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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 110-113, 115-120, 127, 129, and 138-139 are 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 claim(s) contains 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 110 recites “temporarily bonding a carrier to a first surface of a wafer of crystalline material with an intervening adhesive material, wherein the adhesive material is provided directly over a first surface of the wafer of crystalline material and one or more epitaxial layers on the first surface of the wafer of crystalline material, wherein the wafer of crystalline material has a damage region at a depth relative to the first surface.” This is interpreted as meaning that the wafer of crystalline material with an epitaxial layer on a first surface already has an existing damage region at a depth relative to the first surface when it is bonded to the carrier. This is necessarily the case because the claim is describing an existing structure of the wafer of crystalline material upon being bonded to the carrier rather than a future process that is to be performed on it. After further review it has been determined that the specification as originally filed does not appear to teach or suggest that a damage region is formed at a depth relative to a first surface on a wafer that has one or more epitaxial layers formed on the first surface prior to being bonded to the carrier. In Fig. 18L the specification appears to teach that a laser damage region (209) is produced on a substrate (192) having epitaxial layers (203) formed on a first surface (201). However, the laser damage region (209) is formed within the wafer (192) after an epitaxial layer (203) is formed on the wafer (192) and bonded to the carrier (208) via an adhesive (207) rather than before. Consequently, the specification as originally filed does not teach or suggest forming a laser damage region beneath a first surface of a wafer having epitaxial layers on the first surface before being bonded to the carrier as recited in the context of claim 110. Dependent claims 112-113, 115-120, 127, 129, and 138-139 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 110.
New claim 138 depends from claim 110 and recites that “the damage region is formed subsequent to temporarily bonding the carrier to the first surface of the wafer of crystalline material.” However, claim 110 recites that the wafer of crystalline material already has a damage region when it is temporarily bonded to the carrier. As such, the specification does not appear to teach or suggest forming the same damage region before and after temporarily bonding the wafer of crystalline material to the carrier.
New claim 139 depends from claim 117 which, in turn, depends from claim 110 and recites that “inducing the damage region in the wafer of crystalline material with the one or more lasers comprises: applying the one or more lasers through a second surface of the crystalline material, the second surface being opposite the first surface of the crystalline material.” However, since claim 110 recites that the wafer of crystalline material already has a damage region when it is temporarily bonded to the carrier, the limitations recited in claim 139 therefore mean that the damage region is formed by applying the laser through the second surface of the wafer of crystalline material (i.e., the surface that is opposite the bonding surface) prior to being bonded to the carrier. Applicants contend that support for new claim 139 may be found in ¶[00221] and Fig. 18L of the specification. However, Fig. 18L shows that the laser damage region (209) formed through the second surface (202) is produced after the wafer (192) has been bonded to the carrier (208) rather than before. Consequently, the specification as originally filed does not teach or suggest forming a laser damage region through a second surface of the wafer before being bonded to the carrier using a first surface as recited in the context of claim 139.
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.
Claim 138 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
New claim 138 depends from claim 110 and recites that “the damage region is formed subsequent to temporarily bonding the carrier to the first surface of the wafer of crystalline material.” However, claim 110 recites that the wafer of crystalline material already has a damage region when it is temporarily bonded to the carrier. It is unclear how the same damage region can be formed both before and after the wafer of crystalline material is temporarily bonded to the carrier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 110-112, 116, 119, and 129 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2014/0197419 to Henley, et al. (hereinafter “Henley”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2014/0087504 to Li, et al. (“Li”).
Regarding claim 110, Henley teaches a semiconductor processing method (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-36, and entire reference), comprising:
temporarily bonding a carrier to a first surface of a wafer of crystalline material with an intervening adhesive material (see, e.g., Figs. 24-31 and ¶¶[0186]-[0215] which teach that a rigid workpiece (2501) is bonded to a top surface (2403) of a crystalline substrate such as a GaN wafer (2400) with ¶[0197] specifically teaching that the bonding may be achieved using an adhesive material),
wherein the adhesive material is provided directly over a first surface of the wafer of crystalline material (see, e.g., Figs. 24-31 and ¶¶[0186]-[0215] which teach that the GaN wafer (2400) includes material region to be removed (2401) above a subsurface damage region (2411) with ¶[0197] specifically teaching that the bonding may be achieved using an adhesive material which necessarily involves applying the adhesive material directly over a top surface (2403) of the material region (2401) of the GaN wafer (2400)),
wherein the wafer of crystalline material has a damage region at a depth relative to the first surface in the substrate (see, e.g., Figs. 24-31 and ¶¶[0186]-[0215] which teach that the subsurface damage region (2411) is formed beneath a top surface (2403) of the crystalline substrate (2400) using energetic particles (2409)),
fracturing the wafer of crystalline material along or proximate to the damage region to yield a bonded assembly comprising the carrier, the adhesive material, and a portion of the crystalline substrate (see, e.g., Figs. 24-31 and ¶¶[0186]-[0215] which teach that a controlled cleaving action is initiated to remove the crystalline substrate (2400) and produce a bonded assembly comprising the rigid workpiece (2501), adhesive layer (2605), and the epitaxial layer (2401) removed from the crystalline substrate (2400)).
Henley does not teach that one or more epitaxial layers are on a first surface of the wafer of crystalline material. However, in Figs. 1-5 and ¶¶[0032]-[0075] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Li teaches an analogous method of generating a single crystal semiconductor layer in which OLED driving circuitry (12), logic/memory devices (14), and other functions (15) provided on the surface of a semiconductor substrate (10) are separated from the bulk of the substrate (10) by the spalling technique. It is noted that the driving circuitry (12), logic/memory devices (14), and other functions (15) must necessarily be comprised of or, alternatively, would be reasonably expected to be comprised of one or more epitaxial layers grown on the substrate (10) as part of a device fabrication process. Separation of the device layer in the method of Li is achieved by initially forming a stressor layer (20) and handle substrate (22) on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (10) and then cooling to temperatures below 20 °C such that the portion (10B) of the substrate (10) that contains the circuitry (12) and devices (14) is separated from the portion (10A) that does not. Portion (10A) may then be subject to additional device processing steps. Thus, person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Li and would readily recognize that the crystal material processing method of Henley may also be used to separate a top layer of a device wafer which includes electronic devices and/or driving circuitry formed by one or more epitaxial deposition processes from the bulk of the substrate with the motivation for doing so being to utilize a simpler separation process which produces a well-defined cleavage plane and requires fewer processing steps.
Regarding claim 111, Henley does not teach removing the carrier from the bonded assembly. However, in Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶[0072]-[0075] Li teaches that after the desired processing is performed on the spalled layer (10B), the handle substrate (22), the stressor layer (20), and the protection layer (18) are removed such that a free-standing structure is provided. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to remove the rigid workpiece (2501) and any remaining adhesive layer after the desired processing of the epitaxial layer (2401) has been performed in order to produce a free-standing structure which can be processed into individual devices.
Regarding claim 112, Henley does not teach removing the adhesive material from the bonded assembly. However, in Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶[0072]-[0075] Li teaches that after the desired processing is performed on the spalled layer (10B), the handle substrate (22), the stressor layer (20), and the protection layer (18) are removed such that a free-standing structure is provided. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to remove the rigid workpiece (2501) and any remaining adhesive layer after the desired processing of the epitaxial layer (2401) has been performed in order to produce a free-standing structure which can be processed into individual devices.
Regarding claim 116, Henley teaches that prior to temporarily providing the adhesive material on the wafer of crystalline material, the method comprises forming one or more conductive contacts on the one or more epitaxial layers (see, e.g., Figs. 24-31 and ¶¶[0186]-[0215] which teach forming a layer (2402) of one or more metal films on the epitaxial layer (2401) prior to providing an adhesive material; alternatively, in Fig. 1 and ¶[0032] Li teaches that the surface of the crystalline semiconductor substrate (10) includes driving circuitry (12) and logic and memory devices (14) which would necessarily entail forming one or more conductive contacts on a surface thereof).
Regarding claim 119, Henley teaches that the wafer of crystalline material comprises silicon carbide (see, e.g., ¶[0013], ¶[0097], and ¶[0233] which teach that the crystalline substrate (2400) may be a SiC substrate which necessarily would be in the form of a wafer).
Regarding claim 129, Henley teaches that fracturing the wafer of crystalline material along or proximate to the damage region to yield a bonded assembly comprises one or more of: application of ultrasonic energy to at least one of the carrier or the wafer of crystalline material; or applying a mechanical force to the carrier (see, e.g., Figs. 17-23 and ¶¶[0160]-[0170] which teach that selective energy placement provides a controlled cleaving action of the material region (12) and that the energy source may be mechanical in nature, derived from rotational, translational, compressional, and expansional forces (1701) and (1707) , and applied in the vicinity of the subsurface damaged region in order to initiate and propagate a cleaving action; thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Henley and would be motivated to apply a mechanical force to impart a bending moment to the rigid carriers in order to promote a more efficient cleaving action along the subsurface damaged region).
Claims 113 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley in view of Li and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0171045 to Berger, et al. (“Berger”).
Regarding claim 113, Henry and Li do not teach that fracturing the wafer of crystalline material along or proximate to the damage region comprises: temporarily bonding a second carrier to a second surface of the wafer of crystalline material, the second surface being opposite the first surface; and fracturing the wafer of crystalline material along or proximate to the damage region to yield a second bonded assembly comprising the second carrier and a second portion of the wafer of crystalline material. However, in Figs. 1-5 and ¶¶[0021]-[0150] Berger teaches an embodiment of a method for delaminating a thin layer from a semiconductor (10) such as SiC which includes bonding a first rigid carrier (20) to a first surface of the semiconductor (10) by means of a bonding layer (15), forming a delamination layer (13) within the semiconductor (10) by ion implantation, and bonding a second rigid carrier (22) to a second, opposite side of the semiconductor (10) by means of a second bonding layer (16). In ¶¶[0122]-[0130] Berger specifically teaches that a thermal treatment is utilized to cause mechanical tensions which result in separation of a thin layer (11) along the delamination layer (13). The separated compound structure (32) can then be reused in order to produce additional thin layers (11) of said semiconductor (10). Thus, in view of the teachings of Berger a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would readily recognize that separation of the material region (2401) along the subsurface damage region (2411) in Figs. 24-27 of Henley may be further facilitated by bonding an additional rigid carrier to a second surface of the substrate (2400) and then performing a thermal treatment which causes mechanical tensions that facilitates separation along the subsurface damage region (2411).
Claims 115 and 117-118 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley in view of Li and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0193691 to Hirata, et al. (“Hirata”).
Regarding claim 115, Henley and Li do not teach that the damage region is a laser damage region. However, in Figs. 1-8 and ¶¶[0027]-[0060] Hirata teaches an embodiment of a system and method for cleaving a wafer from a substrate by using a focused laser beam to initiate a cleavage plane. In Figs. 5-8 and ¶¶[0034]-[0054] Hirata specifically teaches that a cleavage plane may be formed in a crystalline ingot (11) by scanning a laser beam with a focal point at a depth (D1) across the surface of the ingot (11) in a predetermined raster pattern such that a modified layer (23) with cracks (25) propagating therefrom is formed at a depth (D1) corresponding to the thickness of the wafer to be produced. This wafer may then be removed from the ingot (11) by initiating fracture along the modified layer (23). Thus, in view of the teachings of Hirata a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would readily recognize that the subsurface damage region (2411) produced in the method of Henley may be produced using a laser beam since this would involve nothing more than the use of an alternative and known technique for producing a cleavage plane according to its intended use. The specific motivation for using a laser instead of ion implantation to produce a subsurface damage region would be, for example, to benefit from the use of a technique which is readily available and does not require a consumable product such as a source of implanted ions.
Regarding claim 117, Henley and Li do not teach that the method comprises: inducing the damage region in the wafer of crystalline material with one or more lasers. However, in Figs. 1-8 and ¶¶[0027]-[0060] Hirata teaches an embodiment of a system and method for cleaving a wafer from a substrate by using a focused laser beam to initiate a cleavage plane. In Figs. 5-8 and ¶¶[0034]-[0054] Hirata specifically teaches that a cleavage plane may be formed in a crystalline ingot (11) by scanning a laser beam with a focal point at a depth (D1) across the surface of the ingot (11) in a predetermined raster pattern such that a modified layer (23) with cracks (25) propagating therefrom is formed at a depth (D1) corresponding to the thickness of the wafer to be produced. This wafer may then be removed from the ingot (11) by initiating fracture along the modified layer (23). Thus, in view of the teachings of Hirata a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would readily recognize that the subsurface damage region (2411) produced in the method of Henley may be produced using a laser beam since this would involve nothing more than the use of an alternative and known technique for producing a cleavage plane according to its intended use. The specific motivation for using a laser instead of ion implantation to produce a subsurface damage region would be, for example, to benefit from the use of a technique which is readily available and does not require a consumable product such as a source of implanted ions.
Regarding claim 118, Henley teaches removing a rounded edge of the wafer of crystalline material prior to inducing the damage region in the wafer of crystalline material with one or more lasers (see, e.g., ¶¶[0187]-[0190] which teach that the bonding surfaces may be treated in order to promote good bondability by, for example, a clean/etch chemical bath that removes asperities and surface contaminants; moreover, the clean/etch chemical bath will necessarily remove a portion of the rounded edge of the substrate as claimed).
Claims 120 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley in view of Li and further in view of a Brewer Science Product literature for BrewerBOND 220 dated August 27, 2014 (hereinafter “Brewer”).
Regarding claim 120, Henley and Li do not teach that the adhesive material comprises a thermoplastic material. However, in ¶[0197] Henley teaches that wafer bonding may be achieved using an adhesive material and then Brewer teaches an embodiment of a thermoplastic wafer bonding adhesive known as BrewerBOND 220 which is suitable for use as a temporary wafer bonding material during compound semiconductor wafer processes in the 200 to 240 °C range. Thus, in view of the teachings of Brewer an ordinary artisan would be motivated to utilize a thermoplastic material such as BrewerBOND 220 as an adhesive material since this is a known thermoplastic material that would function according to its intended use in the method of Henley.
Claim 127 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley in view of Li and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0000415 to D’Evelyn, et al. (“D’Evelyn”).
Regarding claim 127, Henley and Li do not teach that the carrier has a thickness of 800 mm or more. However, in ¶¶[0044]-[0047] Henley teaches that the handle substrate is designed as a rigid carrier having a thickness sufficient to support and facilitate handling of the thin crystalline layer that is cleaved from the crystalline substrate. In this case the thickness of the handle substrate (i.e., the rigid carrier) is directly proportional to its rigidity and is therefore considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In ¶¶[0046]-[0047] Henley specifically teaches that the handle substrate may be any monocrystal material and may be further supported by a backing substrate in the form of a Si wafer or quartz handle substrate. Then in Figs. 1d-1g and ¶¶[0031]-[0041] D’Evelyn teaches an analogous method of transferring an epitaxial layer (105) from a single crystal (101) to a handle substrate (117). In ¶[0018] D’Evelyn specifically teaches that the nitride crystal used as the single crystal (101) in Figs. 1d-1g may have a thickness of between 100 mm to 100 mm. Thus, in view of the combined teachings of Henley and D’Evelyn an ordinary artisan would recognize the desirability of utilizing a handle substrate having a thickness sufficient to impart the desired rigidity. Furthermore, it would have been within the capabilities of an ordinary artisan to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal handle substrate thickness necessary to provide the desired level of support and rigidity to the fractured crystalline material. Since the teachings of D’Evelyn show that the single crystal may have a thickness of 100 mm to 100 mm an ordinary artisan would reasonably expect to utilize a rigid carrier having an analogous thickness which includes the claimed range of greater than 800 microns.
Claim 138 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley in view of Li and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2014/0038392 to Yonehara, et al. (“Yonehara”).
Regarding claim 138, Henley and Li do not teach that the damage region is formed subsequent to temporarily bonding the carrier to the first surface of the wafer of crystalline material. However, in Figs. 6-7 and ¶¶[0070]-[0076] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Yonehara teaches an analogous method of transferring a device layer present on a donor wafer to a handle substrate. As shown in Figs. 6A-B the device layer is first bonded to the handle substrate and this is then followed by forming a damage region by irradiating a laser from a back side of the donor wafer in order to produce a splitting layer which facilitates release of the device layer. In this manner it is possible to reuse the host wafer for multiple device layer formation and release cycles. Moreover, by irradiating the laser from the back side of the donor wafer the potential for damaging the device layer by having the laser pass therethrough is minimized. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Yonehara and would recognize that the damage region formed in the method of Henley may be reinforced and/or supplemented after being bonded to the carrier by irradiation with a laser from a back side of the wafer of crystalline material in order to promote ease of detachment of the wafer of crystalline material from the carrier.
Claim 139 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley in view of Li and further in view of Hirata and still further in view of Yonehara.
Regarding claim 139, Henley, Li, and Hirata do not teach that inducing the damage region in the wafer of crystalline material with the one or more lasers comprises applying the one or more lasers through a second surface of the wafer of crystalline material, the second surface being opposite the first surface of the wafer of crystalline material. However, in Figs. 6-7 and ¶¶[0070]-[0076] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Yonehara teaches an analogous method of transferring a device layer present on a donor wafer to a handle substrate. As shown in Figs. 6A-B the device layer is first bonded to the handle substrate and this is then followed by forming a damage region by irradiating a laser from a back side of the donor wafer in order to produce a splitting layer which facilitates release of the device layer. In this manner it is possible to reuse the host wafer for multiple device layer formation and release cycles. Moreover, by irradiating the laser from the back side of the donor wafer the potential for damaging the device layer by having the laser pass therethrough is minimized. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Yonehara and would recognize that the damage region formed in the method of Henley may be reinforced and/or supplemented after being bonded to the carrier by irradiation with a laser from a back side of the wafer of crystalline material in order to promote ease of detachment of the wafer of crystalline material from the carrier.
Response to Arguments
The claim amendments dated February 17, 20, have been entered. The new grounds of rejection as set forth in this Office Action were necessitated by applicants’ amendment to claim 110 and introduction of new claims 138-139. It is noted that it is the Examiner’s position that the method disclosed in Figs. 18H-O of the specification is independent and distinct from the method that is currently recited in independent claim 110 and, hence, would be withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention if the claims were amended to recite the method of Figs. 18H-O.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714