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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 2, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0033609 A1 to Henley (hereinafter “Henley ‘609” – previously cited reference) in further view of US 2018/0019169 A1 to Henley (hereinafter “Henley ‘169” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Henley ‘609 discloses a method for preparing a residue of a donor substrate, with a thin layer having been removed from the donor substrate by delamination at a fragile plane formed by an introduction of light species (reclamation procedure 200 for remainder of reusable GaN donor substrate 102 with thin GaN layer 112 removed along cleave region 104 plane using laser light; Figs. 2A-2C; paragraphs [0004], [0024]-[0025], [0028]; claims 1 and 3-4), the residue comprising, on a peripheral zone of a main face, a peripheral ring corresponding to an unremoved part of the donor substrate (reusable GaN donor substrate 102 after layer 112 removal having peripheral portion with annular residual GaN material 230 corresponding to unremoved portion left behind after layer 112 removal; Fig. 2C; paragraph [0028]), the main face further comprising a central portion contained inside the peripheral ring (donor substrate 102 having central portion inside annular material 230; Fig. 2C), the method comprising:
a first step of removing at least part of the peripheral ring (annular grinding 232 of annular residual GaN material 230; Fig. 2E; paragraph [0031]);
a second step of processing the peripheral zone of the residue to remove a surface layer extending over the main face (optional surface treatment process such as conventional polishing of top surface of entirety of reusable GaN donor substrate 102; paragraphs [0022], [0033]; claim 1).
Henley ‘609 fails to disclose a second step of processing the central portion and the peripheral zone of the residue to remove a surface layer extending over the entire main face; and a third step, after the second step, of ionically attacking the peripheral zone of the main face of the residue, the third step reducing an elevation of the peripheral zone.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses a second step of processing the central portion and the peripheral zone of the residue to remove a surface layer extending over the entire main face (grinding the entire Ga face of a donor substrate during a reclamation process, which removes a surface layer across the entire Ga face; paragraphs [0055]-[0056]); and a third step, after the second step, of ionically attacking the peripheral zone of the main face of the residue, the third step reducing an elevation of the peripheral zone (ion etching may be performed after grinding a donor substrate during a reclamation process in order to remove surface roughness, defects, and/or non-planarity along entirety of cleaved Ga face including periphery thereof; paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide rapid material removal and surface planarization, preparation for subsequent finishing, subsurface damage removal, and improved bonding quality. Further, Henley ‘169 discloses use of multiple processing techniques for the cleave surface of a donor substrate, including grinding and ion etching, but suggests performing ion etching after grinding as this is common practice in the art due to grinding being used for rapid thicker material removal that introduces unsuitable mechanical damage to the processing surface while ion etching is more controlled and lower-damage for use as a finishing technique to remediate the mechanically damaged zone without excessive further thinning of the donor substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 further discloses wherein the second step is performed after the first step (polishing conventionally performed after grinding; paragraphs [0022], [0031], [0033]; claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 2. Henley ‘609 further discloses wherein the first step is implemented by grinding or polishing the peripheral ring (annular grinding 232 of annular residual GaN material 230; Fig. 2E; paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 3. Henley ‘609 further discloses wherein the second step comprises chemical-mechanical polishing of the main face (conventional chemical-mechanical polishing may be performed on top surface of reusable GaN donor substrate 102; paragraphs [0033], [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 4. Henley ‘609 further discloses wherein a thickness of the removed surface layer is less than 5 microns (fraction of a micron may be removed when removing surface roughness; paragraphs [0033], [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 further discloses wherein the first step is implemented by grinding or polishing the peripheral ring (annular grinding 232 of annular residual GaN material 230; Fig. 2E; paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 further discloses wherein the second step comprises chemical-mechanical polishing of the main face (conventional chemical-mechanical polishing may be performed on top surface of reusable GaN donor substrate 102; paragraphs [0033], [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 further discloses wherein a thickness of the removed surface layer is less than 5 microns (fraction of a micron may be removed when removing surface roughness; paragraphs [0033], [0048]).
Regarding claim 16, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the third step shapes the peripheral zone to a determined profile.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the third step shapes the peripheral zone to a determined profile (grinding and ion etching may be utilized in a donor substrate reclamation procedure in order to remove surface roughness along Ga face including periphery of substrate; paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide surface planarization, preparation for subsequent finishing, subsurface damage removal, and improved bonding quality.
Regarding claim 17, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the peripheral zone has, on completion of the third step, a maximum elevation that is less than or equal to an elevation of a mean elevation plane of a central portion of the donor substrate.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the peripheral zone has, on completion of the third step, a maximum elevation that is less than or equal to an elevation of a mean elevation plane of a central portion of the donor substrate (grinding and ion etching may be utilized in a donor substrate reclamation procedure in order to remove surface roughness along Ga face including periphery of substrate; paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide surface planarization, preparation for subsequent finishing, subsurface damage removal, and improved bonding quality.
Regarding claim 18, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the residue comprises a thick layer of material disposed on an intermediate support.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the residue comprises a thick layer of material disposed on an intermediate support (reusable GaN substrate 302 supported on a backing substrate 303; paragraph [0045]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide enhanced mechanical stability, improved processing compatibility, and facilitation of layer transfer and bonding.
Regarding claim 20, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the thick layer is assembled on the intermediate support by way of a layer of an adhesive material.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the thick layer is assembled on the intermediate support by way of a layer of an adhesive material (adhesives may be used to attach backing substrate to donor; paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide enhanced mechanical stability and handling, ease of temporary bonding and debonding, and protection of donor substrate.
Claims 6-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley ‘609 in further view of Henley ‘169 and US 2019/0157109 A1 to Kaplun et al. (hereinafter “Kaplun” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 6, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 5. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the ionically attacking comprises ion etching with argon ions.
However, Kaplun discloses wherein the ionically attacking comprises ion etching with argon ions (SCD donor substrate 71 prepared using Ar etching; paragraphs [0062]-[0067]).
Henley ‘609 and Kaplun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Kaplun in order to potentially provide using a gas with a chemically inert nature, precise and controlled material removal, and using a gas with no contaminating residues.
Regarding claim 7, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 and Kaplun discloses the method of claim 6. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the third step shapes the peripheral zone to a determined profile.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the third step shapes the peripheral zone to a determined profile (grinding and ion etching may be utilized in a donor substrate reclamation procedure in order to remove surface roughness along Ga face including periphery of substrate; paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide surface planarization, preparation for subsequent finishing, subsurface damage removal, and improved bonding quality.
Regarding claim 8, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 and Kaplun discloses the method of claim 6. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the peripheral zone has, on completion of the third step, a maximum elevation that is less than or equal to an elevation of a mean elevation plane of a central portion of the donor substrate.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the peripheral zone has, on completion of the third step, a maximum elevation that is less than or equal to an elevation of a mean elevation plane of a central portion of the donor substrate (grinding and ion etching may be utilized in a donor substrate reclamation procedure in order to remove surface roughness along Ga face including periphery of substrate; paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide surface planarization, preparation for subsequent finishing, subsurface damage removal, and improved bonding quality.
Regarding claim 9, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 and Kaplun discloses the method of claim 6. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the residue comprises a thick layer of material disposed on an intermediate support.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the residue comprises a thick layer of material disposed on an intermediate support (reusable GaN substrate 302 supported on a backing substrate 303; paragraph [0045]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide enhanced mechanical stability, improved processing compatibility, and facilitation of layer transfer and bonding.
Regarding claim 15, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 1. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the ion etching comprises ion etching with argon ions.
However, Kaplun discloses wherein the ion etching comprises ion etching with argon ions (SCD donor substrate 71 prepared using Ar etching; paragraphs [0062]-[0067]).
Henley ‘609 and Kaplun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Kaplun in order to potentially provide using a gas with a chemically inert nature, precise and controlled material removal, and using a gas with no contaminating residues.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley ‘609 in further view of Henley ‘169, Kaplun and US 2021/0036124 A1 to Drouin (hereinafter “Drouin” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 10, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 and Kaplun discloses the method of claim 9. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the material of the thick layer is a ferroelectric material.
However, Drouin discloses wherein the material of the thick layer is a ferroelectric material (donor substrate material made of ferroelectric material; abstract).
Henley ‘609 and Drouin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Drouin in order to potentially provide using a material having characteristics advantageous for specific applications like non-volatile memory, use of piezoelectric and pyroelectric capabilities for sensors and related applications, and compatibility with layer transfer processes like high-quality thin films.
Regarding claim 11, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169, Kaplun, and Drouin discloses the method of claim 10. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the thick layer is assembled on the intermediate support by means of a layer of an adhesive material.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses wherein the thick layer is assembled on the intermediate support by way of a layer of an adhesive material (adhesives may be used to attach backing substrate to donor; paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
Henley ‘609 and Henley ‘169 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Henley ‘169 in order to potentially provide enhanced mechanical stability and handling, ease of temporary bonding and debonding, and protection of donor substrate.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley ‘609 in further view of Henley ‘169, and Drouin.
Regarding claim 19, Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169 discloses the method of claim 18. Henley ‘609 fails to disclose wherein the material of the thick layer is a ferroelectric material.
However, Drouin discloses wherein the material of the thick layer is a ferroelectric material (donor substrate material made of ferroelectric material; abstract).
Henley ‘609 and Drouin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor donor substrates and related preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henley ‘609 to incorporate the teaching of Drouin in order to potentially provide using a material having characteristics advantageous for specific applications like non-volatile memory, use of piezoelectric and pyroelectric capabilities for sensors and related applications, and compatibility with layer transfer processes like high-quality thin films.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted June 5, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant amended claim 1 and submitted corresponding arguments. First, Examiner agrees that Henley ‘609 does not disclose the amendments made to the ‘second step’ limitation starting in line 8 of claim 1. However, Henely ‘169 does disclose this amended limitation. Therefore, amended claim 1 is obvious over Henley ‘609 in view of Henley ‘169.
Applicant asserts that paragraphs [0022] and [0033] and claim 1 do not disclose the ‘second
step’ limitation. While Examiner disagrees for reasons already discussed (e.g. paragraph [0022] and its related preceding paragraph [0021] referencing Fig. 1 to disclose surface processing of “the Ga face” at the cleaving surface), this point is rendered moot by reliance upon the modified rejection where Henley ‘169 discloses this limitation in full.
Applicant further asserts that “Henley ‘169 does not explain how the ion etching technique may be used to specifically perform reclaiming of the donor, in particular for rectifying the peripheral zone 13 to reduce the elevation of this peripheral zone.” However, the ‘third step’ limitation at issue does not require an explanation in this regard, but rather it only requires that ion etching be used to reduce an elevation of the peripheral zone of the donor substrate, which Henley ‘169 paragraphs [0055]-[0056] and Fig. 3 disclose in the reclamation step 330 where grinding and ion etching an entire Ga face (which includes the peripheral portion) are disclosed as a means of reclaiming the donor substrate. Further, for the reasons explained, it is standard practice in the art to perform grinding before ion etching due to the difference in precision, intensity, and residual surface damage between each of these surface processing techniques. Additional prior art references, such as US 2016/0372628 A1 to Henley et al. and US 2003/0224583 A1 to Chang et al. each disclose and/or suggest ion etching a substrate after grinding it.
Applicant further asserts conclusory statements about impermissible hindsight in the combinations as well as Kaplun and Drouin do not create a motivation for combining with the Henley references, despite Examiner providing motivation statements that logically flow from the disclosures of all of Henley ‘169, Kaplun and Drouin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN DEGRASSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30a until 5:00p.
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, JEFF NATALINI can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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. 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.
/IAN DEGRASSE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights