The arguments and amendments submitted 04/09/2026 have been considered. In light of amendments made, the prior claim objection is hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable over the prior art as set forth below.
Claim Objections
The following claim(s) are objected to because of these informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “a working layer” should read “the working layer”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landru (US PG Pub 2016/0233125).
Regarding claim 1, Landru teaches a process of transferring (abstract and Figs. 2 and 5) a working layer (3) onto a support substrate (4), the process comprising the following steps:
a) providing a donor substrate (1) that comprises, starting from a main face, a donor layer (3) formed from a piezoelectric material (para. 0050) and a handle substrate (1’ as shown in Fig. 2d), the donor layer disposed on one face of the handle substrate (as shown in Fig. 2), the donor substrate comprising an interface between the handle substrate and the donor layer (for the various donor substrates of paras. 0050-0052 there is an interface due the presence of an oxide layer of insulator), the donor layer and the handle substrate being made from different materials (the donor layer may made of “a semiconductor material (such as silicon, SiGe, germanium, gallium nitride)…or a piezoelectric material (such as lithium tantalate or lithium niobate)” per para. 0050 with a handle layer of insulator comprising an oxide material per paras. 0051-0052, which is a different material than the donor layer);
b) after providing the donor substrate, forming a weakened zone through implantation of species in the donor layer (paras. 0053-0054), the weakened zone being parallel to the main face (as shown for dashed line 2 in Figs. 2a-2c), the weakened zone and the main face delimiting the working layer (as shown in Fig. 2);
c) joining the support substrate (4) with the donor substrate in such a way as to interpose the donor layer between the handle substrate and the support substrate (para. 0055 and as shown in Fig. 2b); and
d) subjecting the joined support substrate and donor substrate to a heat treatment (paras. 0059, 0088-0089; and Fig. 5) comprising, in this order, a first phase and a second phase (para. 0088);
the first phase having a first duration and comprising an increase in temperature to a first temperature (as shown in Fig. 5) and is designed first, to allow a maturation of defects generated by the species in the weakened zone and, second, to prevent initiation of a fracture the weakened zone (paras. 0059, 0088-0089);
the second phase having a second duration and comprising a hold period at a second temperature lower than the first temperature (as shown in Fig. 5), the second phase being designed to initiate a fracture along the weakened zone and thus to transfer the working layer onto the support substrate (paras. 0059, 0088-0089).
Regarding claim 3, Landru teaches the first phase comprises, in this order: an increase in temperature, a hold period at the first temperature, and a decrease in temperature to the second temperature (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Landru teaches the first phase is adjusted according to implantation conditions of the species during performance of step b (paras. 0059, 0088-0089).
Regarding claim 5, Landru teaches a relative difference between coefficients of thermal expansion of materials forming, respectively, the handle substrate and the support substrate is less than 10% (the handle and support substrates may be the same material per para. 0049 therefore having the same coefficient of thermal expansion).
Regarding claim 6, Landru teaches the handle substrate comprises a bulk substrate and an intermediate layer on one face of bulk substrate (para. 0051), the intermediate layer being interposed between the donor layer and the bulk substrate (para. 0051).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Landru teaches the second duration is 2 hours (para. 0107), falling within the ranges within each of these claims.
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Landru teaches the second temperature is ambient temperature (per para. 0093 the second temperature can be ambient temperature), which is within the ranges within each of these claims.
Regarding claim 10, Landru teaches the species comprise at least one element selected from: hydrogen ions, helium ions (para. 0054).
Regarding claim 11, Landru teaches the piezoelectric material comprises at least one element selected from: LiTaO3, LiNbO3 (para. 0050).
Regarding claim 12, Landru teaches step c) of joining is preceded by a step of forming of a layer of dielectric material on the donor layer and/or on a front face of the support substrate (para. 0051).
Regarding claim 13, Landru teaches step c) of joining comprises a molecular bonding (para. 0056).
Regarding claim 14, Landru teaches the intermediate layer comprises a polymeric material (materials of para. 0051 have a polymeric material structure).
Regarding claim 19, Landru teaches the first phase comprises, in this order: an increase in temperature, a hold period at the first temperature, and a decrease in temperature to the second temperature (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Landru teaches the first phase is adjusted according to implantation conditions of the species during performance of step b (paras. 0059, 0088-0089).
Regarding claim 21, Landru teaches the handle substrate comprises a semiconductor material or an insulating material (paras. 0050-0051).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landru, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Huyet (FR 3068508A1, previously made of record).
Regarding claim 2, Landru does not teach these features.
However, Huyet teaches a transfer method comprising a heat treatment with a strengthening phase preceding the first phase and performed at a strengthening temperature lower than the first temperature, the strengthening phase being intended to strengthen a bonding energy of an interface formed between the support substrate and the donor substrate during joining (pg. 8, lines 21-26).
In view of Landru’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Landru’s heat treatment to include Huyet’s strengthening phase to predictably obtain and improved bond during joining.
Claims 7, 15-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landru.
Regarding claims 7, 15-16, and 22, and the temperature ranges recited within each of these claims, the courts have held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical”. Furthermore, “[W]here 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 MPEP § 2144.05.II and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, in view of Landru’s teachings and these considerations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a first temperature within each of these ranges as matter of routine design choice and/or routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant presents an argument contending that Landru’s donor substrate is a monolithic substrate made of a single material and therefore does not teach the new features added to claim 1 via the present amendment.
However, this argument is not persuasive because it fails to consider the entirety of Landru’s explicit teachings regarding various non-monolithic options for the donor substrate’s materials and multi-layered structure (see paras. 0050-0052), as cited in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant presents an argument contending that Huyet does not include a teaching or suggestion to motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Landru’s teachings by Huyet’s heat treatment.
However, this argument is not persuasive because it fails to consider the level of ordinary skill in the art and what Huyet’s teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill about the benefit of modifying Landru’s process with Huyet’s heat treatment.
Regarding claims 7 and 15-16, Applicant presents an argument contending that the claimed temperature ranges are not obvious because they produce an unexpected result with a citation to paragraphs 0013-0015 of the published instant application.
However, this argument is not persuasive because these paragraphs do not provide any evidence that cracking is the generally expected outcome for this type of transfer process and that prevention of cracking is therefore unexpected. Furthermore, Applicant has not established a nexus between the parameters and ranges in each of these claims and obtaining an unexpected result that cannot be obtained for comparative examples with ranges falling outside the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights