DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed April 16, 2026.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0048] of current application that “For example, the band gap width of the growth substrate 301 is less than that of the patterned buried layer 201, the supporting substrate 101 and the patterned buried layer 201 may be stripped off by using laser stripping, and the stripping is performed at an interface between the growth substrate 301 and the patterned buried layer 201, so as to obtain a relatively thin composite substrate (emphasis added)”, and that “For another example, the band gap width of the patterned buried layer 201 is less than that of the supporting substrate 101, the supporting substrate 101 may be stripped off by using the laser stripping, and the stripping is performed at an interface between the patterned buried layer 201 and the supporting substrate 101, so as to obtain a relatively thin composite substrate (emphasis added)”, which is the only place Applicant used the term “interface” in the original specification. Therefore, Applicant did not originally disclose that “a surface, away from the supporting substrate, of the second portion is a monocrystalline outer surface, and the monocrystalline outer surface is an epitaxial growth interface” as recited on lines 11-12, because (a) Applicant did not originally disclose what “an epitaxial growth interface” refers to since Applicant did not use the term “epitaxial growth interface” in the first place, (b) Applicants did not originally disclose whether the surface of the second portion is used for an epitaxial growth process without performing any processes such as (i) cleaning the surface of the second portion, (ii) passivating the surface of the second portion with non-epitaxially deposited material layer, (iii) planarizing the surface of the second portion, (iv) etching the surface of the second portion followed by regrowth of a semiconductor material, etc., and (c) therefore, it is clear that Applicant did not originally disclose the limitation “a surface, away from the supporting substrate, of the second portion is a monocrystalline outer surface, and the monocrystalline outer surface is an epitaxial growth interface” recited on lines 11-12. Claims 3 and 5-11 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 3 and 5-11 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “an epitaxial growth interface” recited on line 12 refers to, because (a) Applicant argues in the REMARKS filed April 16, 2026 that this limitation “an epitaxial growth interface” is not disclosed by the Lochtefeld (US 7,777,250) reference the Examiner cited in the Non Final Office Action mailed January 21, 2026, which suggests that the newly added limitation recited on lines 11-12 of the amended claim 1, especially the term “an epitaxial growth interface”, should have a certain meaning, (b) however, as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejection, Applicant did not originally disclose the term “an epitaxial growth interface”, and thus it is not clear what this term refers to, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation “an epitaxial growth interface” can only be satisfied by (i) a certain material composition, (ii) a certain physical size such as a length, a width and/or a height of the second portion, (iii) a certain epitaxial growth process parameter such as a blanket deposition of an epitaxial layer material, etc.
(2) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear whether the limitation “an epitaxial growth interface” recited on line 12 suggests that the claimed “surface … of the second portion” can be employed for any epitaxial growth processes, which Applicant does not appear to have originally disclosed, or only for a certain but unspecified epitaxial growth process that Applicant did not originally disclose and Applicant does not claim in claim 1, and (b) if the limitation “epitaxial growth interface” corresponds only to a certain epitaxial growth process, the amended claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps, see MPEP § 2172.01, and the omitted steps are: epitaxial growth process parameters such that the surface of the second portion can function as “an epitaxial growth interface.”
Claims 3 and 5-11 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 3 and 5-11 are also indefinite.
(3) Regarding claim 5, it is not clear what the limitation “the bottom surface is a physical termination interface formed by filling of the first portion” recited on lines 4-5 suggests, because (a) the claimed bottom surface is “a bottom surface of the plurality of grooves” recited on lines 3-4 of claim 5, (b) therefore, the newly added limitation “the bottom surface is a physical termination interface formed by filling of the first portion” does not appear to make sense in that the “bottom surface of the plurality of grooves” cannot be “a physical termination interface formed by filling of the first portion” since the bottom surface of the plurality of grooves, which is already present even before the step of filling of the first portion, cannot be formed by filling the first portion. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, and therefore, claims 6 is also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lochtefeld (US 7,777,250).
Regarding claim 1, Lochtefeld discloses a composite substrate (Fig. 6A with a bigger view similar to that shown in Fig. 1B), comprising: a supporting substrate (300) (col. 12, line 51), a patterned buried layer (310) (col. 12, lines 53-54), because the top surface of the first non-crystalline mask layer 310 is at least partially buried by the second crystalline material 330, and a growth substrate (330) (col. 12, lines 61-67) which are stacked in sequence, because (a) Applicant does not specifically claim what the “growth substrate” refers to, i.e. whether the “growth substrate” is formed by growth on the underlying supporting substrate and the patterned buried layer, or the “growth substrate” is employed for a subsequent growth of a material layer, and (b) if Applicant had intended to claim that the “growth substrate” is employed for a subsequent growth of a material layer, the limitation “growth substrate” is directed to an intended use of the “growth substrate” part or an arbitrary material layer part of the claimed composite substrate since Applicant does not claim what the subsequently grown material layer is, and how the subsequently grown material layer is grown/deposited/formed; wherein the patterned buried layer is inherently provided with a plurality of grooves (upper recess with larger size/diameter in view of Fig. 1B) at a side, away from the supporting substrate, of the patterned buried layer, because (a) Applicant’s plurality of grooves 202 are provided at a side, away from the supporting substrate 101, of the patterned buried layer 201 in Fig. 5 of current application, (b) therefore, the limitation “a side, away from the supporting substrate, of the patterned buried layer” appears to refer to a configuration where the plurality of grooves 202 are separated from the supporting substrate 101 by the through holes 204 as shown in Fig. 5 of current application, whose configuration is also shown in Fig. 6A of Lochtefeld with one of the through holes is shown to correspond to or be filled with the inner region 350 in Fig. 6A of Lochtefeld, and (c) the groove shown in Fig. 6A of Lochtefeld would be one groove out of a plurality of grooves as shown in Fig. 1B of Lochtefeld; the growth substrate comprises a first portion (middle portion of 330 above inner region 350) located in the plurality of grooves, and a second portion (top portion of 330, which is outer region 360) located on a side, away from the supporting substrate (300), of the first portion and covering the patterned buried layer, because (a) Applicant does not specifically claim whether the second portion fully covers the topmost surface of the patterned buried layer, and (b) the second portion 360 of the growth substrate 330 at least partially covers the top surface of the patterned buried layer 310; a material of the growth substrate (330) is any one of the following materials: monocrystalline silicon, monocrystalline germanium, monocrystalline silicon germanium and monocrystalline silicon carbide (col. 12, lines 61-67, and col. 13, lines 3-7); and a surface, away from the supporting substrate, of the second portion (top portion of 330, which is outer region 360) is a monocrystalline outer surface, and the monocrystalline outer surface is an epitaxial growth interface, because (a) this limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement, and is also indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, and (b) this limitation can be directed to an intended use of the second portion for a certain type of an epitaxial growth process.
If Applicant can prove or show that it is not inherent that the patterned buried layer 310 shown in Fig. 6A is provided with a plurality of grooves as shown in Fig. 1B, it would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the patterned buried layer 310 shown in Fig. 6A can be provided with a plurality of grooves as shown in Fig. 1B rather than being provided with a single groove, because (a) in semiconductor manufacturing processes, a plurality of identical features or structures have been commonly formed simultaneously to increase the density of the semiconductor elements formed on a common substrate, and (b) therefore, even though Lochtefeld shows only one groove in Fig. 6A, an actual composite structure can be substantially identical to that shown in Fig. 1B where a plurality of grooves are formed to increase the density of the semiconductor elements formed on the composite structure illustrated in Fig. 6A of Lochtefeld and thus to reduce the manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 9, Lochtefeld further discloses that the supporting substrate (300) is one of a silicon substrate, a sapphire substrate, a silicon carbide substrate and a ceramic substrate (col. 12, lines 51-53).
Claims 3, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lochtefeld (US 7,777,250) The teachings of Lochtefeld are discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Lochtefeld differs from the claimed invention by not showing that the surface, away from the supporting substrate, of the second portion is one of a (111) crystal plane, a (110) crystal plane and a (100) crystal plane.
Lochtefeld further discloses that “For epitaxy of hexagonal semiconductors such as III-nitrides on Si, the (111) surface of Si is commonly preferred over the (100)”, and that “This is because the (111) surface of Si is hexagonal (even though Si is a cubic crystal)” (col. 24, lines 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a surface, away from the supporting substrate, of the second portion can be one of a (111) crystal plane, a (110) crystal plane and a (100) crystal plane, because (a) as further disclosed by Lochtefeld, a silicon substrate having a Si(111) crystal plane has been commonly employed in manufacturing GaN-based semiconductor devices, and (b) in this case, when the second crystalline material 330 is formed of germanium or silicon germanium (col. 12, lines 61-67, and col. 13, lines 3-7), the surface of the second portion would also be a (111) crystal plane.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Lochtefeld differs from the claimed invention by not showing that a depth of the plurality of grooves ranges from 1 nm to 2 µm (claim 7), and a depth of the plurality of grooves accounts for 1% to 99% of a thickness of the growth substrate (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a depth of the plurality of grooves can range from 1 nm to 2 µm, and a depth of the plurality of grooves can account for 1% to 99% of a thickness of the growth substrate, because (a) these parameters should be controlled and optimized to improve the quality of the second crystalline material 330 disclosed by Lochtefeld by reducing defects such as dislocations, and (b) the claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges of the width, depth and relative thickness achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 11, Lochtefeld differs from the claimed invention by not showing that a material of the patterned buried layer is any one of the following materials: silicon dioxide, silicon nitride and sapphire.
Lochtefeld further discloses that a material of the patterned buried layer (310 in Figs. 18A-18D) is silicon dioxide or silicon nitride (col. 19, lines 59-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a material of the patterned buried layer 310 shown in Fig. 6A of Lochtefeld can also be silicon dioxide or silicon nitride just like the patterned buried layer or mask 310 shown in Figs. 18A-18D of Lochtefeld, because (a) both embodiments shown in Fig. 6A and Figs. 18A-18D of Lochtefeld are directed to a substantially identical inventive concept, and (b) a mask layer for growing a dissimilar material layer on a substrate has been commonly formed of silicon dioxide or silicon nitride due to their ease and low cost of manufacturing processes, and their well-known passivation and insulation characteristics.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lochtefeld (US 7,777,250) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haskell et al. (US 2005/0245095) The teachings of Lochtefeld are discussed above.
Lochtefeld differs from the claimed invention by not showing that the supporting substrate is a ceramic substrate, and the ceramic substrate is any one of the following substrates: an aluminum nitride ceramic substrate, a boron nitride ceramic substrate, a zirconia ceramic substrate, a magnesium oxide ceramic substrate, a silicon nitride ceramic substrate and a beryllium oxide ceramic substrate.
Lochtefeld further discloses that “The second crystalline material may include, or consist essentially of, a group II, a group III, a group IV, a group V, and/or a group VI element, and/or combinations thereof, for example, germanium, silicon germanium, gallium arsenide, or gallium nitride” on lines 3-7 of column 13.
In addition, Haskell et al. disclose a composite substrate (Fig. 5), where “In the preferred embodiment, the substrate is an m-plane 6H-SiC, m-plane 4H-SiC, or (100) γ-LiAlO2 substrate, or any of the aforementioned substrates covered by an m-(In,Al,Ga,B)N template layer” in paragraph [0051].
Since both Lochtefeld and Haskell et al. teach a composite substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the supporting substrate can be a ceramic substrate, and the ceramic substrate can be any one of the following substrates: an aluminum nitride ceramic substrate, a boron nitride ceramic substrate, a zirconia ceramic substrate, a magnesium oxide ceramic substrate, a silicon nitride ceramic substrate and a beryllium oxide ceramic substrate, because (a) the method disclosed by Lochtefeld can be employed to grow an m-plane gallium nitride layer disclosed by Haskell et al. (Title of Haskell et al.), (b) in this case, the supporting substrate disclosed by Lochtefeld can be formed of “m-(In,Al,Ga,B)N template layer” disclosed by Haskell et al., which has been commonly employed substrate materials in growing an m-plane gallium nitride layer as disclosed by Haskell et al., (c) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, and (d) in this case, the supporting substrate can be an aluminum nitride ceramic substrate or a boron nitride ceramic substrate since the “(In,Al,Ga,B)N” disclosed by Haskell et al. includes AlN and BN.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, because Applicant’s arguments are primarily directed to the newly added limitation of claim 1 recited on the last two lines of the amended claim 1, which fail to comply with the written description requirement, and are also indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
In addition, Applicants’ arguments appear to be based on the original disclosure or inventive concept rather than the claimed invention, and MPEP 2111.01 stipulates that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571 )270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights