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 Group II, claims 2-24 in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 25-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 2-24 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a “.” at the end of the claim 19. 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 2-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 2 “A method of growing an epitaxial layer, comprising growing an epitaxial layer…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “epitaxial layer” refers to the previously recited “epitaxial layer” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 3-24 are rejected because they depend on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bozler et al (US 4816420 A, “Bozler”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler et al (US 4816420 A, “Bozler”).
Regarding claim 2, Bozler (entire document) teaches a method of growing an epitaxial layer, comprising growing an epitaxial sheet/film/layer 18 over a structure comprising a crystalline substrate 10 and a mask 12 comprising a plurality of elongated domains (figs 1-18 and 39-41, col 1 lines 15-21; col 2 line 66 to col 3 line 10; col 6 lines 20 to col 8 line col 45; col 8 lines 9-27; col 12 lines 4-15 and lines 35-45; col 13 lines 3-40; col 18 lines 5-20), each elongated domain having long edges (fig 39), such that elongated domains are between the epitaxial layer 18 and the crystalline substrate 10 (fig 39); and separating the epitaxial layer 10 and the crystalline substrate 10 from each other (figs 1-20 and 39, col 3 lines 15-32; col 6 lines 51-65; col 7 line 15 to col 8 line 68; col 10 lines 10-55; col 20 lines 12-25); wherein the elongated domains of the mask 12 are not connected to each other (figs 2B, 10B/10C, 11A/11B, 15A, 20C, 23 and 39); and the mask 12 (elongated domains) occupy at least 50% of a facial surface area of the crystalline substrate 10 (figs 39A). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate, and further teaches that the crystalline substrate comprises silicon (col 1 line 54; col 14 lines 20-21; col 15 lines 12-13; col 24 lines 5).
Regarding claim 14, Bozler teaches the epitaxial layer, and further teaches that the epitaxial layer comprises silicon (col 10 lines 36; col 24 line 22-23; col 26 lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 15, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate, and further teaches that the crystalline substrate comprises germanium (col 22 line 6).
Regarding claim 16, Bozler teaches the epitaxial layer, and further teaches that the epitaxial layer comprises germanium (col 1 line 54; col 26 lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 17, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate, and further teaches that the crystalline substrate comprises compound semiconductor (col 7 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 18, Bozler teaches the epitaxial layer, and further teaches that the epitaxial layer comprises compound semiconductor (col 26 lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 19, Bozler teaches the plurality of elongated domains cover at least 50% of the facial surface area of the crystalline substrate over which the epitaxial layer is grown (figs 2, 15 and 39).
Regarding claim 20, Bozler teaches that separating the epitaxial layer comprises peeling/exfoliating the epitaxial layer from the crystalline substrate (col 15 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 21, Bozler teaches separating the first epitaxial layer and the crystalline substrate from each other as addressed above, and further teaches the crystalline substrate is reusable for producing an additional epitaxial layer (fig 1, abstract and col 6 line 63-66), e.g., the epitaxial layer being a first epitaxial layer, and further g growing a second epitaxial layer over the structure.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Bozler teaches that each of the long edges is along the (110) direction (0° of parallel to a <110> direction) on the [100] plane ({100} plane) of the crystalline substrate (col 19 lines 38-50 and lines 63-66).
Regarding claim 24, Bozler teaches that an area of the epitaxial film/layer is about 3.8 cm or 2’x4’ (abstract, col 23 lines 20-21; col 21 line 65 to col 22 col 7).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US 20040000268 A1, “Wu”).
Regarding claim 3, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the crystalline substrate comprises a diamond cubic crystal structure. However, Wu teaches a method, wherein a diamond cubic substrate is used for producing epitaxial film (0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Wu in order to produce a with low-mismatched lightly strained epitaxial film (Wu 0028). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the crystalline substrate comprises a zinc blende crystal structure. However, Wu teaches a method, wherein a zinc blende substrate is used for producing epitaxial film (0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Wu in order to produce a with low-mismatched lightly strained epitaxial film (Wu 0028). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Moroz et al (US 20130065380 A1, “Moroz”).
Regarding claim 4, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the epitaxial layer comprises a diamond cubic crystal structure. However, Moroz teaches a method, wherein an epitaxial material has a diamond cubic crystal structure (0058, 0060, 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Moroz in order to produce a material for fabricating high-density integrated circuit devices with improved performance (Moroz 0004, 0009, 0058, 0060, 0063).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thompson et al (US 6518637 B1, “Thompson”),
Regarding claim 6, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the epitaxial layer comprises a zinc blende crystal structure. However, Thompson teaches a method, wherein an epitaxial material has a zinc blende crystal structure (abstract, col 2 lines 29-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Thompson in order to produce a material with various properties being useful for device fabrication (Thompson abstract and col 2 lines 15-67).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ho-Yuan Yu (US 20070267656 A1, “Yu”).
Regarding claim 7, Bozler teaches the crystalline substrate and the epitaxial layer, but does not explicitly teach that a polarity of the crystalline substrate is different than a polarity of the epitaxial layer. However, Yu teaches a method, wherein an epitaxial layer is in opposite/different polarity of a substrate (0020, 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Yu in order to provide device structures with improved transistor speed (Yu 0003, 0006, 0020, 0022).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 20230223494 A1, “Chen”).
Regarding claim 8, Bozler teaches the mask, but does not explicitly teach that the mask comprises a 2D material. However, Chen teaches a method, wherein the mask comprises a 2D material (0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Chen in order to provide suitable material for fabricating devices (Chen 0001).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brabant et al (US 20040219735 A1, “Brabant”).
Regarding claim 9, Bozler teaches the epitaxial layer, but does not explicitly teach that the epitaxial layer comprises a threading dislocation density of less than or equal to 10⁷ threading dislocations per cm². However, Brabant teaches a method, wherein an epitaxial layer comprises a threading dislocation density of about 10⁷ threading dislocations per cm² or less (0043, 0111, 0119, 0123 and 0125). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Brabant in order to provide epitaxial layers with high quality for manufacturing devices (Brabant 0043, 0111, 0119, 0123 and 0125).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bao et al (US 20170004968 A1, “Bao”).
Regarding claim 10, Bozler teaches the epitaxial layer, but does not explicitly teach that the epitaxial layer comprises a surface anti-phase domain density of less than or equal to 10⁶ anti-phase domains per cm². However, Bao teaches a method, wherein an epitaxial layer is free of a surface anti-phase boundaries (e.g., anti-phase domain density of less than or equal to 10⁶ anti-phase domains per cm²) (abstract, 0002, 0004, 0005, 0021, 0032, 0042, claims 3, 4 and 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Bao in order to produce layers of material with high quality for making devices (Bao 0002-0005).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sandhu et al (US 20210233810 A1, “Sandhu”).
Regarding claim 11, Bozler teaches the plurality of elongated domains, but does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of elongated domains has an aspect ratio of at least 10:1. However, Sandhu teaches a method, wherein the elongated features has an aspect ratio of at least about 5:1 (0004, 0062). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Sandhu in order to provide suitable material for fabricating device with improved reliability (Sandhu 0001, 0002, 0007-0009, 0062, 0066). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Baron et al (US 20150079766 A1, “Baron”).
Regarding claim 12, Bozler teaches the plurality of elongated domains, but does not explicitly teach that an average nearest neighbor distance among the plurality of elongated domains is less than or equal to 10 micrometers. However, Baron teaches a method, wherein a distance between making patterns is approximately a few tens of nanometers to a few hundreds of nanometers (0028 and claim 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Bozler per teachings of Baron in order to provide epitaxial materials with good crystalline quality exhibiting a low density of dislocations for applications in the field of microelectronics, photonics, optoelectronics and photovoltaics (Baron 0002, 0008 and 0043). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luo et al (CN 114649196 A, machine translation) teaches an area of a substrate covered by patterned mask layer is greater than 70% (n0018).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights