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.
The term “softened” in claims 21 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “softened” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the thermosetting resin must be compared to or measured by to be considered softened.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 31-32, 35-36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Konishi (US 20200058541 A1).
Regarding claim 31, the claim language “wherein the thermoset resin is bonded in a softened state” recites an intermediate process step that does not affect the structure of the final device. Therefore, the process limitations recited in a product by process claim would not carry patentable weight in a claim drawn to structure because distinct structure is not necessarily produced. See MPEP 2113. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Additionally, Konishi discloses a compound semiconductor bonded substrate (Fig. 1b) in which a compound semiconductor functional layer (Layers 11, 12, and 13) is bonded with a support substrate (15) via a thermosetting resin (16; para. 30 "As the adhesive for temporary bonding 16, it is possible to use an adhesive containing thermosetting modified silicone").
Regarding claim 32, Konishi discloses wherein the thermosetting resin is applied to have a thickness of 107 µm in thickness (Para. 40 "First, TA1070 T as a device protecting layer was laminated by 10 μm, TA2570V3 as a layer to be a release surface of the supporting substrate 15 after processing was laminated by 7 μm, and TA4070 as an adhesive layer with the supporting substrate 15 was laminated by 90 μm"). However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 35, Konishi discloses wherein a silicon oxide film or a silicon nitride film (Figs. e-g, layer 18; Para. 34 "As the adhesive for transfer 18 to be applied… it is preferable to use a silicone resin", where silicone is known to be formed of SiO) is formed on a surface of the compound semiconductor functional layer to which the support substrate is not bonded (Figs. e-g show 18 bonded to the side of the compound semiconductor functional layer which are not bonded to the support substrate 15).
Regarding claim 36, Konishi discloses wherein a silicon oxide film or a silicon nitride film (Figs. e-g, layer 18; Para. 34 "As the adhesive for transfer 18 to be applied… it is preferable to use a silicone resin", where silicone is known to be formed of SiO) is formed on a surface of the compound semiconductor functional layer to which the support substrate is not bonded (Figs. e-g show 18 bonded to the side of the compound semiconductor functional layer which are not bonded to the support substrate 15).
Regarding claim 39, Konishi discloses wherein the support substrate comprises any of AlN, Al2O3, Cu, GaAs, GaN, GaP, InP, Si, SiC, and SiO2 (Para. 34 "As the transfer substrate 17 to be used... it is preferable to use sapphire, alumina, an AIN sintered body...").
Regarding claim 40, Konishi discloses wherein the support substrate comprises any of AlN, Al2O3, Cu, GaAs, GaN, GaP, InP, Si, SiC, and SiO2 (Para. 34 "As the transfer substrate 17 to be used... it is preferable to use sapphire, alumina, an AIN sintered body...").
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.
Claims 21-24, 29-30, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 20200058541 A1) in view of Hu (US 20140159066 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Konishi discloses a method of manufacturing a compound semiconductor bonded substrate comprising the steps of: growing a compound semiconductor functional layer (Fig. 1a, layers 12 and 13) on a starting substrate (11); temporarily bonding a support substrate (Fig. 1b, 15) to the grown surface to form a first compound semiconductor bonded substrate; removing the starting substrate from the first compound semiconductor bonded substrate to form a second compound semiconductor bonded substrate (Fig. 1d); finally bonding a surface of the second compound semiconductor bonded substrate from which the starting substrate has been removed to a permanent substrate (Fig. 1e, 17) to form a third compound semiconductor bonded substrate; and removing the support substrate from the third compound semiconductor bonded substrate to form a fourth compound semiconductor bonded substrate (Figs. 1g-h), wherein the temporary bonding in step 2 is performed via a thermosetting resin (Fig. 1b, bonding 16; para. 30 "As the adhesive for temporary bonding 16, it is possible to use an adhesive containing thermosetting modified silicone"), the thermosetting resin being maintained in a softened state without being cured (para. 40 “an adhesive for temporary bonding 16 was laminated and applied on the surface… by spin coating”, spin coating is a process known to be used to form films of soft/viscous materials, and the thermoset resin was therefore in a softened state without having been cured), and the final bonding in step 4 is performed via a silicon oxide film or a silicon nitride film (Figs. e-g, layer 18; Para. 34 "As the adhesive for transfer 18 to be applied… it is preferable to use a silicone resin", where silicone is known to be formed of SiO). However, Konishi does not disclose the compound semiconductor functional layer being grown by an epitaxial growth process.
On the other hand, Hu discloses functional semiconductor layers being grown by an epitaxial growth process (Para. 56 "Increase of adhesion between the sacrificial release layer 440 and the stabilization layer 450 may prevent delamination between the layers due to the stress of the device layer resulting from heterogeneous epitaxial growth of device layer").
Regarding claim 22, Konishi discloses wherein the thermosetting resin is applied to have a thickness of 107 µm in thickness (Para. 40 "First, TA1070 T as a device protecting layer was laminated by 10 μm, TA2570V3 as a layer to be a release surface of the supporting substrate 15 after processing was laminated by 7 μm, and TA4070 as an adhesive layer with the supporting substrate 15 was laminated by 90 μm"). However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 23, Hu further discloses wherein the thermosetting resin is a benzocyclobutene (BCB) resin, a fluororesin, or a polyimide (PI) resin (Fig. 1F, stabilization layer 150; para. 41 "a stabilization layer 150 formed of an adhesive bonding material. In accordance with some embodiments, the adhesive bonding material is a thermosetting material such as benzocyclobutene"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to replace the thermosetting silicone of Konishi with the BCB resin of Hu for BCB’s higher curing temperature, which would facilitate maintaining a softened state during manufacturing steps (Konishi para. 40 “the bonded body was treated in an oven at 190° C”; Hu para. 43 “stabilization layer 150 is cured at a temperature or temperature profile ranging between 150° C. and 300° C”).
Regarding claim 24, Hu discloses wherein the thermosetting resin is a benzocyclobutene (BCB) resin, a fluororesin, or a polyimide (PI) resin (Fig. 1F, stabilization layer 150; para. 41 "a stabilization layer 150 formed of an adhesive bonding material. In accordance with some embodiments, the adhesive bonding material is a thermosetting material such as benzocyclobutene"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to replace the thermosetting silicone of Konishi with the BCB resin of Hu for BCB’s higher curing temperature, which would facilitate maintaining a softened state during manufacturing steps (Konishi para. 40 “the bonded body was treated in an oven at 190° C”; Hu para. 43 “stabilization layer 150 is cured at a temperature or temperature profile ranging between 150° C. and 300° C”).
Regarding claim 29, Konishi discloses wherein the support substrate comprises any of AlN, Al2O3, Cu, GaAs, GaN, GaP, InP, Si, SiC, and SiO2 (Para. 34 "As the transfer substrate 17 to be used... it is preferable to use sapphire, alumina, an AIN sintered body...").
Regarding claim 30, Konishi discloses wherein the support substrate comprises any of AlN, Al2O3, Cu, GaAs, GaN, GaP, InP, Si, SiC, and SiO2 (Para. 34 "As the transfer substrate 17 to be used... it is preferable to use sapphire, alumina, an AIN sintered body...").
Regarding claim 33, Konishi discloses the compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 31. However, Konishi does not disclose wherein the thermosetting resin is a benzocyclobutene (BCB) resin, a fluororesin, or a polyimide (PI) resin.
On the other hand, Hu discloses wherein the thermosetting resin is a benzocyclobutene (BCB) resin, a fluororesin, or a polyimide (PI) resin (Fig. 1F, stabilization layer 150; para. 41 "a stabilization layer 150 formed of an adhesive bonding material. In accordance with some embodiments, the adhesive bonding material is a thermosetting material such as benzocyclobutene"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to replace the thermosetting silicone of Konishi with the BCB resin of Hu for BCB’s higher curing temperature, which would facilitate maintaining a softened state during manufacturing steps (Konishi para. 40 “the bonded body was treated in an oven at 190° C”; Hu para. 43 “stabilization layer 150 is cured at a temperature or temperature profile ranging between 150° C. and 300° C”).
Regarding claim 34, Konishi discloses the compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 32. However, Konishi does not disclose wherein the thermosetting resin is a benzocyclobutene (BCB) resin, a fluororesin, or a polyimide (PI) resin.
On the other hand, Hu discloses wherein the thermosetting resin is a benzocyclobutene (BCB) resin, a fluororesin, or a polyimide (PI) resin (Fig. 1F, stabilization layer 150; para. 41 "a stabilization layer 150 formed of an adhesive bonding material. In accordance with some embodiments, the adhesive bonding material is a thermosetting material such as benzocyclobutene"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to replace the thermosetting silicone of Konishi with the BCB resin of Hu for BCB’s higher curing temperature, which would facilitate maintaining a softened state during manufacturing steps (Konishi para. 40 “the bonded body was treated in an oven at 190° C”; Hu para. 43 “stabilization layer 150 is cured at a temperature or temperature profile ranging between 150° C. and 300° C”).
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 20200058541 A1) in view of Hu (US 20140159066 A1) as applied to claims 21-24, 29-30, and 33-34 above, and further in view of Nishimura (US 20220314357 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Konishi in view of Hu discloses the method of manufacturing a compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 21. However, Konishi in view of Hu does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less.
On the other hand, Nishimura discloses wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less (Fig. 13, SiO2 bonding layer 22; para. 183 "Since the contact area affects the adhesion strength, increase in the adhesion strength requires smoothing the surfaces to be in contact with each other. In Embodiment 1, the SiO2 bonding layers to be in contact with each other have roughness of Ra=0.3 nm and Ra=0.5 nm, thus having enough smoothness for bonding."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Konishi in view of Hu according to the teachings of Nishimura such that the silicon oxide film would have a surface roughness of 1 nm or less, in order to improve adhesion to the permanent substrate.
Regarding claim 26, Konishi in view of Hu discloses the method of manufacturing a compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 22. However, Konishi in view of Hu does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less.
On the other hand, Nishimura discloses wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less (Fig. 13, SiO2 bonding layer 22; para. 183 "Since the contact area affects the adhesion strength, increase in the adhesion strength requires smoothing the surfaces to be in contact with each other. In Embodiment 1, the SiO2 bonding layers to be in contact with each other have roughness of Ra=0.3 nm and Ra=0.5 nm, thus having enough smoothness for bonding."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Konishi in view of Hu according to the teachings of Nishimura such that the silicon oxide film would have a surface roughness of 1 nm or less, in order to improve adhesion to the permanent substrate.
Regarding claim 27, Konishi in view of Hu discloses the method of manufacturing a compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 23. However, Konishi in view of Hu does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less.
On the other hand, Nishimura discloses wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less (Fig. 13, SiO2 bonding layer 22; para. 183 "Since the contact area affects the adhesion strength, increase in the adhesion strength requires smoothing the surfaces to be in contact with each other. In Embodiment 1, the SiO2 bonding layers to be in contact with each other have roughness of Ra=0.3 nm and Ra=0.5 nm, thus having enough smoothness for bonding."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Konishi in view of Hu according to the teachings of Nishimura such that the silicon oxide film would have a surface roughness of 1 nm or less, in order to improve adhesion to the permanent substrate.
Regarding claim 28, Konishi in view of Hu discloses the method of manufacturing a compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 24. However, Konishi in view of Hu does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less.
On the other hand, Nishimura discloses wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less (Fig. 13, SiO2 bonding layer 22; para. 183 "Since the contact area affects the adhesion strength, increase in the adhesion strength requires smoothing the surfaces to be in contact with each other. In Embodiment 1, the SiO2 bonding layers to be in contact with each other have roughness of Ra=0.3 nm and Ra=0.5 nm, thus having enough smoothness for bonding."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Konishi in view of Hu according to the teachings of Nishimura such that the silicon oxide film would have a surface roughness of 1 nm or less, in order to improve adhesion to the permanent substrate.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 20200058541 A1) as applied to claims 31-32, 35-36, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Nishimura (US 20220314357 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Konishi discloses the compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 35. However, Konishi does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less.
On the other hand, Nishimura discloses wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less (Fig. 13, SiO2 bonding layer 22; para. 183 "Since the contact area affects the adhesion strength, increase in the adhesion strength requires smoothing the surfaces to be in contact with each other. In Embodiment 1, the SiO2 bonding layers to be in contact with each other have roughness of Ra=0.3 nm and Ra=0.5 nm, thus having enough smoothness for bonding."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Konishi according to the teachings of Nishimura such that the silicon oxide film would have a surface roughness of 1 nm or less, in order to improve adhesion to the permanent substrate.
Regarding claim 38, Konishi discloses the compound semiconductor bonded substrate according to claim 36. However, Konishi does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less.
On the other hand, Nishimura discloses wherein the silicon oxide film or the silicon nitride film has a surface roughness Ra of 1 nm or less (Fig. 13, SiO2 bonding layer 22; para. 183 "Since the contact area affects the adhesion strength, increase in the adhesion strength requires smoothing the surfaces to be in contact with each other. In Embodiment 1, the SiO2 bonding layers to be in contact with each other have roughness of Ra=0.3 nm and Ra=0.5 nm, thus having enough smoothness for bonding."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Konishi according to the teachings of Nishimura such that the silicon oxide film would have a surface roughness of 1 nm or less, in order to improve adhesion to the permanent substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. 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, 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights