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
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp (US 2017/0033011) in view of Lee (US 2011/0073236) 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.
Lee teaches a method comprising: providing a first work piece (38), providing a second work piece (40), applying a mixture (30) to the first work piece, bonding the first and second work pieces, and pyrolyzing the mixture, wherein the mixture includes a precursor (32) and a powder mixture (34) comprising inorganic particles (See Figures; [0032]-[0051]). The first work piece, second work piece, and mixture read on the instantly claimed first substrate, second substrate, and layer of precursor formulation. The mixture (30), the precursor (32), and the powder mixture (34) read on the instantly claimed layer of precursor formulation, preceramic polymer, and inorganic particles, respectively.
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 Lee that to do so would predictably provide a strong bond (See [0039]-[0040]).
Rupp teaches that the adhesive material comprising the polymer precursor is selected to avoid thermal mismatch between layers (See [0038]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this teaching to mean that a desirable difference in CTE between layers is as close to 0% as possible. However Rupp and Lee do not expressly disclose 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 Lee 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 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 and Lee do not expressly disclose a thickness of the polymer precursor, however a thickness within the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Lee teaches that the powder mixture includes particles with a diameter of .05 to 50 μm. Since these particles are contained within the polymer precursor, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the polymer precursor would have a thickness greater than the particle diameter. Since the diameter is of Lee is at the low end of the claimed range, the use of a thickness in the claimed range would therefore have been obvious.
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, Lee teaches that the powder mixture (34) takes up 70% or less by volume of the mixture (30) (See [0036]). Since the range of Lee substantially overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses SiC particles (See [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, polycarbosilane polymer precursors are taught by both Rupp (See [0039]) and Lee (See [0033]).
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 and Lee contain all of the layers and properties claimed. Which parts of Rupp and Lee correspond to which claimed layers are the same as in the method claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes that WIPO publication WO 2019/186010 A1, to which the Allibert reference above claims priority, is also available as prior art.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 05/04/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 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
Prosecution Insights