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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adetutu et al, US Patent 7,288,458 (as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 1, Adetutu teaches a composite substrate, comprising a first substrate 103/105 with 201/203/205/207 or 303/305 with 401/403/405/407, a bonding layer 209 or 409 or 201/203/205/207 or 401/403/405/407 and a second substrate 103/105 or 303/305 which are stacked sequentially, wherein the first substrate comprises a plurality of protruding structures 201/203/205/207 or 401/403/405/407 disposed on a side close to the second substrate, and a groove 211 or 213 or 215 or 217 (figure 2) or 411 or 413 or 415 or 417 (figure 5) formed between at least two protruding structures of the plurality of protruding structures; and the bonding layer at least partially covers the protruding structures, and the second substrate has an epitaxial growth surface distal to the bonding layer, wherein the epitaxial growth surface is configured for epitaxially growing a semiconductor device structure thereon (figure 6).
Regarding claims 2-3, Adetutu teaches the bonding layer 209/409 covers a bottom surface and a surface at a side, close to the first substrate, of the groove, wherein the bonding layer comprises a first bonding layer 209 and a second bonding layer 409, and the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer are stacked in a thickness direction of the first substrate (figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Adetutu teaches a material of the bonding layer and 209/409 (column 2, line 58) a material of the second substrate 105 (column 2, lines 29-30) are the same.
Regarding claim 7, Adetutu teaches a cross section of the groove perpendicular to a plane where the first substrate is located comprises a polygon or an arcuate shape (figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Adetutu teaches a first dielectric layer 409 which is patterned is disposed on a side, close to the second substrate, of the protruding structures, the first dielectric layer comprises a plurality of openings, and the plurality of openings are in a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of grooves (figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Adetutu teaches the first substrate is a multilayer structure, the first substrate comprises a first sublayer 305 and the protruding structures 401 or 403 or 405 or 407 located above the first sublayer, and a material of the first sublayer (column 3, line 5 and column 2, lines 29-30) and a material of the protruding structures (column 3, line 19) are different.
Regarding claim 10, Adetutu teaches a projection shape of the groove in a plane where the first substrate is located comprises any of a polygon or a circle (figure 6).
Regarding claim 18, Adetutu teaches a manufacturing method for a composite substrate, comprising: patterning and etching on a side of a first substrate 303/305 to form a plurality of protruding structures 401/403/405/407, and a groove 411 or 413 or 415 or 417 (figure 5) formed between at least two protruding structures of the plurality of protruding structures; forming a bonding layer 209 or 409 on a side, away from the first substrate, of the plurality of protruding structures, the bonding layer at least partially covering the protruding structures; and bonding a second substrate 105/103 which are stacked sequentially, wherein the first substrate to a side, away from the first substrate, of the bonding layer, wherein the second substrate has an epitaxial growth surface distal to the bonding layer, wherein the epitaxial growth surface is configured for epitaxially growing a semiconductor device structure thereon (figure 6).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 12-13, and 16- 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0148586 (as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a composite substrate, comprising a first substrate 1 , a bonding layer 2 and/or 3 and a second substrate 4 which are stacked sequentially, wherein the first substrate comprises a plurality of protruding structures disposed on a side close to the second substrate, and a groove formed between at least two protruding structures of the plurality of protruding structures; and the bonding layer at least partially covers the protruding structures, and the second substrate has an epitaxial growth surface distal to the bonding layer, wherein the epitaxial growth surface is configured for epitaxially growing a semiconductor device structure thereon (figure 10).
Regarding claims 2-3, Zhang teaches the bonding layer 2/3 covers a bottom surface and a surface at a side, close to the first substrate, of the groove, wherein the bonding layer comprises a first bonding layer and a second bonding layer, and the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer are stacked in a thickness direction of the first substrate (figure 10).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches a cross section of the groove perpendicular to a plane where the first substrate is located comprises a polygon or an arcuate shape (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches a first dielectric layer 2 which is patterned is disposed on a side, close to the second substrate, of the protruding structures, the first dielectric layer comprises a plurality of openings, and the plurality of openings are in a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of grooves (figure 10).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches a projection shape of the groove in a plane where the first substrate is located comprises any of a polygon or a circle (figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 12-13, Zhang teaches a third bonding layer 3, wherein the third bonding layer covers a surface at a side, close to the first substrate, of the second substrate 4 (figure 10), wherein a material of the third bonding layer and a material of the bonding layer are the same (which are both aluminum-based, [0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches a material of the first substrate 1 [0049] is silicon with a crystal orientation of (100), and a material of the second substrate 12 [0061] is silicon with a crystal orientation of (111) [0045].
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches a nucleation layer, a buffer layer, and a device layer, wherein the nucleation layer 5, the buffer layer 5, and the device layer 7 which are sequentially disposed on a second substrate 4 of the composite substrate (figure 10).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches a manufacturing method for a composite substrate, comprising: patterning and etching on a side of a first substrate to form a plurality of protruding structures (as shown in figure 1), and a groove formed between at least two protruding structures of the plurality of protruding structures; forming a bonding layer any one of layers 2-3 (figures 4-8) on a side, away from the first substrate, of the plurality of protruding structures, the bonding layer at least partially covering the protruding structures; and bonding a second substrate 4 which are stacked sequentially, wherein the first substrate to a side, away from the first substrate, of the bonding layer, wherein the second substrate has an epitaxial growth surface distal to the bonding layer, wherein the epitaxial growth surface is configured for epitaxially growing a semiconductor device structure thereon. (figure 10).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches the forming a bonding layer on a side, away from the first substrate, of the plurality of protruding structures comprises: forming, by an epitaxial process, the bonding layer 4 on the side, away from the first substrate, of the plurality of protruding structures [0052].
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adetutu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyake et al, US Patent 6,335,535 (as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 5, Adetutu fail to teach the second substrate comprises SiC, and the bonding layer comprises SiC, SiCN or SiCAlN.
However, Adetutu teaches the second substrate 103 and the bonding layer 201/203/205/207 comprises silicon (column 2, lines 31 and 54-55). Miyake teaches that silicon carbide is one of the silicon-type materials that is conventionally-used in the art for semiconductor devices (See column 1, line 9-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miyake with that of Adetutu because silicon carbide is one of the silicon-type materials that is conventionally-used in the art for semiconductor devices
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adetutu et al, US Patent 7,288,458 and Zhang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0148586 (as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 11, Adetutu and Zhang both fail to teach a side length of the polygon ranges from 1 mm to 1 mm, or a diameter of the circle ranges from 1 mm to 1 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14, 15, and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference of Adetutu doesn’t disclose a “composite substate” as a final product, the fact that Adetutu teaches further processing of this composite substrate does not negate this reference from teaching the claimed composite substrate. Figure 6 of Adetutu still shows a composite substrate that meets the limitations of these claims, despite further processing.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Adetutu nor Zhang disclose a bonding layer, as stated above, Adetutu teaches several different layers, any one of which may be considered a bonding layer. As stated above, figure 6 still shows a composite substrate that meets the limitations of these claims, despite further processing. Further, layers 2 and 3 are used to bond the overlying layers 4-11 to layer 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Adetutu nor Zheng disclose a groove for attenuating epitaxial stress, MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, this limitation is held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Adetutu doesn’t disclose a second substrate configured as an epitaxial growth surface, it is noted that Adetutu teaches a second substrate made of a semiconductor material with a clear surface. While Adetutu does not show growing another layer on the surface of this second substrate, the surface may be able to be used as an epitaxial growth surface. As stated above, MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, this limitation is held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Adetutu doesn’t disclose address a wholly different technical problem, figure 6 of Adetutu still teaches a structure that meets the limitations of the claim. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Zhang doesn’t disclose a “dual substrate composite, it is note that layer 4 may be considered a second substrate, since it is a layer that is made of a generally-known semiconductor material of Gallium Nitride. See column 6, lines 16-17. Further, as stated above with Adetutu, figure 10 of Zheng does not negate this reference from teaching the claimed composite substrate since it still shows a composite substrate that meets the limitations of these claims.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Zhang doesn’t disclose a second substrate configured as an epitaxial growth surface, it is noted that Zhang does meet this limitation. This reference teaches layer 4, which is made of gallium nitride, as being configured as an epitaxial growth surface since layers 5-7 are epitaxially grown on layer 4. See column 6, lines 26-35.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC 102 and 103 using the cited prior art of record is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights