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 § 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 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 main face of the residue to remove a surface layer (optional surface treatment process such as conventional polishing of top surface of reusable GaN donor substrate 102; paragraphs [0022], [0033]; claim 1).
Henley ‘609 fails to disclose a third step, after the second step, of ionically attacking the peripheral zone of the main face of the residue, the third reducing an elevation of the peripheral zone.
However, Henley ‘169 discloses 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 (grinding and ion etching, among other surface processing steps, 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 rapid material removal and surface planarization, preparation for subsequent finishing, subsurface damage removal, and improved bonding quality.
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 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 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 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 January 9, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant amended claim 1 and submitted corresponding arguments. Specifically, Applicant argues that Henley ‘609 does not disclose “a second step of processing the main face of the residue to remove a surface layer” but Examiner disagrees. Henley ‘609 in at least paragraph [0033] discloses conventional polishing of the top surface of the reusable GaN donor substrate 102 which satisfies the limitation at issue. While Henley ‘609 discloses optionally omitting this step, it nevertheless discloses this as a step that can be optionally taken. Further, Applicant attempts to preempt use of the second embodiment of Henley ‘609 starting at paragraph [0041], but the ‘residue’ from the limitation at issue can be interpreted as the partially cleaved films at the cleave plane which would thereby satisfy the limitation. Moreover, Examiner appreciates Applicant’s good-faith admission that CMP after energy application is disclosed in paragraphs [0048]-[0049] of Henley ‘609. Finally, Applicant asserts that Henley ‘169 does not explain how the ion etching technique may be used to reclaim the residue, but Applicant also admits that paragraph [0056] recites techniques for reclaiming the residue of a donor substrate including ion etching, which itself provides adequate motivation to combine Henley ‘169 with Henley ‘609 to cure the deficiencies of the method steps disclosed therein. Applicant also makes conclusory assertions that the other combinations using Kaplun and Drouin are insufficient without providing any substantive arguments in this regard.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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