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 of Invention I (Claims 1-16 readable thereon) in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 contains the phrase, “the first crystal direction and the second crystal direction intersect along the first major surface of the donor substrate at a angle”. It is believed this claim should read, “the first crystal direction and the second crystal direction intersect along the first major surface of the donor substrate at an angle”, and the instant application will be examined a such. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 contains the phrase, “separating (1) the processing substrate and a device portion of the donor substrate and (2) the carrier substrate and a remaining portion of the donor substrate from each other.”. It is unclear whether this limitation ought to be interpreted as “the processing substrate is to be separate from a device portion of the donor substrate and the carrier substrate is to be separated from a remaining portion of the donor substrate ” or “the processing substrate and the device portion are to be separated from the carrier substrate and a remaining portion of the donor substrate”. In the interest of compact prosecution, and as a courtesy, the claim will be examined as though the intended meaning is that of the latter. Appropriate correction is required, and claims 2-12 are dependent upon claim 1, and therefore they inherit the above deficiencies.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 contains the phrase, “separating (1) the processing substrate and a device portion of the donor substrate and (2) the carrier substrate and a remaining portion of the donor substrate from each other.”. It is unclear whether this limitation ought to be interpreted as “the processing substrate is to be separate from a device portion of the donor substrate and the carrier substrate is to be separated from a remaining portion of the donor substrate ” or “the processing substrate and the device portion are to be separated from the carrier substrate and a remaining portion of the donor substrate”. In the interest of compact prosecution, and as a courtesy, the claim will be examined as though the intended meaning is that of the latter. Appropriate correction is required, and claims 14-16 are dependent upon claim 13, and therefore they inherit the above deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donofrio et al (USPGPUB 20200211850, hereinafter “Donofrio”).
Regarding Claim 1, Donofrio teaches (Figs. 15A-15D) a process, comprising: bonding a carrier substrate (147’) to a first major surface of a donor substrate (146); generating a laser damage zone (143) within the donor substrate (146); bonding a processing substrate (147) to a second major surface of the donor substrate (146), wherein the second major surface is opposite the first major surface; and separating (Fig. 15D, the processing substrate 147 and the carrier substrate 147’ are seen separated with a device portion 146A seen attached to the processing substrate 147 and a remaining portion 146B attached to the carrier substrate 147’) (1) the processing substrate (147) and a device portion (146A) of the donor substrate and (2) the carrier substrate (147’) and a remaining portion of the donor substrate (146B) from each other.
Regarding Claim 3, Donofrio teaches (Figs. 15A-15D; Figs. 2, 3 and 5, 7) the process of claim 1, wherein: after bonding the carrier substrate (147’) to the first major surface of the donor substrate (146), the donor substrate (146) has a set of cleavage planes (Fig. 2, m-planes) that intersects the first major surface along a crystal direction, and generating the laser damage (143) zone comprises traversing a laser in a laser direction that is within 5% of being perpendicular to the crystal direction (an inherent embodiment of the disclosure is one where the laser damage direction 42 intersects a cleavage m-plane of the sic substrate material ).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Donofrio teaches (Figs. 15A-15D; Figs. 2, 3 and 5, 7) the process of claim 1, wherein: after bonding the carrier substrate (147’) to the first major surface of the donor substrate (146), the donor substrate (146) has a first set of first cleavage planes and a second set of second cleavage planes (a group of 2 a-planes, such as that of a1 and a2 in annotated Fig. 2 above, within the SiC crystal are inherently understood to intersect the first major surface, the top surface, of the SiC substrate), wherein the first set of first cleavage planes intersects the first major surface along a first crystal direction, the second set of second cleavage planes intersects the first major surface along a second crystal direction, (there are a variety of a-planes, such as that of a1 and a2 in annotated Fig. 2 above that intersect each other at an angle, and for those 2 m-planes to intersect the first major surface along a crystal direction) and the first crystal direction and the second crystal direction intersect along the first major surface of the donor substrate at an angle, and generating the laser damage zone comprises traversing a laser in a laser direction that is within 5% of bisecting the angle (a-planes of the SiC material would meet at an angle that would be understood to be bisected by a laser damage direction 42).
Regarding Claim 5, Donofrio teaches the process of claim 1, further comprising polishing the device portion of the donor substrate ([0192], “Thereafter, a top side of the crystalline material substrate is ground or polished, such as to provide an average surface roughness R.sub.a of less than about 5 nanometers to prepare the surface for transmitting laser energy”) after separating (1) the processing substrate (147) and a device portion (146A) of the donor substrate and (2) the carrier substrate (147’) and a remaining portion of the donor substrate (146B) from each other.
Regarding Claim 8, Donofrio teaches the process of claim 1, wherein separating ((1) the processing substrate (147) and a device portion (146A) of the donor substrate and (2) the carrier substrate (147’) and a remaining portion of the donor substrate (146B) from each other comprises exposing the carrier substrate, the donor substrate, and the processing substrate to sonic energy ([ABSTRACT], “application of a mechanical force proximate to at least one carrier edge to impart a bending moment in the carrier; (ii) cooling the carrier when the carrier has a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than the crystalline material; and/or (iii) applying ultrasonic energy to the crystalline material.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Donofrio teaches the process of claim 1, wherein separating the processing substrate (147) and the device portion (146A) of the donor substrate (146) and the carrier substrate (147’) and the remaining portion of the donor substrate from each other comprises applying a mechanical force to (Fig. 15A-15D, a mechanical force is seen applied to the entire system, separating the different components using tool 166) the carrier substrate (147’), the donor substrate (146), and the processing substrate (147).
Regarding Claim 12, Donofrio teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the processing substrate includes sapphire, spinel, boron carbide, a refractory metal, a refractory metal nitride, or a refractory metal oxide, wherein sapphire, spinel, boron carbide, the refractory metal, the refractory metal nitride, or the refractory metal oxide has a melting point of at least 1500 °C and has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is within a range from 50% to 150% of a coefficient of thermal expansion of the donor substrate (Donofrio [0168], “a frontside carrier for a SiC substrate may be sapphire, which exhibits significant CTE mismatch relative to SiC”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 6, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biard (USPGPUB 20230197435) in view of Donofrio.
Regarding Claim 1, Biard teaches (Figs. 2C(vi) – 2D) a process, comprising: bonding (carrier substrate 11 is seen bonded to donor substrate 10 on the bottom surface of the donor substrate 10) a carrier substrate (11) to a first major surface (bottom surface) of a donor substrate (10); bonding a processing substrate (20) to a second major surface (top surface) of the donor substrate (10), wherein the second major surface (top surface) is opposite (top surface of donor substrate 10 is opposite its bottom surface) the first major surface (bottom surface); and separating (Fig. 2D, the processing substrate 20 and the carrier substrate 11 are seen separated, each with a respective portion of the donor substrate attached) (1) the processing substrate (20) and a device portion (Fig. 2D, 10) of the donor substrate (Fig. 2C(vi), 10) and (2) the carrier substrate (11) and a remaining portion (110’) of the donor substrate from each other.
Biard is silent with regards to generating a laser damage zone within the donor substrate.
Donofrio teaches (Fig. 9) generating a laser damage zone (66) within the donor substrate (60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to substitute the laser damaging process of Donofrio into the method of Biard in order to arrive at the expected result of creating a method with the known benefit of increased precision compared to implantation-based methods with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6, Biard in view of Donofrio teaches the process of claim 5, wherein, after polishing the device portion, the device portion has a thickness in a range from 11 microns to 99 microns (Biard [0112], “generating the c-SiC donor layer 110 with a thickness of 30 microns”).
Regarding Claim 9, Biard in view of Donofrio teaches the process of claim 1, wherein separating (Biard Fig. 2D, the processing substrate 20 and the carrier substrate 11 are seen separated, each with a respective portion of the donor substrate attached) the processing substrate (Biard 20) and a device portion (Fig. 2D of Biard, 10) of the donor substrate (Biard Fig. 2C(vi), 10) and the carrier substrate (11) and a remaining portion (Biard 110’) of the donor substrate from each other. comprises (Biard [0094], “the separation step d) is performed by applying a mechanical stress to the stack 211, optionally preceded by a heat treatment to embrittle the buried brittle plane”) heating, cooling, or both heating and cooling the carrier substrate, the donor substrate, and the processing substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Biard in view of Donofrio teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the donor substrate (Biard 10) includes monocrystalline SiC, and the processing substrate comprises SiC or Si3N4 (Biard [0096], “a composite structure 1 is obtained comprising a thin layer 10 made of monocrystalline silicon carbide arranged on a carrier substrate 20 made”),
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biard in view of Donofrio and in further view of Ravi et al (USPGPUB 20260206553, hereinafter “Ravi”).
Regarding Claim 13, Biard teaches (Figs. 2C(vi) – 2D) a process, comprising: bonding a carrier substrate (11) to a donor substrate (10); bonding a processing substrate (20) to the donor substrate; and separating (Fig. 2D, the processing substrate 20 and the carrier substrate 11 are seen separated, each with a respective portion of the donor substrate attached) (1) the processing substrate (20) and a device portion (Fig. 2D, 10) of the donor substrate (Fig. 2C(vi), 10) and (2) the carrier substrate (11) and a remaining portion (110’) of the donor substrate from each other.
Biard is silent with regards to generating a laser damage zone within the donor substrate.
Donofrio teaches (Fig. 9) generating a laser damage zone (66) within the donor substrate (60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to substitute the laser damaging process of Donofrio into the method of Biard in order to arrive at the expected result of creating a method with the known benefit of increased precision compared to implantation-based methods with reasonable expectation of success.
Biard in view of Donofrio is silent with regards to doping a part of the device portion with a dopant; and activating the dopant to form a doped region from the part of the device portion, wherein activating is performed at a temperature of at least 1500°C.
Ravi teaches doping a part of the device portion with a dopant (([0097], “dopants are implanted on a surface of device epitaxial layer”).); and activating the dopant to form a doped region from the part of the device portion, wherein activating is performed at a temperature of at least 1500°C ([0142], “It is necessary to protect the layer of heatable material 3610 from being removed by the reactive hydrogen at high temperatures since the epitaxial growth process is carried out in an epitaxial reactor at high temperatures (1500-1900)° C. and uses hydrogen annealing of the surface of patterned layer 3500 of silicon carbide substrate 3100”).
Regarding Claim 14, Biard in view of Donofrio and Ravi teaches the process of claim 13, further comprising: singulating the device portion and the processing substrate after annealing the device portion and the processing substrate to form a plurality of dies (Ravi [0115], “silicon carbide substrate 2200 with completed Schottky Barrier Diode 1950 is then diced and assembled in packages”).
Regarding Claim 16, Biard in view of Donofrio and Ravi teaches the process of claim 14, wherein a particular die of the plurality of dies includes a plurality of transistor structures (Ravi [0203], “forming a plurality of semiconductor devices 4200 on the prepared epitaxial silicon carbide substrate such as power transistors”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biard in view of Donofrio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ravi.
Regarding Claim 2, Biard in view of Donofrio teaches the process of claim 1, but is silent with regards to a process further comprising: heating the processing substrate and the device portion at a temperature of at least 1500°C after separating (1) the processing substrate (20) and the device portion of the donor substrate (10) and (2) the carrier substrate (11) and the remaining portion of the donor substrate from each other.
Ravi teaches a process of heating the processing substrate and the device portion at a temperature of at least 1500°C ([0142], “It is necessary to protect the layer of heatable material 3610 from being removed by the reactive hydrogen at high temperatures since the epitaxial growth process is carried out in an epitaxial reactor at high temperatures (1500-1900)° C. and uses hydrogen annealing of the surface of patterned layer 3500 of silicon carbide substrate 3100”) after the separation process (processing the substrate would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as being carried out after the substrate has been made by the separation process that produces it).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the annealing and device creation steps into the process of Baird in view of Donofrio in order to arrive at the expected result of impart utility to the substrate by incorporating it into a microelectronic device with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donofrio as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ravi.
Regarding Claim 7, Donofrio teaches the process of claim 5, but is silent with regards to a process further comprising forming an electronic circuit element at least partly within the device portion of the donor substrate.
Ravi teaches a process comprising forming an electronic circuit element at least partly within the device portion of the donor substrate ([0203], “forming a plurality of semiconductor devices 4200 on the prepared epitaxial silicon carbide substrate such as power transistors, integrated circuits, waveguides, passive components, or micro electro-mechanical systems,”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the device creation steps into the process of Donofrio in order to arrive at the expected result of impart utility to the substrate by incorporating it into a microelectronic device with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biard in view of Donofrio and Ravi as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Baur et al (USPGPUB 20040026699, hereinafter “Baur”).
Regarding Claim 15, Biard in view of Donofrio and Ravi teaches the process of claim 14, but is silent with regards to a process further comprising: wire bonding a lead of a leadframe and a terminal of a particular die of the plurality of dies to each other; or forming a conductive bump over the terminal of the particular die, such that the conductive bump and terminal are electrically coupled to each other.
Baur teaches a process further comprising: wire bonding a lead of a leadframe and a terminal of a particular die of the plurality of dies to each other; or forming a conductive bump over the terminal of the particular die, such that the conductive bump and terminal are electrically coupled to each other ([0028], “The n-contact metallization 13 is connected via a bond wire 17 to a connection part 18 of the leadframe 14.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the lead frame method of Baur into the process of Biard, Donofrio, and Ravi in order to arrive at the expected result of creating a device which has the known advantage of more application capability being coupled to another substrate via a lead frame-wire system with reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR J LASASSO whose telephone number is (703)756-5668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/V.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights