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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
1. Claims 1-15, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi (US 2021/0035793) in view of Kando et al. (US 9,385,301; hereinafter Kando).
Regarding claim 1, Yi, in figs. 1-3, discloses a method comprising: providing a donor substrate 200 of a first material and a carrier substrate 100 of a second material; bonding the donor substrate 200 to the carrier substrate 100 (fig. 1); thinning the donor substrate 200, so as to form a heterostructure comprising the thinned donor substrate 200 on the carrier substrate 100 (fig. 2); removing a peripheral portion from the donor substrate 200 (fig. 3).
Yi fails to disclose a method of transferring a layer from a heterostructure to a receiver substrate.
However, Kando discloses a method of transferring a layer to a receiver substrate comprising: forming a weakened region 4 in the donor substrate 2 so as to delimit a layer of the first material 3 to be transferred (fig. 1B); bonding the donor substrate 2 to a receiver substrate 10 (fig. 1C), the layer of the first material 3 to be transferred being located at the bonding interface; and detaching the donor substrate 2 along the weakened region 4 so as to transfer the layer of the first material 3 to the receiver substrate 10 (fig. 1D). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a process of transferring a layer to a receiver substrate as taught by Kando, since the known advantages of the above transfer process is that the donor substrate can be recycled to form a donor substrate on which a new active layer is formed and transferred, or a new support substrate can be manufactured. In addition, it is possible to reuse the donor substrate there is an advantage in terms of cost in mass production.
Regarding claim 2, Yi discloses wherein the removing of the peripheral portion from the donor substrate 200 is carried out before the bonding of the donor substrate 200 to the carrier substrate 100 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Yi discloses wherein the removing of the peripheral portion from the donor substrate 200 is carried out after the bonding of the donor substrate 200 to the carrier substrate 100 (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Yi discloses wherein the removing of the peripheral portion from the donor substrate 200 further comprises removing a peripheral portion from the carrier substrate 100 (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Yi discloses wherein the removing of the peripheral portion from the donor substrate 200 is carried out after the donor substrate 200 has been at least partly thinned (figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Yi discloses wherein the donor substrate 200 is bonded to the carrier substrate 100 via a polymeric bonding layer 101 (fig. 1).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, although the width of the peripheral portion removed from the donor substrate is not exactly as claimed (300-1000µm or 1-3mm), this claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges 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 8, Yi discloses wherein the bonding of the donor substrate 200 to the carrier substrate 100 comprises bonding the donor substrate 200 to the carrier substrate 100 via molecular adhesion 101 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Yi discloses wherein the removing of the peripheral portion from the donor substrate comprises: placing the donor substrate on a carrier that is rotatably movable about a first axis; and machining the donor substrate using an abrasive wheel rotating about a second axis parallel to the first axis, the abrasive wheel further being driven in translation along the second axis ([0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Yi discloses wherein the removing of the peripheral portion from the donor substrate comprises: placing the donor substrate on a carrier that is rotatably movable about a first axis; and machining the donor substrate using an abrasive wheel rotating about a second axis perpendicular to the first axis ([0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Yi discloses further comprising polishing the donor substrate 200 after the removing of the peripheral portion from the donor substrate 200 (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Yi discloses wherein the donor substrate 200 comprises a piezoelectric material or a semiconductor material ([0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Yi discloses wherein the thickness of the thinned donor substrate is between 10-15µm ([0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Yi discloses wherein the carrier substrate comprises silicon ([0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Kando discloses wherein the receiver substrate 10 comprises silicon (col. 5, lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 20, Yi and Kando discloses wherein the carrier substrate (Yi, [0049]) and the receiver substrate (Kando, col. 5, lines 13-14) comprise materials exhibiting a difference in coefficient of thermal expansion smaller than or equal to 5% in terms of absolute value.
Regarding claim 21, Yi and Kando discloses wherein the carrier substrate (Yi, [0049]) and the receiver substrate (Kando, col. 5, lines 13-14) are formed of one and the same material.
Regarding claim 22, Kando discloses wherein a thickness of the transferred layer 3 is about 1 µm (col. 6, lines 11-12).
2. Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi (US 2021/0035793) in view of Kando et al. (US 9,385,301; hereinafter Kando); and further in view of Bourdelle et al. (US 7,229,898; hereinafter Bourdelle).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yi and Kando fails to disclose the receiver substrate is a silicon substrate including a charge-trapping layer.
However, Bourdelle discloses the substrate is a silicon substrate including a charge-trapping layer comprising silicon carbide (col. 7, lines 45-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a receiver substrate material as taught by Bourdelle, since 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 16, Bourdelle discloses before the bonding of the donor substrate to the receiver substrate, forming an intermediate layer on the receiver substrate (col. 7, lines 45-64).
Regarding claim 17, Bourdelle discloses wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more materials selected from among silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, aluminum nitride, tantalum oxide, or a stack of layers formed of at least two of the one or more materials (col. 7, lines 45-64).
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-1798. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm. 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 attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke H can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/DAVID VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818