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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 08/26/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2015/0311382 in view of Cheng et al., CN 115528153A.
Kim et al. shows the invention as claimed including a method for manufacturing a composite substrate, comprising:
Providing a support substrate 110;
Forming a buffer layer 121 on the support substrate 110;
Forming an epitaxial growth layer 130 on the buffer layer 121;
Bonding the epitaxial growth layer on a target substrate 150 of which a surface has a bonding layer 140; and
Removing the support substrate and the buffer layer to form the composite substrate at least comprising the target substrate (see, for example, fig. 15), the bonding layer 140 and the epitaxial growth layer 130 which are stacked sequentially (see paragraphs 0033-0098).
Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the buffer layer has a periodic structure in which a first sublayer and a second sublayer are alternately arranged. Cheng et al. discloses a composite substrate configuration comprising a buffer layer with a periodic structure including a first sublayer 31 and a second sublayer 32 that are alternately arranged where the number of periods of the buffer layer is larger than or equal to two (see, for example, machine translation at paragraph bridging pages 2-3 and page 3). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Kim so as to comprise the periodic buffer structure of Cheng et al. because in such a way the stress between the support substrate and epitaxial growth layer can be alleviated and the quality of the epitaxial growth layer can be improved.
Regarding dependent claim 2, note that the first and second sublayers thicknesses are repeatable and constant.
Concerning dependent claim 3, note that in Kim et al. the first sublayer can have a thickness from 5-20 nm and the second sublayer can have a thickness of from 10-30nm (see page 3 of machine translation) which overlaps with the thickness of the claimed invention. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
As to dependent claim 5, note that the number of periods of the buffer layer is greater than two which overlaps with the claimed range of from 2-20. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Concerning dependent claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum resistivity of the epitaxial growth layer based upon a variety of factors including the desired mobility of the semiconductor device, for example, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
With respect to dependent claim 8, note that in Kim et al. the epitaxial growth layer 130 of Kim is an n-type conductivity layer (see paragraph 0037).
As to dependent claim 9, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form an epitaxial growth layer of alternating conductivity types, for example, if a device formed in the epitaxial layer requires it such as a transistor.
Regarding dependent claim 10, both Kim et al. and Cheng et al. do not expressly disclose the particular thickness of the epitaxial growth layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum thickness of the device layer depending upon a variety of conditions including the desired device characteristics and such limitation would have been obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
With respect to dependent claim 12, note that in Kim et al. the bonding layer 140 can comprise an aluminum nitride layer (see paragraph 0072).
Concerning dependent claim 17, note that Kim et al. shows in fig. 15 removing both the support substrate 110 and buffer layer 121 from the final device structure. Additionally, the examiner takes official notice that selective etching is a well-known method to remove layers without damaging other layers that are not desired to be removed. Additionally, concerning dependent claim 18, the examiner takes official notice that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to monitor processes during real time in order to ensure better control over the process.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2015/0311382 in view of Cheng et al., CN 115528153A as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Su, US 2013/0134441.
Kim et al. and Cheng et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose the particular composition of the claimed first and second sublayers of the buffer layer. Su discloses forming a SiGe buffer layer for a GaN light emitting diode (see, for example, paragraph 0028). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Kim et al. modified by Cheng et al. so as to form the buffer sublayers of SiGe as suggested by Su because this is shown to be a suitable buffer material layer for gallium nitride-based light emitting diodes.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2015/0311382 in view of Cheng et al., CN 115528153A as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Ek et al., U.S. Patent 5,461,243.
Kim et al. and Cheng et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose the epitaxial growth layer being a material such as SiGe. Ek et al. discloses epitaxially growing a SiGe layer (see col. 3-lines 28-42). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the process of Kim et al. modified by Cheng et al. so as to epitaxially grow a SiGe layer as disclosed by Ek et al. because SiGe is shown to be a commonly grown layer in semiconductor technology.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2015/0311382 in view of Cheng et al., CN 115528153A as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Boulet, US 2012/0241918.
Kim et al. and Cheng et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose wherein the support substrate and the target substrate are silicon substrates. Boulet discloses a gallium nitride based LED structure whereby the support substrate and target substrate can be silicon substrates (see paragraph 0006 and 0037). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the process of Kim et al. modified by Cheng et al. so as to form the support and target substrates of silicon because in such a way a device with a relaxation of the strained material can be realized.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2015/0311382 in view of Cheng et al., CN 115528153A as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Tanimura et al., US 2021/0327709.
Kim et al. and Chang et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose performing a thermal oxidation on a surface of the epitaxial growth layer. Tanmura et al. discloses performing a thermal oxidation on a surface of a gallium nitride layer in order to form a gate oxide (see abstract). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the process of Kim et al. modified by Chang et al. so as to perform a thermal oxidation on a surface of the epitaxial growth layer in order to, for example, form a gate oxide for a transistor device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiang et al., US 2019/0157394 discloses the formation of a compound substrate with a periodic structure formed thereover (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
November 26, 2025