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 § 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 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreps (US 20060261327 A1) in view of Rao (US 7928425 B2), Tanada (US 20090002589 A1), and Rao (US 20060289049 A1, hereinafter Rao ‘049).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kreps discloses a semiconductor processing method (Fig. 6A) comprising:
forming a superlattice layer (25) on a donor semiconductor wafer (61), the superlattice layer comprising a plurality of stacked groups of layers ([0035]: “a plurality of layer groups 45a-45n arranged in stacked relation”), each group of layers comprising a plurality of stacked base semiconductor monolayers defining a base semiconductor portion ([0036]: “a plurality of stacked base semiconductor monolayers 46 defining a respective base semiconductor portion”), and at least one non-semiconductor monolayer constrained within a crystal lattice of adjacent base semiconductor portions ([0037]: “non-semiconductor monolayer constrained within a crystal lattice of adjacent base semiconductor portions”), […];
performing ion implantation on the donor semiconductor wafer ([0060]: “implanted with ions”) to create a separation layer (60) below the superlattice layer;
forming an oxide layer (37) on a base semiconductor wafer (21); […] bonding the donor semiconductor wafer to the base semiconductor wafer (Fig. 6B) so that the superlattice layer is spaced apart from the oxide layer by a thickness of semiconductor material (thickness of semiconductor material 39) […];
removing portions of the donor wafer at the separation layer from the donor wafer ([0062]: “cleave the first substrate 61 at the separation layer 60”) to define an active semiconductor layer above the superlattice layer ([0067]: “source and drain regions…the semiconductor layer 39…implantations in the semiconductor layer”);
and forming at least one electronic device in the active semiconductor layer ([0063]: “MOSFET” being the electronic device: [0067]: “source and drain regions” being inclusive therewith).
Kreps fails to teach “wherein not all available semiconductor bonding sites are populated with bonds to non-semiconductor atoms so that at least some semiconductor atoms from opposing base semiconductor portions are chemically bound together through the non-semiconductor monolayer therebetween”.
Rao discloses not all available semiconductor bonding sites are populated with bonds to non-semiconductor atoms (Col. 4, lines 32-52: “not all (i.e., less than full or 100% coverage) of available semiconductor bonding sites are populated with bonds to non-semiconductor atoms”) so that at least some semiconductor atoms from opposing base semiconductor portions are chemically bound together through the non-semiconductor monolayer therebetween (Col. 4, lines 32-52: “at least some semiconductor atoms from opposing base semiconductor portions 46a-46n are chemically bound together through the non-semiconductor monolayer 50 therebetween, with the chemical bonds traversing the intervening non-semiconductor monolayer”). Rao provides a teaching to motivate one to include the claimed bonding site configuration in the method in that it would enable adjustment of electrical properties of the superlattice layer, thereby enabling adjustment of the electrical properties of the resultant device (Col. 4, line 62-Col. 5, line 5: “to have a lower appropriate conductivity effective mass…to have a common energy band structure, while also advantageously functioning as an insulator between layers or regions vertically above and below the superlattice”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed bonding site configuration in the method because it would enable adjustment of the electrical properties of the resultant device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Kreps in view of Rao fails to teach “performing an ion beam treatment on the oxide layer”.
Tanada discloses performing an ion beam treatment ([0053]: “the surfaces which are to form a bond are irradiated with an atomic beam or an ion beam”) on the oxide layer ([0049]: “a silicon oxide film is formed as a bonding layer 104”). Tanada also teaches the ion beam treatment is useful in situations where the oxide layer is formed on the base wafer and then bonded to the semiconductor layer ([0051]: “semiconductor layer 102 and the base substrate 101 can be firmly bonded to each other when the bonding layer 104 […] is provided on either one or both surfaces of the base substrate 101 and the single-crystal semiconductor layer 102 which are to be bonded”). Modifying the method of Kreps in view of Rao by including the ion beam treatment of Tanada would arrive at the claimed method configuration. Tanada provides a teaching to motivate one to include the claimed ion beam treatment in the method in that it would improve bonding ([0053]: “to form a favorable bond”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed ion beam treatment in the method because it would improve bonding. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Kreps in view of Rao and Tanada fails to teach “the thickness of semiconductor material being less than 10nm”.
Rao ‘049 discloses the thickness of semiconductor material being less than 10nm ([0030]: “the semiconductor layer 39 may be a relatively thin monocrystalline silicon layer having a thickness of less than about 10 nm, and, more preferably, about 5 nm”). Rao ‘049 teaches a scenario where the semiconductor layer functioning as a substrate when forming the superlattice ([0030]: “acts as a “substrate” for the formation of the superlattice 25”). This scenario is an alternative to Kreps which teaches the semiconductor layer is added after the formation of the superlattice ([0059]: “silicon layer 39 is formed on the superlattice 25”). Nevertheless, in each scenario the semiconductor layer remains included in similar resultant devices (Kreps: Fig. 6C shows layer 39 remains in the resultant device [0063]: “SOI MOSFET”; Rao ‘049: Fig. 1 shows layer 39 remains in the resultant device [0059]: “SOI MOSFET”) and each reference teaches design consideration for thickness (Kreps: [0059]: “should be appropriate for either a partially or fully depleted device”; Rao ‘049: [0030]: “advantageously acts as a "substrate" for the formation of the superlattice”). Thus, the thickness of Rao '049 appears to be a range suitable for a similar structure that ultimately operates in the same way as Kreps.
Modifying the method of Kreps, Rao, and Tanada by having the thickness of semiconductor material (of Kreps) to include the known suitable range of Rao ‘049 would arrive at the claimed method configuration. The examiner points to MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) Gardner: “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”. In the instant case, both Kreps and Rao ‘049 teach similar devices ultimately operating in the same way (i.e., a SOI MOSFET) with the only difference being a recitation of thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method and thickness configuration because it is using a known suitable thickness for a similar device ultimately used in the same way. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the thickness of semiconductor material is less than 5nm (Rao ‘049: [0030]: “a thickness of less than about 10 nm, and, more preferably, about 5 nm”: the cited range in the claim 1 rejection fully encompassing the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the ion implantation comprises hydrogen ion implantation (Kreps: [0060]: “the substrate 61 is implanted with ions (e.g., hydrogen ions)”).
Regarding claim 4, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the ion beam treatment comprises an argon ion beam treatment (Tanada: [0053]: “inert gas ion beam of argon or the like can be used”).
Regarding claim 5, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising performing a heat treatment after removing portions of the donor wafer at the separation layer (Tanada: [0065]: “heat treatment of the substrate”).
Regarding claim 6, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising performing a surface smoothing on the active semiconductor layer after removing portions of the donor wafer at the separation layer (Tanada: [0135]: “surface polishing”).
Regarding independent claim 11, Kreps discloses a semiconductor processing method (Fig. 6A) comprising: forming a superlattice layer (25) on a donor semiconductor wafer (61), the superlattice layer comprising a plurality of stacked groups of layers ([0035]: “a plurality of layer groups 45a-45n arranged in stacked relation”), each group of layers comprising a plurality of stacked base semiconductor monolayers defining a base semiconductor portion ([0036]: “a plurality of stacked base semiconductor monolayers 46 defining a respective base semiconductor portion”), and at least one non-semiconductor monolayer constrained within a crystal lattice of adjacent base semiconductor portions ([0037]: “non-semiconductor monolayer constrained within a crystal lattice of adjacent base semiconductor portions”) […]; performing ion implantation on the donor semiconductor wafer ([0060]: “implanted with ions”) to create a separation layer (60) below the superlattice layer; forming an oxide layer (37) on a base semiconductor wafer (21); […] bonding the donor semiconductor wafer to the base semiconductor wafer (Fig. 6B) so that the superlattice layer is spaced apart from the oxide layer by a thickness of semiconductor material (thickness of semiconductor material 39) […]; removing portions of the donor wafer at the separation layer from the donor wafer ([0062]: “cleave the first substrate 61 at the separation layer 60”) to define an active semiconductor layer ([0067]: “source and drain regions…the semiconductor layer 39…implantations in the semiconductor layer”) above the superlattice layer; […] and forming at least one electronic device in the active semiconductor layer ([0063]: “MOSFET” being the electronic device: [0067]: “source and drain regions” being inclusive therewith).
Kreps fails to teach “wherein not all available semiconductor bonding sites are populated with bonds to non-semiconductor atoms so that at least some semiconductor atoms from opposing base semiconductor portions are chemically bound together through the non-semiconductor monolayer therebetween”.
Rao discloses not all available semiconductor bonding sites are populated with bonds to non-semiconductor atoms (Col. 4, lines 32-52: “not all (i.e., less than full or 100% coverage) of available semiconductor bonding sites are populated with bonds to non-semiconductor atoms”) so that at least some semiconductor atoms from opposing base semiconductor portions are chemically bound together through the non-semiconductor monolayer therebetween (Col. 4, lines 32-52: “at least some semiconductor atoms from opposing base semiconductor portions 46a-46n are chemically bound together through the non-semiconductor monolayer 50 therebetween, with the chemical bonds traversing the intervening non-semiconductor monolayer”). Rao provides a teaching to motivate one to include the claimed bonding site configuration in the method in that it would enable adjustment of electrical properties of the superlattice layer, thereby enabling adjustment of the electrical properties of the resultant device (Col. 4, line 62-Col. 5, line 5: “to have a lower appropriate conductivity effective mass…to have a common energy band structure, while also advantageously functioning as an insulator between layers or regions vertically above and below the superlattice”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed bonding site configuration in the method because it would enable adjustment of the electrical properties of the resultant device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Kreps in view of Rao fails to teach “performing an ion beam treatment on the oxide layer […] performing a surface smoothing on the active semiconductor layer and a heat treatment after removing portions of the donor wafer at the separation layer”.
Tanada discloses performing an ion beam treatment ([0053]: “the surfaces which are to form a bond are irradiated with an atomic beam or an ion beam”) on the oxide layer ([0049]: “a silicon oxide film is formed as a bonding layer 104”); performing a surface smoothing on the active semiconductor layer ([0135]: “polishing”) and a heat treatment after removing portions of the donor wafer at the separation layer ([0065]: “heat treatment”). Tanada also teaches the ion beam treatment is useful in situations where the oxide layer is formed on the base wafer and then bonded to the semiconductor layer ([0051]: “semiconductor layer 102 and the base substrate 101 can be firmly bonded to each other when the bonding layer 104 […] is provided on either one or both surfaces of the base substrate 101 and the single-crystal semiconductor layer 102 which are to be bonded”). Modifying the method of Kreps in view of Rao by including the ion beam treatment, surface smoothing, and heat treatment of Tanada would arrive at the claimed method configuration. Tanada provides a teaching to motivate one to include the claimed ion beam treatment in the method in that it would improve bonding ([0053]: “to form a favorable bond”); the claimed surface smoothing in that it would improve surface characteristics ([0135]: “polishing…the surface may be improved”); and the claimed heat treatment in that it would enable improved carrier mobility during operation of the resultant device ([0065]: “strain is applied…by the heat treatment”; [0024]: “improvement in mobility…strain”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed ion beam treatment, surface smoothing, and heat treatment in the method because it would respectively improve bonding, surface characteristics, and operational characteristics. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Kreps in view of Rao and Tanada fails to teach “the thickness of semiconductor material being less than 10nm”.
Rao ‘049 discloses the thickness of semiconductor material being less than 10nm ([0030]: “the semiconductor layer 39 may be a relatively thin monocrystalline silicon layer having a thickness of less than about 10 nm, and, more preferably, about 5 nm”). Rao ‘049 teaches a scenario where the semiconductor layer functioning as a substrate when forming the superlattice ([0030]: “acts as a “substrate” for the formation of the superlattice 25”). This scenario is an alternative to Kreps which teaches the semiconductor layer is added after the formation of the superlattice ([0059]: “silicon layer 39 is formed on the superlattice 25”). Nevertheless, in each scenario the semiconductor layer remains included in similar resultant devices (Kreps: Fig. 6C shows layer 39 remains in the resultant device [0063]: “SOI MOSFET”; Rao ‘049: Fig. 1 shows layer 39 remains in the resultant device [0059]: “SOI MOSFET”) and each reference teaches design consideration for thickness (Kreps: [0059]: “should be appropriate for either a partially or fully depleted device”; Rao ‘049: [0030]: “advantageously acts as a "substrate" for the formation of the superlattice”). Thus, the thickness of Rao '049 appears to be a range suitable for a similar structure that ultimately operates in the same way as Kreps.
Modifying the method of Kreps, Rao, and Tanada by having the thickness of semiconductor material (of Kreps) to include the known suitable range of Rao ‘049 would arrive at the claimed method configuration. The examiner points to MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) Gardner: “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”. In the instant case, both Kreps and Rao ‘049 teach similar devices ultimately operating in the same way (i.e., a SOI MOSFET) with the only difference being a recitation of thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method and thickness configuration because it is using a known suitable thickness for a similar device ultimately used in the same way. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the thickness of semiconductor material is less than 5nm from the oxide layer (semiconductor material 39 is directly on oxide layer 37, thus less than 5nm).
Regarding claim 13, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the ion implantation comprises hydrogen ion implantation (Kreps: [0060]: “the substrate 61 is implanted with ions (e.g., hydrogen ions)”).
Regarding claim 14, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the ion beam treatment comprises an argon ion beam treatment (Tanada: [0053]: “inert gas ion beam of argon or the like can be used”).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20180294182 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the ion implantation is performed: at a dosage in a range (Tanada: [0044]: “a high dose”) (claim 7) […]; at an accelerating voltage in a range ([0039]: “Accelerating voltage”) (claim 8) […]; however, fails to teach specific endpoints for the dosage range or accelerating voltage range (i.e., “wherein the ion implantation is performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1016/cm2 to 2x1017/cm2”, claim 7; “wherein the ion implantation is performed at an accelerating voltage in a range of 36-49keV”, claim 8). Nonetheless, Tanada teaches the dosage and accelerating voltage are chosen to effect the resultant separation layer ([0044]: “weakened layer”; [0039]: “weakened layer”).
Wang teaches an ion implantation in the same field of endeavor ([0046]: “sufficient to form a damage layer”) and further teaches the ion implantation is performed: at a dosage in a range of 5x1016/cm2 to 2x1017/cm2 ([0046]: 1012 to about 1017); at an accelerating voltage in a range of 36-49keV ([0046]: 1-3,000keV).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have substituted the ion implantation method step of Wang in place of the comparable known ion implantation method step of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049, and the results would have been predictable, because the ion implantation (of both Tanada and Wang) would have functioned the same as before to form a separation layer. Therefore, having the claimed dosage range or accelerating voltage range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because these known ranges would have obtained the predictable results of forming a separation layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stuber (US 20150179505 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 (Tanada: Fig. 3C) wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at a dosage in a range ([0053]: “argon”) […]; however, fails to teach specific endpoints for the dosage range (i.e., “wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2”). Nonetheless, Tanada teaches the dosage is chosen to improve bonding of wafer surfaces ([0053]: “form a favorable bond”).
Stuber discloses an ion beam treatment in the same field of endeavor wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2 ([0051]: “Argon at 3E14/cm2”). Additionally, Stuber teaches the dosage may be varied to effect the resultant bonding surface ([0051]: “the dose can also be varied”). Modifying the dosage range of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 to include the dosage range endpoints of Stuber would arrive at the claimed method and ion beam treatment dosage.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have substituted the dosage of Stuber in place of the comparable known dosage of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049, and the results would have been predictable, because the dosage (of both Tanada and Stuber) would have functioned the same as before to improve a bonding surface with argon ions. Therefore, having the ion beam treatment performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because this known dosage would have obtained the predictable results of an improved bonding surface. MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Further as to claim 9, with respect to the ion beam treatment dosage, i.e., in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2. Although Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 failed to disclose the dosage range, it has been held that numerical differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such numerical values of the dosage range is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the dosage range claimed and the Prior Art shows that the dosage range may be deliberately varied, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select suitable dosages (i.e., range endpoints) for the ion beam treatment in the method of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dosage or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (WO 2021092862 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 1 (Tanada, Fig. 3C) wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at an accelerating voltage in a range ([0053]: “irradiated”) […]; however, fails to teach specific endpoints for the accelerating voltage range (i.e., “wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at an accelerating voltage in a range of 7-12keV”). Nonetheless, Tanada teaches the accelerating voltage is chosen to improve bonding of wafer surfaces ([0053]: “form a favorable bond”).
Huang discloses an ion beam treatment in the same field of endeavor wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at an accelerating voltage in a range of 7-12keV (pg. 10 of translation: “0.1 kiloelectron volts (keV) to 400 keV is used to accelerate”). Additionally, Huang teaches the accelerating voltage may be varied to effect the resultant bonding surface (pg. 10 of translation: by selecting 20 keV from within the known suitable range). Modifying the accelerating voltage range of Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 to include the accelerating voltage range endpoints of Huang would arrive at the claimed method and ion beam treatment accelerating voltage range.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have substituted the accelerating voltage range of Huang in place of the comparable known accelerating voltage of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049, and the results would have been predictable, because the accelerating (of both Tanada and Huang) would have functioned the same as before to improve a bonding surface with argon ions. Therefore, having the ion beam treatment performed at an accelerating voltage in a range of 7-12keV would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because this known accelerating voltage would have obtained the predictable results of an improved bonding surface. MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Further as to claim 10, with respect to the ion beam treatment accelerating voltage, i.e., in a range of 7-12keV. Although Kreps, Rao. Tanada, and Rao ‘049 failed to disclose the accelerating voltage range, it has been held that numerical differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such numerical values of the accelerating voltage range is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the accelerating voltage range claimed and the Prior Art shows that the accelerating voltage range may be deliberately varied, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select suitable accelerating voltages (i.e., range endpoints) for the ion beam treatment in the method of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed accelerating voltage or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 15, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the ion implantation is performed at a dosage in a range (Tanada: [0044]: “a high dose”) (claim 7) […], and an accelerating voltage in a range ([0039]: “Accelerating voltage”) (claim 8) […]; however, fails to teach specific endpoints for the dosage range or accelerating voltage range (i.e., “wherein the ion implantation is performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1016/cm2 to 2x1017/cm2, and at an accelerating voltage in a range of 36- 49keV”, claim 8). Nonetheless, Tanada teaches the dosage and accelerating voltage are chosen to effect the resultant separation layer ([0044]: “weakened layer”; [0039]: “weakened layer”).
Wang teaches an ion implantation in the same field of endeavor ([0046]: “sufficient to form a damage layer”) wherein the ion implantation is performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1016/cm2 to 2x1017/cm2 ([0046]: 1012 to about 1017) and an accelerating voltage in a range of 36-49keV ([0046]: 1-3,000keV).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have substituted the ion implantation method step of Wang in place of the comparable known ion implantation method step of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049, and the results would have been predictable, because the ion implantation (of both Tanada and Wang) would have functioned the same as before to form a separation layer. Therefore, having the claimed dosage range and accelerating voltage range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because these known ranges would have obtained the predictable results of forming a separation layer. MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stuber in combination with Huang.
Regarding claim 16, Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at a dosage in a range (Tanada: [0053]: “argon”) […], and at an accelerating voltage in a range of 7-12keV (Tanada: [0053]: “irradiated”) […]; however, fails to teach specific endpoints for the dosage range (i.e., “wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2, and at an accelerating voltage in a range of 7-12keV”). Nonetheless, Tanada teaches the dosage and accelerating voltage are chosen to improve bonding of wafer surfaces ([0053]: “form a favorable bond”).
Stuber discloses an ion beam treatment in the same field of endeavor wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2 ([0051]: “Argon at 3E14/cm2”). Additionally, Stuber teaches the dosage may be varied to effect the resultant bonding surface ([0051]: “the dose can also be varied”). Modifying the dosage range of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 to include the dosage range endpoints of Stuber would arrive at the claimed method and ion beam treatment dosage.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have substituted the dosage of Stuber in place of the comparable known dosage of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049, and the results would have been predictable, because the dosage (of both Tanada and Stuber) would have functioned the same as before to improve a bonding surface with argon ions. Therefore, having the ion beam treatment performed at a dosage in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because this known dosage would have obtained the predictable results of an improved bonding surface. MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Further as to claim 9, with respect to the ion beam treatment dosage, i.e., in a range of 5x1013/cm2 to 5x1014/cm2. Although Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 failed to disclose the dosage range, it has been held that numerical differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such numerical values of the dosage range is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the dosage range claimed and the Prior Art shows that the dosage range may be deliberately varied, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select suitable dosages (i.e., range endpoints) for the ion beam treatment in the method of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dosage or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A).
Huang discloses an ion beam treatment in the same field of endeavor wherein the ion beam treatment is performed at an accelerating voltage in a range of 7-12keV (pg. 10 of translation: “0.1 kiloelectron volts (keV) to 400 keV is used to accelerate”). Additionally, Huang teaches the accelerating voltage may be varied to effect the resultant bonding surface (pg. 10 of translation: by selecting 20 keV from within the known suitable range). Modifying the accelerating voltage range of Kreps in view of Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049 to include the accelerating voltage range endpoints of Huang would arrive at the claimed method and ion beam treatment accelerating voltage range.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have substituted the accelerating voltage range of Huang in place of the comparable known accelerating voltage of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049, and the results would have been predictable, because the accelerating (of both Tanada and Huang) would have functioned the same as before to improve a bonding surface with argon ions. Therefore, having the ion beam treatment performed at an accelerating voltage in a range of 7-12keV would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because this known accelerating voltage would have obtained the predictable results of an improved bonding surface. MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Further as to claim 10, with respect to the ion beam treatment accelerating voltage, i.e., in a range of 7-12keV. Although Kreps, Rao. Tanada, and Rao ‘049 failed to disclose the accelerating voltage range, it has been held that numerical differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such numerical values of the accelerating voltage range is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the accelerating voltage range claimed and the Prior Art shows that the accelerating voltage range may be deliberately varied, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select suitable accelerating voltages (i.e., range endpoints) for the ion beam treatment in the method of Kreps, Rao, Tanada, and Rao ‘049.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed accelerating voltage or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to claims 1 and 11 “the oxide layer of Tanada is formed on what would be considered the donor wafer, not the base wafer”. Remarks at pg. 10
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner does not find Applicants remarks persuasive. Although the examiner does agree the oxide layer of Tanada: Fig. 2C is formed on a donor wafer instead of a base wafer, Tanada teaches the contended oxide layer/wafer configuration is a modification of that which is shown in the figures (Tanada: [0051]: “semiconductor layer 102 and the base substrate 101 can be firmly bonded to each other when the bonding layer 104 […] is provided on either one or both surfaces of the base substrate 101 and the single-crystal semiconductor layer 102 which are to be bonded”). Accordingly, the examiner does not find the arguments persuasive and maintains the rejection for the same reasons as before. Remarks have been added to the rejection for clarity of the record.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to claims 1 and 11 that “the Examiner is using impermissible hindsight to combine disjoint teachings of Rao ‘049 with the other three references”. Remarks. at pg. 10
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner does not find Applicant’s remarks persuasive. Rao '049 teaches the semiconductor layer functioning as a substrate when forming the superlattice ([0030]: “acts as a “substrate” for the formation of the superlattice 25”). This is an alternative scenario as in the Kreps reference which teaches the semiconductor layer is added after the formation of the superlattice ([0059]: “silicon layer 39 is formed on the superlattice 25”). Nevertheless, in each scenario the semiconductor layer remains included in similar resultant devices (Kreps: Fig. 6C shows layer 39 remains in the resultant device [0063]: “SOI MOSFET”; Rao ‘049: Fig. 1 shows layer 39 remains in the resultant device [0059]: “SOI MOSFET”) and each reference teaches design consideration for thickness (Kreps: [0059]: “should be appropriate for either a partially or fully depleted device”; Rao ‘049: [0030]: “advantageously acts as a "substrate" for the formation of the superlattice”). Thus, the thickness of Rao '049 appears to be a range suitable for a similar structure that ultimately operates in the same way as Kreps. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained. Remarks have been added to the rejection for clarity of the record.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817