CTNF 18/706,228 CTNF 83686 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Rogers et al. (US 2008/0108171) . Claim 1 : Rogers teaches a process of individually separating two or more distinct epitaxial structures from a semiconductor substrate (Abst.), comprising the steps of: epitaxially depositing a multilayer stack comprising two or more alternating epitaxial structures (20) and sacrificial layers (30) with a sacrificial layer in contact with the substrate (¶ 0017; Fig. 1A); illuminating the stack with laser radiation to provide ablative release in the target sacrificial layer (¶¶ 0022, 0108) and repeating the illuminating step on each of the sacrificial layers to provide a sequence of ablative release (¶ 0108). Claim 11 : Rogers teaches preparing the substrate for re-use and repeating the process (¶ 0108). Claim 12 : Rogers teaches that the substrate comprises two substrate layers (¶ 0099). Claims 13 and 14 : Rogers teaches a thermal expansion mismatch aids the release (¶ 0103) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in light of Andry et al. (US 2016/0133486) . Claims 2 and 4 : Rogers is silent concerning the incidence of the laser light. Andry teaches a substantially similar process of releasing layers as Rogers (Abst.) and explains that the laser light is provided from above and incident to the top of the multilayer stack to release the sacrificial layer (Fig. 4, ¶ 0037). Andry also teaches that the opposite configuration (i.e. light from below) is suitable (¶ 0045). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Rogers is silent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected having the light incident to either the top or bottom, as in Andry, in the process of Rogers with the predictable expectation of success. Claim 3 : Rogers also teaches affixing a target substrate to the top of the stack (¶ 0078, e.g.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in light of Oksanen et al. (US 2022/0367275) . Claims 5-6 : Rogers is silent regarding lattice matching. Oksanen teaches a substantially similar process of releasing layers as Rogers (Abst.) and explains that the sacrificial structures are lattice-matched to the substrate to create strain and that such an arrangement avoids unnecessary strain and prevents defects (¶ 0012). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have lattice-matched the sacrificial layers in Rogers to the substrate in order to have prevent defects . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in light of Raring et al. (US 9,653,642) . Claims 7-10 : Rogers teaches the use of an etch stop (¶ 0092), but does not teach that it sandwiches the absorber region as claimed. Raring teaches a process of releasing layers from a substrate using sacrificial layers and laser irradiation (Abst.) and explains that each sacrificial layer comprises an absorber sandwiched by etch stops to control the thickness of adjacent material and that after removal of the absorber, the etch stop is removed photochemical etching (17:47-18:46). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized a sacrificial layer having an absorber sandwiched by etch stops in order to have controlled the thickness of adjacent material with the predictable expectation of success. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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. /ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/706,228 Page 2 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/706,228 Page 3 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/706,228 Page 4 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/706,228 Page 5 Art Unit: 1712
Prosecution Insights