DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed July 28, 2023.
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 Species A and Subspecies g drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 5 of current application, claims 1-3 and 5-11, in the reply filed on November 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 6 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. It is not clear how “a through hole” or a single through hole can be “located between the plurality of grooves and the supporting substrate”, because (a) an apparently plurality of through holes 204 are located between the plurality of grooves 202 and the supporting substrate 101 in Fig. 5 of current application, (b) if a plurality of through holes can be referred to “a through hole”, “a plurality of grooves” can be referred to as a groove, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the apparently plurality of through holes 204 shown in Fig. 5 of current application are all connected together to form a single through hole, or the term “a through hole” is a typo. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, and therefore, claim 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, 2, 5 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; and 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.
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 claims 2, 5 and 9, Lochtefeld further discloses that 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) (claim 2), further comprising a through hole (hole filled with inner region 350 of second crystalline material 330) located between the plurality of grooves and the supporting substrate (300), the first portion filling the through hole (claim 5), and 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) (claim 9).
Claims 3, 6-8 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 a 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 6-8, Lochtefeld differs from the claimed invention by not showing that in a direction parallel to a plane in which the supporting substrate is located, a width of the through hole is less than or equal to 1 µm (claim 5), 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 in a direction parallel to a plane in which the supporting substrate is located, a width of the through hole can be less than or equal to 1 µm, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feuillet et al. (US 12,080,824)
El Koury Maroun et al. (US 11,139,167)
Cui (US 8,664,747)
Zhou (US 10,134,849)
Bayram et al. (US 12,412,751)
Chang et al. (US 11,271,109)
Then et al. (US 9,660,085)
Mochizuki et al. (US 9,305,781)
Cheng (US 8,274,097)
Simsek-Ege et al. (US 11,862,668)
Bayram et al. (US 9,048,173)
Briere (US 8,866,190)
Caimi et al. (US 10,249,492)
Bai et al. (US 8,173,551)
Lau et al. (US 11,742,203)
Baron et al. (US 9,293,322)
Lochtefeld et al. (US 8,324,660)
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 January 16, 2026