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 .
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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 10/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification has misspelled amorphized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2-7, 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2-7, 10 and 17 have misspelled amorphized.
Claim 10 has misspelled center
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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, 4-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonar et al. (US Patent No. 10,698,158; hereinafter Bonar).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches a semiconductor structure comprising:
a semiconductor membrane (annotated “membrane” in Fig. 1a above), wherein the semiconductor membrane has at least one amorphised area 110 and an active area 106a, wherein the at least one amorphised area is adjacent the active area such that the at least one amorphised area exerts strain on the active area, wherein the semiconductor membrane comprises a surface layer 106,108 and a subsurface layer (“sub-surf”), wherein the surface layer comprises the active area 106a and the at least one amorphised area 110, and the subsurface layer is crystalline (col. 2, lines 42-44), such that the semiconductor membrane exhibits bi- material bowinq where the semiconductor membrane has been amorphised.
Bonar teaches the semiconductor membrane having at least one amorphised area adjacent to an active area. The recitations to “such that the at least one amorphised area exerts strain on the active area” and “such that the semiconductor membrane exhibits bi- material bowinq where the semiconductor membrane has been amorphized” are properties and/or characteristics of the material compositions (i.e. the combination and placement of amorphized and crystalline materials). The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., strain and bowing) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Where 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 (CCPA1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709,15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 4, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the active area 106a surrounds a first amorphised area (see Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 5, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the first amorphised area 106a has a circular shape (see Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c) or an elongated shape.
Regarding claim 6, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the at least one amorphized 110 area surrounds a first active area 106a (see Fig. 1b or Fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 7, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the at least one amorphised area 106a comprises an annulus (circular shape) and wherein the first active area is located in the center of the annulus (see Fig.1b and Fig.1c).
Regarding claim 8, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Although, Bonar teaches the active area has a circular shape, he does not explicitly teach the active area has an elongated shape.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the size of the active area to be more elongated or more compressed; since, the court has held changes in size normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below (MPEP § 2144).
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.05(IV)(A) “[W]here the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” see
in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where 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), see Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and see in re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 12, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the active area defines a crystalline structure (col. 3, lines 28-45).
Regarding claim 13, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the crystalline structure is orientated such that anisotropy is exhibited in the surface plane of the active area of the crystalline structure (col. 4).
Regarding claim 14, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the semiconductor membrane (“membrane”) comprises or consists of a group IV element, a Ill-V compound semiconductor or a group IV alloy (col. 2-col. 3).
Regarding claim 15, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the semiconductor membrane (“membrane”) comprises or consists of silicon, germanium, silicon-germanium, doped silicon or doped germanium (col. 2-col. 3).
Regarding claim 16, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches a semiconductor device, an optical amplifier or an optoelectronic device (micro-LED device) comprising the semiconductor structure of any of claim 1 (see col. 2-col. 5).
Regarding claim 17, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches a method of introducing strain into a crystalline semiconductor membrane comprising:
providing a crystalline semiconductor membrane (annotated “membrane” in Fig. 1a above), defining at least one implantation area 110 and an active area 106a adjacent the at least one implantation area on the surface of the semiconductor membrane (see Fig. 1a), and implanting ions into the at least one implantation area of the semiconductor membrane such that the semiconductor membrane becomes amorphised (col. 3, lines 28-44) in the at least one implantation area causing the semiconductor membrane to exhibit bi-material bowing where the semiconductor membrane has been amorphised and causing strain in the active area.
Bonar teaches the semiconductor membrane having at least one amorphised area adjacent to an active area. The recitations to “causing the semiconductor membrane to exhibit bi-material bowing where the semiconductor membrane has been amorphised and causing strain in the active area” are properties and/or characteristics of the material compositions (i.e. the combination and placement of amorphized and crystalline materials). The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., strain and bowing) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Where 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 (CCPA1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709,15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonar et al. (US Patent No. 10,698,158; hereinafter Bonar).
Regarding claim 3, refer to Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c provided above, Bonar teaches the surface layer take up a thickness portion of the semiconductor membrane. He does not explicitly teach the thickness of the surface layer is between 40 and 60% of the thickness of the semiconductor membrane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the size/proportion of the surface layer to occupy more or less of a thickness of the semiconductor membrane since the court has held changes in size/proportion normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below (MPEP § 2144).
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.05(IV)(A) “[W]here the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” see
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where 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), Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Prior Art
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Lo et al. (PG Pub 2015/0155433) teaches a light-emitting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 9-11 and 18-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 9, the elongate shape defines an aspect ratio of between 150:1 and 2:1, between 100:1 and 3:1 or between 75:1 and 4:1.
Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 10, The ratio between the maximum width of the amorphised area and the maximum width of the first active area is between 1:50 and 200:1, between 1:25 and 100:1, between 1:10 and 75:1, between 1:5 and 50:1, between 1:1 and 40:1, between 2:1 and 30:1 or between 5:1 and 20:1.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 11, teaches the semiconductor membrane has a plurality of active areas.
Claim 18 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 18, implanting ions comprises implanting noble gas ions. Claim 19 would be allowable, because it depends on allowable claim 18.
Claim 20 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 20,
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 21, implanting ions into the at least one implantation area to a depth of between 40 and 60% of the thickness of the semiconductor membrane.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817