para 0013 – slit is provided in the plane of incidence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva’s device by having Takanashi’s disclosure in order to focus the beam on a specific area of the wafer.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva/Tomita in view of Shibuya et al. (US 2006/0238755, hereinafter Shibuya).
With respect to claim 22, Silva/Tomita discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 3,
Silva/Tomita does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation step includes:
a threshold setting step of setting a plurality of thresholds; and a mapping step of creating a distribution map of the statistic having a plurality of colors or multi-level contrasts based on the plurality of thresholds.
In an analogous art, Shibuya discloses wherein the evaluation step includes:
a threshold setting step of setting a plurality of thresholds (Para 0033-0034; 0042 and 0055); and a mapping step of creating a distribution map of the statistic having a plurality of colors or multi-level contrasts based on the plurality of thresholds (Para 0058; 0072 and 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva/Tomita’s device by having Shibuya’s disclosure in order to provide more effective review of the defects to expedite the corrective measures.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva/Tomita/Worster in view of Shibuya.
With respect to claim 23, Silva/Tomita/Worster discloses the method of evaluating a subsurface damaged layer according to claim 4.
Silva/Tomita/Worster does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation step includes: a threshold setting step of setting a plurality of thresholds; and a mapping step of creating a distribution map of the statistic having a plurality of colors or multi-level contrasts based on the plurality of thresholds.
In an analogous art, Shibuya discloses wherein the evaluation step includes:
a threshold setting step of setting a plurality of thresholds (Para 0033-0034; 0042 and 0055); and a mapping step of creating a distribution map of the statistic having a plurality of colors or multi-level contrasts based on the plurality of thresholds (Para 0058; 0072 and 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silva/Tomita’s device by having Shibuya’s disclosure in order to provide more effective review of the defects to expedite the corrective measures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Fairbanks Brent can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899