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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp (US 2017/0033011) in view of Lewinsohn (US 2010/0255289) and Allibert (US 2021/0028057).
Rupp teaches a method of forming a semiconductor, the method comprising: providing a donor wafer (10), providing a carrier wafer (20), coating the donor wafer with an ceramic-forming polymer precursor as an adhesive material, bonding the donor wafer and carrier wafer, splitting the donor wafer along an internal delamination layer (13) to form an active layer, and applying a pyrolysis heat treatment to ceramize the polymer precursor and form a ceramic matrix, wherein the ceramic-forming polymer precursor is selected to avoid thermal mismatch between layers (See Figures; [0024]-[0051]). The donor substrate, carrier wafer, and ceramic-forming polymer precursor read on the instantly claimed first substrate, second substrate, and layer of precursor formulation, respectively. The step of splitting the donor wafer reads on the instantly claimed thinning step.
Rupp does not expressly disclose charging the polymer precursor with inorganic particles and pyrolyzing the polymer precursor to obtain a ceramic matrix composite material which is devoid of sintering and amorphous.
Lewinsohn teaches a method of bonding a ceramic substrate (100) with a top coat (104), the method comprising applying a bond coat (102) between the substrate and the top coat, wherein the bond coat includes inorganic particles which modify the bond coat’s coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) to match that of the substrate and the top coat, and pyrolyzing the bond coat at temperatures lower than those required for sintering such that the bond coat remains amorphous (See Figures; [0039]-[0042]; [0048]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add inorganic particles to the polymer precursor of Rupp. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Lewinsohn that to do so would predictably allow for modification of the CTE to more closely match adjacent layers (See [0015]; [0041]).
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to pyrolyzing the ceramic-forming polymer precursor adhesive material of Rupp at temperatures lower than those required for sintering such that the bond coat remains amorphous in the manner taught by Lewinsohn. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Lewinsohn that to do so would predictably eliminate the need for potentially deleterious sintering aids (See [0042]) and also reduce damage to the substrate which may occur at higher temperatures (See [0054]).
Rupp teaches that the adhesive material comprising the polymer precursor is selected to avoid thermal mismatch between layers (See [0038]). Lewisohn teaches the inclusion of inorganic particles to further improve matching of CTE between layers (See [0051]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand these teachings to mean that a desirable difference in CTE between layers is as close to 0% as possible. However Rupp and Lewinsohn do not expressly quantify CTE differences between layers, particularly that the charge rate and nature of the inorganic particles is selected so that the precursor formulation has a coefficient of thermal expansion which differs, at most, by 15% from that of the first and second substrates between room temperature and the pyrolysis temperature.
Allibert discusses factors which must be considered when selecting inorganic particles within a preceramic precursor to match CTEs between layers. In particular, Allibert discloses a mixture of inorganic powders incorporated into a preceramic polymer matrix and that the nature and proportion of the powders is chosen to provide a matched CTE between a sintered composite layer containing the powder and a carrier substrate, wherein the CTEs of the carrier substrate and sintered composite layer differ by as little as 1%, and that high processing temperatures are also considered such that the CTE is matched throughout a necessary temperature range at which a material will be processed (See [0061]-[0066]; [0084]; [0095]).
When using the inorganic powders of Lewinsohn in the preceramic precursor polymer of Rupp, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the avoidance of thermal mismatch generally disclosed by Rupp and Lewinsohn would include selecting charge rates and properties of inorganic powders to achieve a desired CTE match and also considering that such a match should be present throughout the temperature range at which the semiconductor is processed, including the pyrolysis temperature, since Allibert teaches that the selection of charge rates and properties of inorganic powders were known in the prior art to impact CTE of a resulting layer and that their selection can provide a desired value close to that of a substrate even at high processing temperatures, as detailed above.
The term “thick” to describe the layer is a relative term which is not defined by the claim. Therefore the term has been interpreted in light of the instant specification to include thicknesses in the range of 10 to 500 μm.
Rupp does not expressly disclose a thickness of the polymer precursor. Lewinsohn discloses exemplary bond coating thicknesses of 100 μm, 200 μm, and 500 μm (See [0052]) which lie within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to use such layer thicknesses for the polymer precursor layer of Rupp since Lewinsohn teaches that such layer thicknesses were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for a bond coating layer (See [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Examiner is taking official notice that the use of a primer on an object to improve adhesion is well-known and conventional in the art such that the use of such a primer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 3, the layers of Rupp are stacked and pressed (See Figures; [0048])
Regarding claim 4, Lewinsohn discloses a volume fractions of filler being 0.3, 0.5, or 0.7 (See [0052]). Since the range of volume fractions overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 5, Lewinsohn discloses SiC, Si3N4, and Al2O3 particles (See [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, polycarbosilane polymer precursors are taught by both Rupp (See [0039]) and Lewinsohn (See [0013]; [0016])
Regarding claim 7, Rupp teaches that the polymer precursor may be applied by spin-on or spray processes (See [0041]), both of which read on the instantly claimed coating step.
Regarding claim 8, the internal delamination layer (13) of Rupp is formed by ionic implantation (See Figures; [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Examiner is taking official notice that the use of a stiffening or reinforcing layer within a laminate to improve physical properties is well-known and conventional in the art such that the use of such a layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 10, Rupp teaches that the thickness of the active layer may be readily determined based on the size of a semiconductor to be manufactured. Therefore the selection of a particular thickness is a routine matter of design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 11-12, the products made during the method taught by the combination of Rupp, Lewinsohn, and Allibert contain all of the layers and properties claimed. Which parts of Rupp, Lewinsohn, and Allibert correspond to which claimed layers are the same as in the method claims above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/10/2026, have been considered but are moot because they do not address the same combination of references presented in the current Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
