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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C, claims 12-15, 17, 19-20, and 23-24 in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16, 18, 21, and 22 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, where the laser radiation is introduced only into gaps in a lateral surface that do not contain any metallization, as found in claim 15, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). From the drawings, it does not appear that the laser is introduced into any gap. Rather the laser is introduced into the termination region 141 of a device, in a region having totally flat, uninterrupted lateral surfaces: and therefore no gaps.
Also, though the claim recites “introduced only into gaps in a lateral surface”, the laser is shown in Fig. 6A to be introduced also in other parts of the vertical semiconductor device, such as being introduced into drift layer 101.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12-15, 17, 19-20, and 23-24 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.
(Re Claims 12 and 24) As no definition was provided in the specification, it is unclear what is required by “foreign substrate”. Does the substrate need to consist of materials that are all different from another material in the semiconductor layer structure? From all materials in the semiconductor layer structure? Or does the foreign substrate need only comprise a material different from another material in the semiconductor layer structure?
During examination, a “foreign substrate” was understood to require a substrate comprising a material different from another layer in the semiconductor layer structure.
Claims 14-15, 17, 19-20, and 23 inherit this rejection for indefiniteness.
(Re Claim 15) As the drawings do not show “the laser radiation is introduced only into gaps in a lateral surface that do not contain any metallization”, as the laser is not shown to enter through gaps in a lateral surface and so also does not show a laser introduced solely into gaps in a lateral surface as claimed, what is required of the cited limitation above is unclear.
During examination, the cited limitation was read as “the laser radiation is introduced into a lateral surface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motonobu et al. (US 2015/0060943), of record from IDS.
(Re Claim 24) Motonobu teaches a semiconductor device based on gallium nitride (Fig. 40, ¶124) and at least two electrodes (380+390; Fig. 40) arranged vertically one above the other, wherein the semiconductor layer structure is grown on a substrate, the semiconductor device having been produced by:
formation of a semiconductor layer structure including at least one layer based on gallium nitride on the substrate, the substrate being a foreign substrate; and introduction of laser radiation into the semiconductor layer structure or the substrate, wherein a wavelength of the laser radiation is greater than an optical band gap of gallium nitride, so that the laser radiation causes at least the substrate to separate from at least part of the semiconductor layer structure.
Claim 24 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed semiconductor layer structure and device need not be respectively formed by the process of growing on a substrate; and the formation and introduction steps recited in the claim. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
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.
Claims 12-13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motonobu et al. (US 2015/0060943) and Chuang et al. (US 2022/0108924), all of record from IDS.
(Re Claim 12) Motonobu teaches a method for producing a vertical semiconductor device including a semiconductor layer structure for forming a semiconductor device based on gallium nitride (Fig. 40, ¶124) and at least two electrodes (380+390; Fig. 40) arranged vertically one above the other, wherein the semiconductor layer structure is grown (¶120) on a substrate (301), the method comprising the following method steps:
forming a semiconductor layer structure (302+305; Fig. 30) including at least one layer based on gallium nitride (305; ¶¶122, 124) on the substrate, the substrate being a foreign substrate (SiC; ¶120);
introducing laser radiation (¶138) to separate the substrate from the semiconductor layer structure (Fig. 39, ¶138). Motonobu has not been explicitly shown to teach a method comprising introducing laser radiation into the semiconductor layer structure or the substrate, wherein a wavelength of the laser radiation is greater than an optical band gap of gallium nitride, so that the laser radiation causes at least the substrate to separate from at least part of the semiconductor layer structure.
Chuang teaches introducing laser radiation into a semiconductor layer structure (102+104+106); Fig. 1A), wherein a wavelength of the laser radiation is greater than an optical band gap of gallium nitride (otherwise it would be absorbed at the top of the GaN stack of 106), so that the laser radiation causes at least a substrate (100; Fig. 1C) to separate (Fig. 1D) from at least part of the semiconductor layer structure (at least from 104; Fig. 1D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to introduce the laser radiation into the semiconductor layer structure from the top of the semiconductor layer structure seen in Motonobu’s, as taught by Chuang, to utilize the reusable silicon carbide substrate of Chuang (Chuang: ¶52) which reduces costs.
(Re Claim 13) Modified Motonobu teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the vertical semiconductor device is a transistor (¶119).
(Re Claim 15) Modified Motonobu teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein a vertically upper metallization (374+380; Fig. 39) of the semiconductor layer structure is formed prior to the introduction of the laser radiation and the laser radiation is introduced only into gaps in a lateral surface (the topmost surface of 305; Fig. 39) that do not contain any metallization (see the 112(b) rejection).
(Re Claim 17) Modified Motonobu teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the separation takes place along a surface of the substrate (Chuang: the break in 102 is along the topmost surface of the substrate as seen in Fig. 1B).
(Re Claim 19) Modified Motonobu teaches the method according to claim 12, but has not been explicitly shown to teach the method wherein: (i) the semiconductor layer structure is produced on the substrate and/or layers applied on the substrate, the substrate having been previously already been separated by laser radiation from a semiconductor layer structure applied thereon, and/or (ii) after at least the substrate is separated from at least part of the semiconductor layer structure, the substrate and/or the layers remaining on the substrate after the separation are prepared for reuse of the substrate to form a semiconductor layer structure based on gallium nitride.
Chuang teaches preparing the substrate for reuse to form another semiconductor layer structure based on gallium nitride, after separating the substrate from a prior semiconductor layer structure (¶52).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to reuse the substrate after at least the substrate is separated from at least part of the semiconductor layer structure, wherein the substrate and/or the layers remaining on the substrate after the separation are prepared for reuse of the substrate to form a semiconductor layer structure based on gallium nitride, as taught by Chuang, to reduce costs (¶52).
(Re Claim 20) Modified Motonobu teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein, after the separation of at least the substrate, a vertically lower electrode (390; Fig. 40) is deposited or grown on the semiconductor layer structure.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motonobu et al. (US 2015/0060943), of record, and Chuang et al. (US 2022/0108924), of record, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ravi et al. (US 2024/0006243).
(Re Claim 14) Modified Motonobu teaches the method according to claim 12, but has not been explicitly shown to teach wherein, prior to the introduction of the laser radiation, a carrier material: (i) is arranged on a side of the semiconductor layer structure facing away from the substrate, and/or (ii) is bonded to the semiconductor layer structure.
Ravi teaches forming a carrier material (1900; Fig. 19) before introducing laser radiation (2020; Fig. 20) on a side of the semiconductor layer structure (1400; Fig. 20) facing away from a substrate (100; Fig. 20).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to arrange a carrier material on a side (top side; Fig. 38) of the semiconductor layer structure facing away from the substrate, as taught by Ravi, to handle the layers involved in the method without damaging the epitaxially grown layers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motonobu et al. (US 2015/0060943), of record, and Chuang et al. (US 2022/0108924), of record, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Schustereder et al. (US 2021/0159115).
(Re Claim 23) Modified Motonobu teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the separation using the laser radiation is supported by a coupling of ultrasound and/or megasound into: (i) the substrate, and/or (ii) the semiconductor layer structure.
Schustereder teaches using laser radiation supported by coupling ultrasound into a substrate (“or (iii) ultrasonic treatment of the semiconductor substrate. For example, the at least one additional process (i)-(iii) may be applied during and/or after irradiating the silicon carbide wafer with the light of the target wavelength” (¶34)).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to support the laser radiation by coupling ultrasound into the substrate, as taught by Schustereder, to enhance separation of the substrate from the semiconductor layer structure by providing additional heating (Schustereder: ¶34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akita teaches an energy graph for various elements (¶13).
Harle et al. (US 2009/0117711) teaches separating an InGaN layer (4; Fig. 1B-1C).
Sugawara (US 2011/0133216) teaches a metallization (41A) blocking an incident laser (70; Fig. 6C).
Faurie et al. (US 2015/0076512) teaches introducing radiation through an epitaxial layer (209; Fig. 2D) instead of through a substrate (205; Fig. 2D, ¶71).
Li et al. (US 2020/0235321) teaches shielding active layers from ultraviolet light using electrodes (¶50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights