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 .
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.
Claim 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 discloses “in method step A.1 a pulse duration of the anode pulse essentially corresponds to a length of the cathode pulse”. The examiner does not understand what the “a length of the cathode pulse” is measuring. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, the examiner will not apply art to claim 3.
Claim 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 discloses “the semiconductor component layer structure is separated from the germanium substrate (1), before the semiconductor component layer structure is separated from the germanium substrate (1)”. The examiner does not understand “the semiconductor component layer structure is separated from the germanium substrate (1), before the semiconductor component layer structure is separated from the germanium substrate (1)”. The examiner will apply prior art to “the semiconductor component layer structure is separated from the germanium substrate”.
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, 2, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Terheiden et al. (DE102009004560) (the paragraph citations are to the English translation of DE102009004560).
Regarding claim 1, Terheiden et al. disclose step :A. providing a germanium substrate (wafer) [0053] having a processing side and a rear side opposite the processing side, and electrochemical processing at least of the processing side of the germanium substrate with at least the following processing steps: A.0 passivating the processing side (exposing to an etchant HF)[0053,0056,0057] (HF is mentioned in 0056, 0057), the processing side being polarized as a cathode (not reversed)[0053], A.1 etching of the processing side, the processing side being alternately polarized in an anode pulse as an anode and in a cathode pulse as a cathode [0053, reversed at intervals], A.2 electrochemical passivation of the processing side of the germanium substrate (1), the processing side being polarized as a cathode[0053, not reversed]; A.3 etching of the processing side, the processing side being alternately polarized in an anode pulse as an anode and in a cathode pulse as a cathode[0053, reversed at intervals]; B. reorganization of the processing side, the germanium substrate (1) being heated to a temperature of greater than 500°C [0055].
Regarding claim 2, Terheiden et al. disclose the same method and materials therefore one of ordinary skill would expect a dendritic layer on the processing side by method step A.1. MPEP 2112.01 discloses “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claim 11, Terheiden et al. disclose method step B at least one of i) heating is effected to a temperature in a range from 600°C [0055].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terheiden et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of Garralaga Rojas “Mesoporous Germanium Layer Formation by Electrochemical Etching” (provided in IDS filed 11/30/23).
Terheiden et al. disclose the invention above.
Terheiden et al. fails to disclose comprising carrying out method step A.1 for a period of greater than 15 minutes.
Garralaga Rojas disclose carrying out for a period of greater than 15 minutes (27 minutes first/starting layer)(fig. 5.17 and page 51 first paragraph,).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the etching time), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (increasing the etching time will allow one to tailor how much material is etched).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terheiden et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of Garralaga Rojas “Mesoporous Germanium Layer Formation by Electrochemical Etching” (provided in IDS filed 11/30/23).
Terheiden et al. disclose the invention above.
Terheiden et al. fails to disclose an etching current density is in a range from 0.1 mA/cm2 to 1 mA/cm2.
Garralaga Rojas disclose in method step A.1 an etching current density is in a range from 0.9 mA/cm2(fig. 5.17 and page 51 first full paragraph).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the current density), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (changing the current density will tailor the etching).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terheiden et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of Garralaga Rojas “Mesoporous Germanium Layer Formation by Electrochemical Etching” (provided in IDS filed 11/30/23).
Terheiden et al. disclose the invention above.
Terheiden et al. fails to disclose carrying out method step A.3 for a period in a range from 3 minutes to 1 hour.
Garralaga Rojas disclose method of forming a third layer for a period in a range from 3 minutes to 1 hour (38 minutes, duration for third layer etching)(fig. 5.17 and page 51 first full paragraph).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing etching duration), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (increasing the etching time will allow one to tailor how much material is etched).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terheiden et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of Garralaga Rojas “Mesoporous Germanium Layer Formation by Electrochemical Etching” (provided in IDS filed 11/30/23).
Terheiden et al. disclose the invention above.
Terheiden et al. fails to disclose a pulse duration in at least one of method step A.1 or method step A.3 is in each case less than 10 seconds
Garralaga Rojas disclose a pulse duration in the etching of the starting layer is in each case less than 10 seconds (cathodic step/pulse 5 seconds)(fig. 5.17 and page 51 first full paragraph).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the current density), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (increasing the etching time will allow one to tailor how much material is etched).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terheiden et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of Garralaga Rojas “Mesoporous Germanium Layer Formation by Electrochemical Etching” (provided in IDS filed 11/30/23).
Terheiden et al. disclose the invention above.
Terheiden et al. fails to disclose method step A.0 or method step A.2 is carried out for a period of greater than 10 seconds.
Garralaga Rojas disclose a the starting layer with constant potential for 60 minutes(fig. 5.14 and page 50 first partial paragraph).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the duration), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (increasing passivation time will allow one to tailor how much material is passivated).
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terheiden et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of Arvinte Roxana et al. “Eptiaxial lift off process for III-V solar cells using porous germanium for substrate re-use” (disclosed in IDS filed 11/30/23).
Terheiden et al. disclose the invention above.
Terheiden et al. fails to disclose applying a semiconductor component layer structure directly or indirectly to the processing side of the germanium substrate, the semiconductor component layer structure having at least a first layer of germanium or of compound semiconductors comprising elements of main groups 3 and 5 of the Periodic Table.
Arvinte Roxana et al. disclose applying a semiconductor component layer structure directly or indirectly to the processing side of the germanium substrate, the semiconductor component layer structure having at least a first layer of germanium or of compound semiconductors comprising elements of main groups 3 and 5 of the Periodic Table (figure 1 and description of figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Terheiden et al. and Arvinte Roxana et al. because the formation of the III-V material on the porous Ge substrate would allow one to reuse the Ge substrate and the method provide advantages of low cost, large surface area, and compatible with microfabrication steps (Arvinte Roxana et al. p1977, left column first paragraph).
Regarding claim 21, Arvinte Roxana et al. disclose the first layer of the semiconductor component layer structure consists of germanium (fig 1d, porous germanium) and the semiconductor component layer structure has multiple layers of compound semiconductors (the III-V layer has a top middle and bottom which can be considered layers)(figure 1 and description of figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Arvinte Roxana et al. disclose the semiconductor component layer structure is separated from the germanium substrate (figure 1 and description of figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, Arvinte Roxana et al. disclose the germanium substrate (1) is used multiple times, and, after removing the semiconductor component layer structure as a first semiconductor component layer structure(figure 1 and description of figure 1, reuse of Ge wafer)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 14-19 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817