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 60-69, 72-76 and 78-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0264374 A1 to Hecht et al. (hereinafter “Hecht” – previously cited reference) in further view of US 2019/0122850 A1 to Krippendorf et al. (hereinafter “Krippendorf” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 60, Hecht discloses a method for producing a pretreated composite substrate which serves as a basis for further processing into electronic semiconductor components (method of manufacturing composite substrate for use in electrical silicon carbide devices; abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a donor substrate comprising monocrystalline SiC (providing 4H-SiC wafer 210 that donates portion of its pre-split epitaxial layer 220; Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0028], [0045]);
b) doping a first layer in the donor substrate by ion implantation (portion of epitaxial layer 220 is doped by ion implantation 230 within implant zone 240; Fig. 2B; paragraph [0045]), wherein the doping creates a predetermined dopant depth profile and/or a predetermined defect depth profile in the first layer of the donor substrate (doping the layer 220 results in creation of implant zone 240 within predetermined depth withing layer 220 of wafer 210; Fig. 2B; paragraph [0045]), wherein the first layer extends from a first surface of the donor substrate which faces the ion beam up to a predetermined doping depth, followed by a remaining portion of the donor substrate (layer 220 extends from wafer 210 facing ions 230 to implant zone 240 to remaining portion of layer 220 of wafer 210; Fig. 2B; paragraph [0045]), wherein the doping of the first layer affords p or n doping with a doping concentration or defect concentration in the first layer of 1E15 cm-3 to 5E17 cm-3 (doping concentration of layer 220 may be 1*10^16 cm−3; paragraph [0005]);
c) creating an intended breakage site in the donor substrate (implant zone 240 serves as breakage point in layer 220 of wafer 210; Fig. 2D; paragraph [0045]);
d) providing the acceptor substrate and producing a bond between the donor substrate and the acceptor substrate, wherein the first layer is arranged in a region between the acceptor substrate and the remaining portion of the donor substrate (acceptor wafer 250 provided to bond to wafer 210 with layer 220 disposed therebetween; Fig. 2C; paragraph [0045]);
e) splitting the donor substrate in the region of the intended breakage site to create the pretreated composite substrate, wherein the pretreated composite substrate comprises the acceptor substrate and a doped layer bonded thereto , wherein the doped layer comprises at least a section of the first layer of the donor substrate (wafer 210 has portion of layer 220 split off at implant zone 240 in order to form carrier wafer 250 with doped epitaxial layer 260 having implant zone 240; Fig. 2D; paragraph [0045]).
Hecht fails to disclose doping a first layer in the donor substrate by ion implantation using an energy filter, wherein the energy filter is a microstructured membrane having a predefined structure profile for adapting a dopant depth profile and/or defect depth profile caused by the implantation in the first layer in the donor substrate; and the doping of the first layer is doping with ions of N, P or Al.
However, Krippendorf discloses doping a first layer in the donor substrate by ion implantation using an energy filter, wherein the energy filter is a microstructured membrane having a predefined structure profile for adapting a dopant depth profile and/or defect depth profile caused by the implantation in the first layer in the donor substrate (doping a layer in a substrate by ion implantation using a microstructured filter having predefined structure for altering a doping profile within the substrate; Fig. 1; paragraph [0077]); and the doping of the first layer is doping with ions of N, P or Al (substrate implantation process at 12 MeV using nitrogen; paragraph [0089]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide use of widely-available ion implantation materials, control of ion depth penetration, homogenous doping profiles, and improved thermal management during high energy ion irradiation.
Regarding claim 61, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 60. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the first layer has a thickness of 3 to 15 µm.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the first layer has a thickness of 3 to 15 µm (ion implantation may be performed at depth levels of a few nanometers to several hundred microns; paragraph [0002]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide creation of thin uniform layers from the donor wafer, precise control of the splitting plane, and reduced defect propagation.
Regarding claim 62, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the donor substrate is a crystal composed of high-quality semi-insulating SiC material of high purity (4H-SiC wafer 210; paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 63, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 62. Hecht further discloses wherein the donor substrate is composed of SiC of the 4H, 6H or 3C polytype (4H-SiC wafer 210; paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 64, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 62. Hecht further discloses wherein the surface of the donor substrate facing the ion beam has a deviation of less than 6° from a perpendicular to the c direction (surface of donor substrate arranged perpendicular to direction of ion beam transmission; Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 65, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 62. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the donor substrate has a thickness of more than 100 µm up to 15 cm.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the donor substrate has a thickness of more than 100 µm up to 15 cm (ion implantation maybe performed at depth levels of several hundreds of microns which provides a corresponding substrate thickness in the range of at least hundreds of microns as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0002]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide sufficient material for multiple transfers, mechanical stability and handling, and flexibility for implant depth control.
Regarding claim 66, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the donor substrate has a carrier wafer and an epitaxial layer, wherein the epitaxial layer is undoped or has a doping of less than 1E15 cm-3 and wherein the first layer is part of the epitaxial layer (SiC wafer 210 and undoped epitaxial layer 220; Figs. 2A-2B; paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 67, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 66. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the epitaxial layer has a thickness of more than 10 µm.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the epitaxial layer has a thickness of more than 10 µm (with a substrate of at least hundreds of microns implies a donor layer of the substrate being more than 10 microns; Fig. 1; paragraph [0002]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide creation of thin uniform layers from the donor wafer, precise control of the splitting plane, and reduced defect propagation.
Regarding claim 68, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the surface of the epitaxial layer facing the ion beam has a deviation of less than 6° from a perpendicular to the c direction (surface of donor substrate arranged perpendicular to direction of ion beam transmission; Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 69, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 66. Hecht further discloses wherein the epitaxial layer is composed of SiC of the 4H, 6H or 3C polytype (4H-SiC wafer 210; paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 72, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the doping of the first layer affords a substantially constant dopant depth profile and/or defect depth profile (horizontal layer of implant zone 240; Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 73, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 60. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the doping of the first layer affords a dopant depth profile and/or defect depth profile which declines in steps, wherein the steps are formed in a near-surface region of the first layer, which faces the ion beam, by up to 40% of the total depth of the first layer.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the doping of the first layer affords a dopant depth profile and/or defect depth profile which declines in steps, wherein the steps are formed in a near-surface region of the first layer, which faces the ion beam, by up to 40% of the total depth of the first layer (dopant profile comprises multiple steps in a near-surface region of the substrate facing ion beam with a thickness less than 40% of the total depth of the substrate; Figs. 11, 13, 27, 43, 49, 51).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide precise control of the splitting plane, finely-tuned electrical performance (e.g. resistance) along the width of the doped layer, and compatibility with device layer customization.
Regarding claim 74, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 73. Hecht further discloses wherein a difference in concentration between the highest and lowest steps is at least a factor of 10 (concentrations of doping may be in a range of between 1*10^15 cm-3 and 1*10^17 cm-3 which is difference of a factor of 100; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 75, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 73. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the depthwise extent of the flank regions of the steps is predominant over the depthwise extent of the stepped plateaus.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the depthwise extent of the flank regions of the steps is predominant over the depthwise extent of the stepped plateaus (sides of the steps in the doping profile have a larger dimension than the tops of the steps; Figs. 13 and 51).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide precise control of the splitting plane, finely-tuned electrical performance (e.g. resistance) along the width of the doped layer, and compatibility with device layer customization.
Regarding claim 76, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 60. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the doping of the first layer affords a continuously declining dopant depth profile and/or defect depth profile.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the doping of the first layer affords a continuously declining dopant depth profile and/or defect depth profile (continuously declining doping concentration depth profile; Fig. 26).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide precise control of the splitting plane, finely-tuned electrical performance (e.g. resistance) along the width of the doped layer, and compatibility with device layer customization.
Regarding claim 78, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses further comprising the step of creating a contact layer in a surface region of the first layer, or of applying a contact layer to the surface of the first layer, and wherein the bonding between the donor substrate and acceptor substrate is established via the contact layer, resulting in the following sequence: acceptor substrate, contact layer, remaining portion of first layer or first layer, remaining portion of the donor substrate (top surface layer of wafers 210, 250 form bonding border plane 252 which is disposed below wafer 250 and above epitaxial layer 220 and wafer 210 in that order; Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 79, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 78. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the contact layer is created by ion implantation.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the contact layer is created by ion implantation (top surface layer of substrate is irradiated with ion beam; Fig. 1).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide enhanced electrical conductivity for low-resistivity electrical connections on the acceptor wafer and improved bonding strength provided by the defect formation.
Regarding claim 80, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 78. Hecht further discloses wherein a dopant concentration in the contact layer is at least 100 times greater than an average dopant concentration in the remainder of the first layer or in the first layer (concentrations of doping may be in a range of between 1*10^15 cm-2 and 1*10^17 cm-2 which is difference of a factor of 100; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 81, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 78. Hecht further discloses wherein a dopant concentration in the contact layer is more than 1 E17 cm-3 (doping concentration levels above 1*10^17 cm-3 are commonly utilized and less difficult to achieve than those around 1*10^15 cm-3 that are utilized; paragraphs [0002], [0034]).
Regarding claim 82, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the intended breakage site is in an end region of the first layer close to the predetermined doping depth (breakage site is at implant zone 240; Fig. 2D).
Hecht fails to disclose wherein the end region is not thicker than 1 µm.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the end region is especially preferably not thicker than 1 µm (given ion implantation maybe performed at depth levels of a few nanometers to several hundred microns, the end region may be less than 1 micron; paragraph [0002]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide precise and clean layer separation, reduced surface roughness post-splitting, and improved transfer layer quality and performance.
Regarding claim 83, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the intended breakage site is in the region of the remaining portion of the donor substrate (breakage site is at implant zone 240 adjacent remaining portion of epitaxial layer 270 of wafer 210; Fig. 2D), and wherein, in addition, after step e), the further step of performing ion implantation using an energy filter into the composite substrate is performed in a supplementary layer from the side remote from the acceptor substrate (wafer 250 may be doped on the epitaxial side layer in the exact same manner as wafer 210 after splitting in order to manufacture the resulting electrical silicon carbide device; paragraphs [0034], [0039], [0045]).
Regarding claim 84, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 83. Hecht further discloses wherein the ion implantation into the supplementary layer of the composite substrate extends at least up to the doped layer (implant zone 240 is disposed at top surface of wafer 250 and so further ion implantation would necessarily extend up to the implant zone 240; Fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 85, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 84. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the ion implantation into the composite substrate is performed in such a way that the combination of the two dopant depth profiles and/or defect depth profiles of the first layer and of the supplementary layer is a constant profile, a profile that rises stepwise toward the acceptor substrate, or a profile that rises continuously toward the acceptor substrate.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the ion implantation into the composite substrate is performed in such a way that the combination of the two dopant depth profiles and/or defect depth profiles of the first layer and of the supplementary layer is a constant profile, a profile that rises stepwise toward the acceptor substrate, or a profile that rises continuously toward the acceptor substrate (composite doping depth profile may have stepwise shape into substrate; Figs. 11, 13, 27, 43, 49, 51).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide precise control of the splitting plane, finely-tuned electrical performance (e.g. resistance) along the width of the doped layer, and compatibility with device layer customization.
Regarding claim 86, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the intended breakage site is created by ion implantation of split-triggering ions (high energy ion implantation is utilized; Fig. 2A; paragraphs [0005], [0047], [0074]).
Regarding claim 87, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 86. Hecht further discloses wherein the split-triggering ions are introduced over the entire width of the donor substrate (high energy ion implantation used across entire width of the epitaxial layer 220; Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 88, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 86. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the split-triggering ions are introduced only over a portion of the width of the donor substrate.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the split-triggering ions are introduced only over a portion of the width of the donor substrate (masking and selective ion bombardment may be utilized to only dope with high-energy ions in a specific portion across the width of the substrate; Figs. 27 and 51; paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0088], [0176], [0205]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide localized splitting planes for patterned transfer, reduced material damage across the entire width, and tailored device compatibility.
Regarding claim 89, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 88. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the split-triggering ions are introduced only in at least one edge region of the donor substrate.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the split-triggering ions are introduced only in at least one edge region of the donor substrate (masking and selective ion bombardment may be utilized to only dope with high-energy ions in a specific portion across the width of the substrate; Figs. 27 and 51; paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0088], [0176], [0205]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide localized splitting planes for patterned transfer, reduced material damage across the entire width, and tailored device compatibility.
Regarding claim 90, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 86. Hecht further discloses wherein the split-triggering ions are selected from the following: H, H2, He, B (high energy hydrogen and boron ion implantation may be used; paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 91, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 90. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the split-triggering ions are high-energy ions having an energy between 0.5 and 10 MeV.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the split-triggering ions are high-energy ions having an energy between 0.5 and 10 MeV (6 MeV high energy ions may be used; paragraph [0176]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide deep implant penetration for variable layer thickness, precise control of breakage site plane, and reduced surface damage allowing for adequate amount of usable donor material to be bonded to acceptor wafer.
Regarding claim 92, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 86. Hecht further discloses wherein a particle dose of the split-triggering ions is in each case between 1 E15 cm-2 and 5E17 cm-2 (concentrations of high energy ion doping may be in a range of between 1*10^15 cm-3 and 1*10^17 cm-2; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 93, Hecht in view of Krippendorf disclose the method of claim 90. Hecht fails to disclose wherein the energy spread of the ion beam of the split-triggering ions is less than 10-2.
However, Krippendorf discloses wherein the energy spread of the ion beam of the split- triggering ions is less than 10-2 (collimators may be used with high energy ions to significantly reduce beam spreading; paragraphs [0147]-[0155]).
Hecht and Krippendorf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ion implantation of semiconductor substrates using energy filters. 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 Hecht to incorporate the teaching of Krippendorf in order to potentially provide precise depth control of implantation, uniform breakage site plane, and reduced surface and subsurface damage.
Regarding claim 94, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the splitting of the donor substrate is triggered by a thermal treatment of the composite substrate at a temperature of between 600°C and 1300°C (epitaxial layer 220 is split by heating to between 600 and 1300 degrees Celsius; paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 95, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the bonding is established by a thermal treatment of the composite substrate at a temperature of between 800°C and 1600°C (wafer bonding may be performed by heating to between 700 and 1200 degrees Celsius; paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 96, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein both the establishment of the bonding and the splitting of the donor substrate are effected by a thermal treatment, with both steps being conducted simultaneously (bonding and splitting may be performed at same temperature allowing the two processes to be done simultaneously; paragraphs [0041], [0074]).
Regarding claim 97, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the step of establishing the bonding is preceded by a wet-chemical pretreatment, plasma pretreatment or ion beam pretreatment of at least one of the surfaces to be bonded (top surface of wafer 210 is pretreated with ion implantation prior to bonding to acceptor wafer 250; Figs. 2B-2C).
Regarding claim 98, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the acceptor substrate is thermally stable up to at least 1500°C and has a coefficient of linear expansion that deviates by not more than 20% from the coefficient of linear expansion of SiC (acceptor wafer 250 has coefficient of thermal expansion as little as 5% of that of SiC; paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 99, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 98. Hecht further discloses wherein the acceptor substrate is formed from polycrystalline SiC or graphite (acceptor wafer 250 may be polycrystalline SiC or graphite wafer; paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 100, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein the step of splitting is followed by an aftertreatment of the surface of the composite substrate in the region of the intended breakage site by polishing and/or removal of defects (CMP performed after splitting acceptor wafer 250 away; paragraphs [0033], [0052]).
Regarding claim 101, Hecht in view of Krippendorf discloses the method of claim 60. Hecht further discloses wherein implantation defects in the pretreated composite substrate are annealed at temperatures between 1500°C and 1750°C (annealing is performed on the SiC implantation region which are commonly annealed at temperatures of 1500 degrees Celsius or more because materials like SiC typically require such high post-implantation annealing temperatures to effectively activate dopants like N, P, and Al; paragraph [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 77 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant presents arguments with respect to amended claim 60 in view of the previously presented 35 USC 103 rejection. Regarding the first point, Examiner maintains that Hecht discloses ion implantation of an implant zone which then causes formation of the breakage site subsequently within that zone. Even if Applicant’s argument is taken as valid, combining two steps into one step provides a clear advantage that makes a two-step process inefficient and obvious. Regarding the second point, Applicant does not acknowledge all of the analysis provided by Examiner related to this limitation. Examiner maintains that the ‘layer’ in Hecht labeled 220 extends from wafer 210 facing ions 230 to implant zone 240 to remaining portion of layer 220 of wafer 210 (see Hecht, Fig. 2B, paragraph [0045]) which satisfies the associated limitation. Regarding the third point, just because Krippendorf uses the energy filter for one or more particular reasons does not mean that the known functionality of such energy filters generally would not be obvious to use in another related application described in Hecht. Therefore, there is ample motivation to combine Krippendorf with Hecht. Regarding the fourth point, Applicant does not dispute that paragraph [0089] of Krippendorf discloses using nitrogen as an ion implantation material. Therefore, amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 using Hecht and Krippendorf.
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